These reconstructions by Ghedoghedo seem to be based on other people's reconstructions, I've put links to the originals in the infoboxes. The most damning is the Watongia reconstruction, which is strange as Dmitry's work is used on Wikipedia. Monsieur X (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but these reconstructions also show up as the first results on google images and are much older than Ghedoghedo reconstructions. It also seem oddly coincidental that Ghedoghedo's Apsisaurus head looks quite similar to Theropsida's Mycterosaurus , when Ghedoghedo could of easily used a Archaeovenator skeletal, which there are many of just on google images (not counting David Peters' horrid work) and none look like Theropsida's Mycterosaurus. The hind foot that's off the ground on Ghedoghedo's Heleosaurus just looks like it was poorly traced from Theropsida's reconstruction. Monsieur X (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a clear case can be built for them, and if the images they are based on aren't already free, they should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found three images that seem to be plagiarized from The Macmillan Illustrated Encylopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, even retaining the same perspectives. We've gotta do a thorough examination of Ghedoghedo's life restorations. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like these remaining images have been traced over Dave Peters skeletals, based on the pose and proportions. Peters' Apsisaurus is here:[1] and his Heleosaurus is here: [2]
Hi! I would like to post my lateral reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina at its article and potentially replace the prior one featured there. Any critiques and advice are welcome. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you contributing art! It looks pretty good, not too different anatomically from the current version. I'm not particularly knowledgable on sharks though, so any of the other reviewers who are should probably take it from here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye is not based on the current restoration's one, it is based on the size of the eye sockets. They are much larger in comparison to sharks of similar dimensions, but I do understand shrinking it might be a plausible choice to make. As for the scarring, I felt it may serve as a way to display a narrative of sorts, to deviate from basic shark profiles, such as the one currently present on the ginsu shark wiki page. Of course I am not above removing them if it may be derogatory towards an accurate and plausible reconstruction by the standards here. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]File:Cretoxyrhina skeletal reconstruction.pngA skeletal reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina mantellii from Shimada et al. (2006).
It appears sharks also have structures akin to the sclerotic rings of reptiles, and likewise, the visible eye shouldn't fill up the entire socket, only the inner ring of the structure. So if the eye is drawn the same diameter as the socket, it is too large. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye in my reconstruction does not fill up the eye socket, the eye is barely half the diameter of the socket, if not less. It is not incredibly implausible for these dimensions. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 16:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The picture look accurate to me, it's been discussed for over a month, and the only critique that's been brought up seems to check out, I'd say go on ahead and add it and good work. It looks really realistic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if two almost identical restorations are warranted in an article, though. But it has just been GA nominated, let the writer decide. As for that skeletal drawing, it is definitely not CC licensed[www.jstor.org/stable/4095809], so it should be nominated for deletion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paleoart shown here is exceptional in its artistic qualities. However, if I had to choose between the two as they are right now for an artwork solely meant as a profile restoration, I'd still prefer the current one on the article. Still, if you can tweak the body, snout, and pectoral fin to match Shimada (1997)'s design and make the background either a more natural scene or plain white, it could become a better replacement for the current restoration. I also do not believe that the scars are appropriate for a profile restoration, although it would be perfect for a scenic restoration. And although it does not really matter, a slightly or somewhat lighter coloring of the currently blackish countershading (similar colors to that of lamnids and alopiids) could be another suggestion. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree that restorations used to show the features of an animal here should be idealised, showing "healthy" individuals. Though yes, scarring adds realism, we wouldn't use a photo of a mangled lion to display its features in the lion article either. It distracts from the purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ginsu shark (Cretoxyrhina mantellii)
Here is a revised reconstruction made of the criticism and new research made upon Cretoxyrhina, courtesy of Shimada himself in the 2018 SVP meeting, here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328494323_SVP_Poster-2018, among others. The background is now white, colors have been tweaked to depict a lighter midsection, spots are present but dimmed out, the injuries/scarring is completely gone (though tapering cuts are present on the pectoral and dorsal fins), and it overall a more sleeker aesthetic compared with the previous recon. Coloration overall is based upon large extant predatory sharks, white shark, tiger shark, and shortfin mako among them, and the eye is 1/3 the size of the eye socket, which it itself constitutes over a 1/3 of the total skull length. Overall, I hope this does justice to my prior recon and better represents Cretoxyrhina as a whole. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damouraptor, when you are giving courtesy to "Shimada himself", are you implying you personally meet/contacted Shimada, or citing credit for that poster? Nevertheless, this new one is the stuff of legend. I absolutely love the coloring, the body design is perfect, overall it looks a lot more powerful, realistic, and appealing than the current one. This is defiantly going to be replacing the current one for sure, expect your work to be on the article later tonight as I finish my modifications accordingly to the first barrage of FAC reviews. Phenomenal work! Macrophyseter | talk03:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to Shimada as in citing his work from poster itself. Hopefully no confusion was made. However, I do have contact with someone who attended the talk with Shimada during SVP. Otherwise, I haven't made communication. I am excited and happy this will get featured in the Cretoxyrhina article! --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Thalassocnus size diagram and life restoration
I noticed that Dunkleosteus77 aims to take Thalassocnus to FA, and for that it would probably be best to have a size comparison and life restoration ready (as is customary). I was thinking of doing the life restoration (I did the ground sloth Nothrotheriops once), but someone else could probably do a better diagram. Any ideas on how the restoration should look? FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see there's precedence for a hairless restoration then, though seals and sea otters of course have fur. Any request for skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always imagined it was either a gray, maybe a gray-blue, and kinda pinky in places; or a sand color with darker coloration on the extremities and face. Other restorations I’m seeing have really long, flowing sloth hair which, for something that was 9 to 11 feet long and dog paddled, does not seem very plausible considering it spent a lot of time underwater. However, before you start, I should tell you the study describing it used a depiction that gave it a lot of hair User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'd definitely try to do it in SVG, using a program like Inkscape (that's how I made my entire gallery of size comparisons here). Not sure what you mean by "paint." MS Paint? Physical paint? If you want a good non-SVG program, then GIMP would be a good choice. But in SVG, there are no pixels, so everything retains its former quality, so that's why it's the desired file type for size comparisons. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a couple of days late to join this conversation, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of semiaquatic mammals (polar bears, pinnipeds, otters, assorted small mammals such as beavers and platypus) are furry, and Thalassocnus does not look like an animal which evolved under strong selective pressure to minimise drag. I don't see any compelling argument against fur, myself, though I wouldn't call a hairless reconstruction incorrect either. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a work in progress sketch.[3] The pose is based on that skeleton in Paris, but do we have any idea which species that is supposed to be? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice, could be added to the image caption in the article, I'll add it to the Commons file description. I don't remember that model being there when I took the photo, but it was 10 years ago, so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Started to colour in the front of the animal[4], is this something like what you had in mind? It is surprising how extremely different all restorations of this animal seem to be from each other. This one will be one of the more outlandish ones, hehe... But the Carl Buell illustration at least gives a published precedent for such an interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye colour was based on the two toed sloth, which has reddish brown eyes. Even three toed sloths appear to have dark brown, rather than black, eyes. The two toed sloth is also closer related to some ground sloths than it is to the three toed sloth, so perhaps gives a better idea of how they would look. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair. Ground sloths are not really a taxon so I’m not sure if Thalassocnus is more closely related to either or. Anyways, it looks really good, kind of a cartoony flair to it; if you’re done, go ahead and put it up. You can move around or delete any images you want if you need to User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "cartooniness" would be due to the retained contours, I can probably get rid of them if we want that. As for where to place the image, I'm wondering if the seal head is really needed? After all, just because the nostrils are placed a certain place on the skull doesn't indicate where they were in life, so it is a bit misleading to show a living seal. Likewise, the Megalonyx image is probably redundant now that we have a restoration showing the same limb posture (the limb bone cross sections could be placed there instead). Removing those could make room for the restoration and a size diagram. Perhaps Slate Weasel would be interested in doing the diagram? Fun×kMonk (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already made the diagram in MS Paint, silhouettes are all ready and scaled up, but I’m still in the process of figuring out Inkscape’s depixel feature. Worst case scenario, I’ll upload the pixels and then maybe Slate Weasel could sic Inkscape on it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so the GIMP thing wasn't working out so here it is in its enpixellated glory. Do you think I got the proportions right? The T. littoralis holotype is supposed to be a female so it should be thinner and have a blunter snout if I'm reading this right because it seems to suggest only males had a proboscis-oid snout. The colors got washed out a little for some reason too User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool! I had expected them in side view, not that it makes much of a difference, though it would probably be easier to find reference images. The claws look very long and slender compared to the skeletons, though. And even without the long snouts, the skulls would be a lot more narrow and elongated than what's shown here. See the dorsal view of the skull here:[5]FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, seems the heads would also be narrower, not only longer. Also, remember to see if the had length matches measurements given in papers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref in the description, there’s a skeletal reconstruction of T. natans near the beginning and an illustration of T. yuacensis near the end, and some other proportions given in between User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think the ears are maybe placed too far forwards (compared to for example here[6]). But hell, I don't really know much about these guys... FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the head is proportionally longer there (almost as long as the lower arm)? That also seems to be more in line with the mounted skeletons I used for reference. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was perspective, the forearm should be longer than the head because it reaches beyond to the plant and the elbow looks a little in front of the ear. But either way, yeah, the forearm is too long, it should be more like T. littoralis. How do we fix this? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I decided to update my Diictodon restoration, as I noted there were some inaccuracies in my previous restoration. The restoration is based on the skeleton showed in this paper (if you cannot see it there is also this skeletal from another paper, Diictodon is on the top right). I hope the new version of the restoration is more accurate than the previous one. Thoughts? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've restored it with pretty sharp claws, but the skeletals don't seem to indicate this. It might be better to blunt them. However, this may be a burrower, so I'll let someone with more synapsid knowledge decide what to do. Definitely an improvement. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Archelon is too leatherback-like, down to the exact number and shape of the longitudinal ridges. I think you would have to keep the distinguishing features of that species a bit less obvious. As is, it just looks like a drawing of a leatherback turtle, what makes it distinctly Archelon? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colouring is slightly counter-shaded, with some whale influence due to their size. The counter-shading however would be significantly less noticeable underwater, if it is working as intended. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Ichthyosaur blubber study here, it says the skin was dark topside and light underside like in modern dolphins, and it compares skin texture to whales and the leatherback sea turtle. The former isn't seen here (though that might just be perspective for Shonisaurus) and I feel Shonisaurus is lacking the latterUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Archelon a lot now, you can check the article for anatomical details. The big ones I see right now are the beak needs to be more hooked (think of an eagle beak), the head should maybe be flatter and longer, and there's only 1 ridge along the carapace and it runs across the midline User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What to do in cases like this when the images are not corrected? We need to slap inaccurate tags on them so they arne't forgotten. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal diagram of Riojasuchus Size of Riojasuchus
I have created a skeletal diagram and size diagram of Riojasuchus for the Wiki article I plan on expanding. Let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour❯❯❯Talk11:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be more of a difference between the green used for the animal and the blue used for the water background? Right now they're too similar and it makes the outline of the Vancleavea harder to see (for me anyways). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Vancleavea expert". Oh, you flatter me. I agree with PaleoGeekSquared on the topic of the coloration, I think that the blue does more harm than good. A normal white background is better in my opinion. The proportions generally look quite solid; I was a bit unsure about the leg but now I see that it was just extended in a different way than the 2009 paper's skeletal. The arms are more iffy, they just look like little vestigial flaps in your diagram. They shouldn't be significantly smaller than the legs, and maybe you could differentiate the fingers a bit to make it clear that they aren't just like little tentacles. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Bubblesorg's been pretty busy making/finding art for O. citoniensis. He asked someone from DeviantArt to make him a quick reconstruction, so if there's anything anatomically unsound (which I'm not seeing) I'm not sure there'd be much Bubblesorg can do, although Bubblesorg, you might wanna ask the guy to retake the picture so nothing gets cut off. As for the size charts, I'm not sure if they have the right dimensions, O. citoniensis should be 4 m (13 ft) and the orca 7 or 10 m (23 or 33 ft), and they don't seem to conform with any of the other size charts on Wikipedia so I don't know if I should use them or not. I don't think the O. citoniensis in the size diagrams should have so high a dorsal fin or broad flippers (which the DeviantArt reconstruction captures perfectly). Anybody willing to help out? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
its more 10 ft but ok let me see what i can do--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about cetaceans, but I can comment on the size comparisons. For the second one, O. citonensis comes out at ~3 meters and O. orca comes out at ~6 meters using a height of ~1.8 meters for the human, both short by one meter. The O. citonensis should be proportionally altered like Dunkleosteus said above instead of being an mini O. orca clone. Also, take out that gray background (replace it either with white, light blue, or transparency), move the human down so their between the two cetaceans, crop out a lot of space, capitalized Orcinus for O. citonensis, remove the title of Orcinus, and perhaps use a Sans font like other size comparison diagrams (although the last one's probably debatable). For the first size comparison, the background also shouldn't be gray, O. citonensis is still only ~3 meters, and it still looks like a tiny O. orcinus clone instead of reflecting the proportions mentioned above. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reconstructions of Anteosaurus currently in use give it strange proportions that don't match the one anteosaur known from a substantial portion of the postcranial skeleton, Titanophoneus. I did a reconstruction which does match those proportions. Is this any good for use? Ornithopsis (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an issue with the shading, but the skeletal[7] would imply a deeper hip region behind the leg? Thinner thighs as well, I guess, since the ilium is so short. FunkMonk (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and there's definitely enough room for the hips. The thigh is so thick because I put the M. pubo-ischio-femoralis externus going from the back of the leg to the ischium.Ornithopsis (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally convinced theres enough room for the ischium in the drawing, because it would be visible underneath the thigh, but its not. Good work otherwise, probably one of the best anteosaurus restorations. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The body needs to be more streamlined, right now it’s really bumpy; the fins are absolutely enormous, and the transition from the flat head to the dorsal fin needs to be smoother, right now it just juts out; the tail fin isn’t shaped right I don’t think; the tail segment is too long in comparison to the rest of the body; are the teeth the right size?; why is it green?; what’s with all the notches in the fins?; why does it have a nose and why is it bleeding?; why are the gills bleeding? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too convinced by the coloration. Going by modern sharks like the Oceanic whitetip shark, tiger shark, great hammerhead, and even the copper shark, the brown should be a bit lighter. The vivid tan-yellow belly is odd, as virtually all pelagic and even coastal actively hunting sharks have a white belly, including thresher sharks, the great white shark, the porbeagle, the shortfin mako, and the sand tiger shark. Right now the coloration reminds me of benthic feeders and filter feeders. The gills don't even cast a shadow anymore (they create thin black lines on most mackerel sharks), the body seems rather rumpled still and pretty shapeless in some parts, like the region in between the 2nd dorsal fin and the caudal fin. The pelvic fin doesn't look like that of a lamnid, odontaspid, or cetorhinid. For the caudal fin, active swimmers generally have either a very strong keel in their tail to caudal fin transition (it can be seen pretty well here: File:Great White Shark (14730723649).jpg), an obvious cylindrical structure running through the upper lobe (as in this shark: File:Carcharias taurus SI.jpg) , or both (like here: File:Isurus oxyrinchus.jpg). The dip between the two lobes of the caudal fin is not present in lamnids, odontaspids, or cetorhinids. Both lobes are sticking out at unlikely angles, too. There may be additional inaccuracies and improbabilities. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should think that if it was an open ocean predator it would be blue, because brown sharks are typically benthic or reef sharks. I still think it’s really bumpy. Do you see how it sort of terraces to the head from the dorsal fin? Also you drew it with a really big overbite User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the pectorals, none of the other fins really have enough shading to make them seem realistically positioned. The caudal fin still feels undermuscled and is still a weird shape. The gills are really small, like in threshers, which have never been considered to be a potential close relative. They're much longer in lamnids, cetorhinids (probably not as long as in these guys, though), and odontaspids. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I made a life reconstruction of atopodentatus and I would like to have it posted on the atopodentatus article. I created the image by heavily referencing the holotype skeleton as well as the newer 2016 skull reconstruction. Criticism is welcome. Spinosaurid (talk) 2:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's nice to have a full-body restoration that's less distorted by perspective. Perhaps the pistosaur in the background could be beefed up around the torso a little bit? (by the way, you can add your signature with four tildas: ~~~~) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! But I'm afraid I know little about the animal being reconstructed. It seems to match the fossils from what I'm seeing though, and aesthetically it looks pretty good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼00:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the background creature is Dinocephalosaurus then, it wouldn't make too big a difference but a slight change in anatomy and posture (to avoid continuing the swimming tanystropheid meme we see a lot) might be good. Plus from what I've heard it is doubtful even the smaller tanystropheids would be diving in the way it is seen here. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 18:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say, that doesn't seem like a very effective way of swimming. Given its lanky body shape, I should think it should swim like a crocodile with its arms kept close to its body and the thrusting being done by the torso and tail User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i've made the eye smaller and have also fixed up the dinocephalosaurus to be swimming croc like and also closer to the surface.
What’d you base the swimming posture for Atopodentatus on? Also, you can upload new versions of images by scrolling all the way down in the File history section to the link “Upload a new version of this file” User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time! Also, the swimming posture isn't necessarily base on anything. I wanted to make it look as though the Atopodentatus were slowing itself down and/or steering by raising it's arms. The rest of the posture I guess could be based on how reptiles (primarily crocodilians and squamates) swim. Spinosaurid (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it walked on the seafloor to eat? If so, the elbows should probably be bending up a little (I assume they can bend that way because the article says they could walk on land), or have the arms positioned slightly forward instead of backwards. Right now it looks like it's trying to do a stroke and it might give people the wrong idea User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, no. I was imagining that the atopodentatus would eat the vegetation whilst its body floated diagonally to the ocean floor. I wouldn't imagine that it would be impossible for them to eat while on the ocean floor, however that that may be too speculative of an idea to add to my drawing at the moment.
I was asked by someone if it was possible to add a size comparison into the Cretoxyrhina. Because the only one available at the time did not look like a good candidate, I decided to try making one myself. I've stuck on three size comparisons based on their associated fossil specimens (FHSM VP-2187, CMN 40906, NHMUK PV OR 4498) to try to illustrate a more representing view of C. mantelli size. Do you guys think this would be a good representation? Macrophyseter | talk06:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I’ve created theee reconstructions of Hallucigenia using all known fossil evidence. You can read my reasoning behind this reconstruction here.[1]
I’d like these to replace the current reconstructions on the page. I’ve also put them in their proper sizes, with H. hongmeia as the largest. PaleoEquii (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANimals look good, the guy still seems a bit... Like a floating corpse? Mainly due to the head looking down and the stiff limbs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the new diver in the Plesiosaurus image. I'm not quite sure what you mean by looking straight in front of them, as the hypothetical diver would be moving forwards (if he was a plesiosaur), and therefore looking ahead, as opposed to down, or is my complete lack of knowledge of scuba diving leading me astray? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I meant it was the problem of the original version (which made him look like a "floater"). The new one where he looks forwards makes more sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Elasmosaurus, Cryptoclidus, Liopleurodon, and Rhomaleosaurus all need updates. By the way, how accurate are the skeletals here (pg. 203/3 in PDF): [9]? I'm looking at Hyrotherosaurus and Kronosaurus in particular. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are there any good Elasmosaurus skeletals? This is one of my earlier size comparisons, so it was based on a life restoration. The thing looks pretty unnatural right now, and the neck's a meter too short. Also, Liopleurodon was given one heck of a weird fin. [10] Should it look more like what's seen in rhomaleosaurids? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know of any Elasmo skeletals, but perhaps this one of Thalassomedon could be helpful:[11] Or this one of Hydrotherosaurus, seems the differences would be rather subtle.[12]FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elasmosaurus has been updated. Liopleurodon updates will come soon. The flexibility chart will eventually also get an update, although I'm probably going to switch out Elasmosaurus for Styxosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t know if these images could be of use, and I am aware that the fossils don’t show Aspidorynchus biting the neck of Rhamphorynchus. But given how common it is, they must have accidentally struck the neck a few times as well (they did not target the wings, nor the pterosaur). PaleoEquii (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pieces certainly look interesting and well done, I don't have much to say about the anatomy of the taxa in question, the Rhampho neck looks long and the Aspido upper jaw looks short, but thats probably less inaccuracy and more variation among individuals. I also don't really know how realistic it is to show breaching Ichthys, some evidence to support such a behaviour would be nice. Other than these points, I see nothing wrong. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to FunkMonk's point about the teeth, I have some concerns that the scene is a little too dynamic. It reminds me of the kerfluffle about Mark Witton's pterosaur-eating shark art [13]. Is there any particular reason to think it would breach fully from the water like that? The paper on the subject states: "Large Aspidorhynchus thus could grab a skimming Rhamphorhynchus by just raising the head through the water surface." Ornithopsis (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the description notes that the bite was accidental while the Aspidorhynchus searching for prey, so it was definitely not leaping to catch the Rhamphorhynchus. So the situation is not really an issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of "thrashing around" would lift the entire animal out of the water? Since the paper discussing the specimens specifically describes the scenario which could have led to the fossils, and this image does not portray that scenario as described, I do not think this image is appropriate for Wikipedia. It would be much better to have an image that depicts the scenario described in the paper. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the pose, those teeth need to be exposed before we can use the image. It is the very cutting edge of original research to depict teeth covered in keratin. It simply doesn't exist in nature, what we have here is pure science fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the teeth definitely need to be fixed if we're going to use it, but even if they're fixed, I still think this image is somewhat misleading about what is known about the nature of Aspidorhynchus-Rhamphorhynchus interactions, and therefore is poorly suited for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marine reptile reconstructions of behavior generally mimic dolphins (especially because their anatomies are so similar) so I wouldn't think it so extreme to show ichthyosaurs porpoising like that, and this Telegraph article (I don't know the study it's citing) says "they were almost certainly capable of breaching the water." With the rhamphoryncus, it's conceivable it's playing with its food like killer whales, though I can see some concerns of over-dramatization User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to update this diagram because the two estimates for Livyatan (13.5m based on the sperm whale and 16.2-17.5m based on Zygophyseter) are based on a single skull, therefore, the head should be the same size in the two silhouettes. Also, the original PNG version of this diagram suffers from the silhouettes being scaled to the length of the image rather than to anatomical landmarks. In the original, one of the sperm whale's fluke lobes is making up the last ~2m. I was also asked to add in the lower estimate based on Zygophyseter. Here is a link to a WIP: [14] The head in this version is fleshed out from the skull diagrams and life restoration (Fig. 41) in Lambert et. al. 2017 [15]Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This skull is based of the original article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0888-0, after studying the skulls proportions using a printed image(https://sta.sh/02cryk88l08q) I was able to use gimp and Photoshop to make this diagram. While the lower jaw might need some work, I think the rest looks fine, I was going to later add shading a cover spots in red for the areas fossils were found in the skulls and which ones are infrences from other species (if i can find such claim of other species). What do you think?--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides the mandible shape, the maxillary fenestra is also the wrong shape (it should be much more round even without any de-crushing attempts). The dentition doesn't match the pattern in the fossils, the posterior tip of the mandible seems too inflated, and the aof's outline seems very different from the fossils. This should also be at WP:DINOART. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually already did. About half the tooth height has tissue covering it, I'm not sure if that's adequate because I don't know specifics in mosasaurs, but it is at least present. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue is the neck of Basilosaurus, the head should straight and smoothly merge into the body, without really any sign of a separate neck based on angle or lines. The top of the snout should also be flat instead of concave, and the eye is too large. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the colours on the first version, but that's subjective. I think more of the Doruodon should be shown, and I think the Doruodon overall is too small. There is still a noticeable expansion of the neck in the Basilosaurus, which shouldn't be there, the top of the snout is too varying in angles, should be more or less straight, and the teeth are too unevenly sized and angled. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with me you can't also think it looks fine. Until my comments are addressed, and I am given the chance to find more input to give, this image is not acceptable. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im also new here so i shouldn't make judgments but this doesnt looks good at all. Bubblesorg maybe you should listen to advices that more expirienced editors give you and also have a bit of self-criticism. I dont mean to be rude but there is a room for you to improve. I also have quiet suspicious that users Cetusaurus pudgetiens and Bubblesorg are the same person based on writing style and Cetusaurus activityKoprX (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX[reply]
Are these restorations accurate, inaccurate or in need of adjustments? I've also edit and cleaned the first five restorations and wanted to know your thoughts Monsieur X (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bunch of them are missing ear openings? And yeah, maybe the skin on that Hipposaurus could be smoothed out with something like Photoshops's blur tool. As for the teeth, that's of course uncertain, but I do agree that incisors and molars (if that term applies here) would most likely be covered by the lips when mouths were closed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give them visible ear openings. The mammalian tympanum is probably not homologous to the saurian tympanum, so a tympanum might not have been present in biarmosuchians (the earliest good evidence for a tympanum is in dicynodonts).[2][3] Even if it was present, it was probably located on the lower jaw and not behind the skull, so that Herpetoskylax is wrong.[4] I also see no reason to place the tympanum deep within an ear opening (honestly, with it located on the side of the lower jaw I'm not even sure if that would be possible). This hasn't been discussed in the literature to my knowledge, but I don't see why it couldn't have looked like a frog or turtle ear in which the membrane is flush with the surface of the head and potentially difficult to recognize as a tympanum. Agreed that the incisors and postcanines should be hidden by lips—and I don't see why the canines wouldn't be either, at least in this group. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are both amniotes after all, and even some amphibians have externally visible tympani, so why wouldn't synapsids? Even if the tympani evolved independently somehow, why does this rule out openings in synapsids? We know all their descendants have them. In any case, like with the lips, if the issue hasn't been covered by peer reviewed literature, we should follow how the animals have usually been reconstructed in reliable sources. Making our own novel interpretations is close to original research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tympana of mammals, frogs, and saurians are probably not homologous structures. I meant to say that it is possible that the tympanum was flush with the surface of the head, like in turtles and frogs, rather than set in a canal like in mammals, lizards, and archosaurs. Additionally, it is uncertain whether biarmosuchians would have had a tympanum at all, as its presence is not confirmed in synapsids more basal than dicynodonts. Therefore, the lack of an obvious ear opening is not necessarily wrong, but an ear opening behind the skull (as in the Herpetoskylax) probably is wrong. Can you show me a reliable source that depicts biarmosuchians with a visible ear opening? I've shown reliable sources that show that the one illustration here with a visible ear opening is probably wrong (at least, in the placement of the opening). My point is not that I think they should be drawn without an ear opening, but that I don't think they need to be edited to have one. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is similar to the issue of completely covering oversized canines, though. We just don't know, so why bother making such edits? We have living examples of animals with and without, so imposing one is personal bias. In the case of early synapsids, we know even less. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is up to personal whims with these images. There is nothing unquestionably wrong with them, except for maybe the ear placement you mentioned, and the scaly one. Personally, I'd add indications of ears, and cover all teeth but the canines. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back from my "holiday" and have cleaned and fixed most of the Biarmosuchian related images on the site. However, outside of a few changes here and there, I wasn't able to fix the Hipposaurus reconstruction, so if anyone wants to finish it, be my guest. Also, any critiques on the more recently updated images? (I need a good chart so I can properly add missing ear holes) Monsieur X (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following my discussion with FunkMonk on the Inostrancevia reconstruction below, I want to point out, again, that none of these should have an ear hole behind the skull like that, their absence as originally depicted was correct, and ear holes should not have been added. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Allin, E.F. 1975. Evolution of the mammalian middle ear. Journal of Morphology 147: 403–438
^Laass, M. (2016). The origins of the cochlea and impedance matching hearing in synapsids. Acta Palaeontologca Polonica 61 (2): 267-280
^Gaetano LC, Abdala F (2015) The Stapes of Gomphodont Cynodonts: Insights into the Middle Ear Structure of Non-Mammaliaform Cynodonts. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131174. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131174
Hi all! I posted this on the Inostrancevia talk page, but I think it's more appropriate here.
I have some concerns about how the Inostrancevia illustration looks incredibly skeletal. I've seen sunken eyes, or prominent skull bone protrusions, or visible ribs on animals—but all of them at once makes it look sickly. The artist who made this doesn't even draw Inostrancevia like this anymore. Would someone review this?
Many of those furrows on the head could certainly be painted out. The pinnae and hair on the other restoration might not be proper, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that illustration is too bad, as it currently is, but it probably could be smoothed out. The ears on the newer illustration are pretty much definitely wrong, as FunkMonk said. Both illustrations have hair, and while I wouldn't reconstruct a gorgonopsian that way, it's not wrong. The faint whiskers both seem to have might be wrong, though.Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops!
I went ahead and made the lines of the head less conspicuous, removed the whiskers, and gave it a weird ear opening. Only problem is, ther eis another image which uses the same drawing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the newly dark spot behind the jaw articulation meant to be an ear opening? The ear, if present, should be on the side of the lower jaw (as Bogdanov had it originally), not behind the head. Otherwise this is a marked improvement.Ornithopsis (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Antón's reconstruction is likely to be wrong. It is widely agreed that, unlike sauropsids (which evolved an ear independently of synapsids), therapsids had an eardrum associated with the post-dentary elements of the lower jaw. It has been suggested that the eardrum may have extended to a post-quadrate position, or that a second eardrum was located there, but this appears to be considered unlikely. It has been shown that a post-quadrate eardrum would be non-functional if present and a single eardrum associated with the reflected lamina of the angular seems more likely. See Allin 1975, Gaetano and Abdala 2015, and Maier and Ruf 2016 for more information.Ornithopsis (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find any sources that clearly present what the life appearance of the early therapsid tympanum would have looked like. Allin and Hopson 1992 depict the life appearance of a cynodont with the eardrum extending from the angular to the back of the skull, but that model seems to be met with skepticism in the more recent papers I cited, and besides, cynodonts have significantly more advanced ear anatomy from the condition present in gorgonopsians. From the way Allin (1975) describes the early form of the tympanum, as taut tissue extending across the gap between the reflected lamina and the retroarticular process, I doubt it would have been particularly obvious. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might do a pass where I just paint over the ear then, have to paint out the teeth of the pareisausaur anyway, didn't notice them the first time. Unlikely something with teeth that short would have them poke out. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against it, but maybe reposition the proximal view of the humerus to be above, so its clearer what it represents? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several illustrations of therapsids on Wikipedia have been given a visible external auditory meatus located posterior to the quadrate, often as a modification to an image that did not previously have one. In many of these images, this meatus is clearly a copied and pasted nostril, which is neither aesthetically pleasing nor particularly reflective of a plausible size and shape. More importantly, however, there is ample evidence to suggest that non-cynodont therapsids did not have a particularly visible external ear at all, and that if they did possess one, it is unlikely to have been positioned posterior to the quadrate or squamosal, but rather associated with the lower jaw. The tympanic ear of mammals not homologous to the tympanic ears of either reptiles or frogs, and "pelycosaur"-grade synapsids did not have a tympanic ear.[1] Unlike the ear of reptiles, which is associated with the quadrate, the ear of mammals is, famously, derived from the lower jaw bones. More specifically, the tympanic membrane is associated with the angular bone.[2] Therefore, there is no reason to depict therapsids with a tympanum or external auditory meatus posterior to the quadrate or squamosal. In the mandibular ear of therapsids, the tympanic membrane was composed of the reflected lamina of the angular and connective tissue stretching between it and the articular.[2] In my opinion, it seems unlikely that such an ear would be especially clearly differentiated from the rest of the lateral surface of the lower jaw; turtles might be a good model here. The tympanum may have been keratinized.[2] A mandibular tympanic ear was present in therapsids as far stemward as dicynodonts,[3] and seemingly absent as far crownward as sphenacodontids.[2] It seems uncertain whether dinocephalians and biarmosuchians, crownward of sphenacodontids and potentially further stemward than dicynodonts, would have had such an ear. Therefore, it is in contradiction of available evidence to depict therapsids with a postquadrate tympanum or external auditory meatus, and it is most appropriate to depict non-cynodont therapsids with no visibly distinct external ear, or at most a weakly distinct tympanum not set in a deep meatus. I think these images need to be fixed. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Clack, J. A. (1997). "The evolution of tetrapod ears and the fossil record". Brain, Behavior and Evolution. 50 (4): 198–212. doi:10.1159/000113334. PMID9310195.
Ouch, those copied nostrils are rather unfortunate, yeah, didn't notice it. Pinging Monsieur X, but I can probably fix some of these. And is it just me, or the eye of that Ictidorhinus way too large to even fit the sclerotic ring let alone eye socket? FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck, These images definitely need to be edited. I would do it myself, but I don't have access to decent computer at the moment, my is on the fritz. If you're wondering about the ears, I sadly can't recollect my reasoning, so feel free to fix them. I also think the eye for Ictidorhinus look a bit too big. On that note, can someone take a look at that Biarmosuchus restoration. In my opinion, that eye looks way too sunken in. Monsieur X (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the agreement; I know that the ear anatomy of stem-mammals is a somewhat obscure topic so I don't blame anyone for giving them reptile-like ears. I would offer to fix the ears myself, but I also have computer trouble of my own. I agree that the eyes of Ictidorhinus and Biarmosuchus tagax need work too. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did some edits to all of them, have a look. I made the eye socket of the Biarmosuchus less obvious, but I don't think there is a problem with it having wrinkles. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Though I had no problems with the wrinkles, just the eye socket of the Biarmosuchus. Now it looks a little more believable. While we're on this subject, I'm going to back at some of the synapsid artwork I've edited on to see if they also have the wrong type of ears. Monsieur X (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found this some restorations of non-therapsid synapsids I edited that have ear holes, though Tetraceratops' placement is still debatable. Feel free to edit them out. There might be more coming. Monsieur X (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far I know, these are the only images of non-mammalian synapsids I've worked on that have visible ears. Obviously, some where already there to being with. Although I'm not sure which should be edited or not. Feel free to double check my uploads on Wikimedia. Monsieur X (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any that have ears and add them. It occurs to me that a corollary of this problem is that external ears should probably be absent in some sauropsids—but it seems like the subject is more poorly studied in sauropsids than synapsids. Clack (1997) seems to indicate that ears might have originated close to the crown group of reptiles, so they might need to be edited out of some images of parareptiles and such. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it can go either way, I think we should wait. But anyone is of course welcome to do it if they have the time (personally I'll prioritise more clear cut cases). FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its good also use it. I forgot my pasword thats why my usernames different. Go ahead actually. Its anatomy is right (exceptions) but its good enough put it in :D--Cetusaurus pudgetiensd (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have so many images of Tylosaurus already, the article doens't really have room for more. Why only show the head anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which species is this? If it's T. pembinensis, the eye is not in the sclerotic ring according to this Hartman skeletal: [18]. Also, surely it should have some form of visible nostril (albeit a tiny one)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The old size chart of Anomalocaris lacks a number of anatomical features characteristic of the genus, and it's quite hard to tell the actual size. If it is better I can always add the other genera present in the image currently up on wikipedia.
Each Square represents 25 cm, and the hand is sized to an average male hand. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only on the layout: The elements of the figure appear to be somewhat cluttered together, with the text and scale bar tightly sandwiched in-between the human and the pterosaur. Otherwise looks good to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. Some months ago I made a restoration of Vegavis iaai, the antarctic cretaceous bird. The restoration is based on the skeletal shown in the paper provided in the file description, which shows a more loon-like appearance than the classical waterfowl-like restorations. Do you have any thoughts on this restoration? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know much about this bird, seems good, but also like the hindquarters taper too much and could have a bit more mass behind the leg? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you say the hindquarters taper? Near the ankle, along the foot or is it more in the tibiotarsus area? (Sorry for the delay in the response btw) --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if only these minor changes regarding the rear of the body are necessary, I'll add the restoration to the article and modify it afterwards. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a place called Kokomo... that's apparently full of eurypterids...
Mixopteridae completed
Finally back at doing another eurypterid article. This time I'm working on Campylocephalus, a pretty big one and as of yet the last known surviving member of the entire order. It's a pretty fragmentary one but was closely related to Hibbertopterus and probably looked pretty much the same (the only real noticeable difference would be the shape of the head but that would probably only be visible from above, there are reference images for the head shape in the article). There are only published size estimates for the final and probably biggest species, C. permianus, which possibly reached 1.4 metres (4.6 feet) in length. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been planning on doing this one for awhile, so I may as well start :). The first pair of legs in the DiBgd restoration seem to look pretty different from what I have on my Hibbertopterus, is this supported by fossil evidence? By the way, I redid my Acutiramus size comparison with a new silhouette and a new design. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we don't actually have the legs of Campylocephalus preserved or at the very least not in a condition good enough to say too much about them. Comparing DiBgd's restorations of Hibbertopterus and Campylocephalus he seems to have been intending to make them look similar to each other, you should be fine with using the same legs for both of them, the important part is to change the head if you do a view from above as you did for Hibbertopterus (might also need to make the body a bit thinner to fit the proportions right, not sure). :)
Whatever works best, the overall ratio of the head length vs the body length is likely to have been the same for both Hibbertopterus and Campylocephalus (probably how they got the 1.4 m estimate eitherway) so you could base the side-view silhouette's scaling directly off your Hibbertopterus one and then base the proportions of the potential dorsal view on that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking excellent as always and appropriately similar to Hibbertopterus, will use this! :)
Another thing, maybe (if you have time) you could eventually add Hibbertopterus to the mega-eurypterids chart, it's the only giant eurypterid mentioned under "size" in the main Eurypterid article (seeing as it's the biggest stylonurine and probably the heaviest of all eurypterids) that isn't yet in the size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That update also will hopefully come soon (it'll be kind of tricky, as 7 is an odd number). Also, five of my eurypterid size comparisons/silhouettes are featured in this video: [19]. Meanwhile, I'm planning to do size comparisons for Hallipterus, Kokomopterus, & Dolichopterus. Do you have species-specific length estimates for the latter two? Also, do you know of any references for Stylonurus (the last notable genus missing a size comparison). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting your size diagrams into the video! From watching it, it seems that they followed the structure and info in our Eurypterid and Pterygotidae articles (especially with how they used the same images in a lot of places) so it's really cool seeing all the info you find scouring through sometimes really inaccessible academic papers being compiled in a mainstream format, especially with how obscure some of these eurypterids are.
Going by the gold mine of eurypterid size estimates I tend to look to, Both Kokomopterus longicaudatus and a species they call K. shaffneri (probably what today is classified as Stylonurus shaffneri) were 30 cm long. It's got several estimates for Dolichopterus, going with just the valid species their lengths would be 12 cm (D. jewetti), 52 cm (D. siluriceps) and 15 cm (D. macrocheirus), D. gotlandicus seems to be too fragmentary for reliable estimates. It puts Stylonurus powriensis at 26 cm. If you by "references" for Stylonurus instead mean a decent dorsal view I'm afraid I don't have one yet, but Stylonurus will be a focus at some point in the future, given how it has lent its name to an entire suborder. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The classification of C. beecheri, like that of Stylonurella arnoldi, are uncertain and probably do not belong to any of the genera in which they are usually assigned. I think these species should appear with question marks. SuperΨDro22:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So... I've finally colored it (I guess that I was a bit late... or more than a bit - five months). Anyways, any comments? If no objections are made, I'll add it to the article sometime soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Cobelodus was bathic? The paper I used as a reference stated that it was tachypelagic, so that's why I colored it in this manner. Have more recent sources suggested a deepwater habitat? If so, I'll probably decrease the contrast and make the eye green. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the article should probably also be updated to reflect your source: "Because of its large eyes, it is thought to have lived in the deeper, darker parts of the sea, hunting crustaceans and squid." (The reference in the article is the ancient Marshall encyclopedia!) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a closer look, and realized that many sharks that undergo vertical migrations are countershaded, so this coloration may not be wrong for a deepwater species, if that ends up being the case. As for the source, I don't have acess to the article, only the figures, so it would probably be better to let someone else with access update the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't modern chimaeras durophagous though? Since Cobelodus seems to have been a more active predator, I think that a "sharkier" color scheme would be more practical for its ecology. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrews (1913), Noe et al. 2003 (both his thesis and "The first relatively complete exoccipital-opisthotic from the braincase of the Callovian pliosaur, Liopleurodon", and Benson (2013) Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been awhile since I've done any ichthyosaurs, so I decided to fix that. I can also do Grendelius ([23]) and many others, most of which already have size comparisons, though ([24], Fig. 2). Any comments on this one, or which ones I should make? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another week, another eurypterid. I've been working on the article of Vernonopterus, fragmentary relative of Hibbertopterus and Campylocephalus and the only of these hibbertopterids without a size diagram. Sadly, it completely lacks images (not that there would be much to show given how little fossils it consists of), but what better way to start than with a size diagram? It has been estimated at 50 cm in length, smaller than both of its relatives. For a silhouette, it'd probably be best to base it of either Hibbertopterus or Campylocephalus, or use the same silhouette as either of those two, which one shouldn't really matter given how Vernonopterus doesn't really feature in phylogenetic analyses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due to their age, I think John Conway's artwork & skeletal reconstructions need to be re-evaluated and edited if need be. I haven't brushed up on my Pterosaur anatomy, but are the wing tips seen here a bit too sharp? I'm also highlighting his dinosaurian artwork in the Dinosaur image review page Monsieur X (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Pterodactylus is definitely outdated due to the lack of a crest. The Thalassodromeus skull is pretty much traced after the diagram in the original description, and therefore reflects the interpretation of how the pieces go together presented there, which is not entirely what the latest paper shows, but that does not mean it is incorrect, and that point is already made in the article (the specimen is perhaps lost now, so we might never know). Can't say about the wings, though, some of them seem pretty rounded. Not sure if sharp tips are necessarily wrong for all taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot about Pterodactylus' crest. I guessing the Thalassodromeus specimen was of many items lost in the fire that tragically befell the National Museum of Brazil? Monsieur X (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Thalassodromeus escaped as it was in a traveling exhibit, but I might be thinking of some other pterosaur. But surely the brachiopatagia should articulate at a much lower point than currently shown? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speculated at least, but there is no official list of lost specimens yet as far as I know. Mark Witton said that a lot of pterosaur specimens usually kept at other museums were temporarily in the museum that burned... FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's longer than you'd expect when it's stretched out!
Looks like the work on the eurypterids is recovering its activity! I am expanding Tylopterella and I will start soon to work on a chasmataspidid genus, Dvulikiaspis. Tylopterella boylei measured a total of 7.5 cm. There is no restoration of it but there is an image of the fossil on which it can be based. The appendages are not preserved in their entirety but some fragments can be seen in the image to imagine what dimensions they had compared to the body. I suppose their shape can be based on Onychopterella, including the spines. The biggest specimen of Dvulikiaspis menneri was 2.6 cm long. We have a restoration. Both are monotypic, by the way. Thanks. SuperΨDro17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started on Tylopterella (I've de-crushed & de-folded the specimen). Which species of Onychopterella would be the best model for the appendages? I'm thinking that the slimmer swimming legs are more like those of O. kokomoensis, but I'd like to check before beginning. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now it really looks like an onychopterellid! Thanks! I don't know much about the trilobites but it is interesting to see how large they could be (and I expected more).SuperΨDro20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, here it is. It currently is a bit inelegant... I'll probably try to make a new size comparison format to compare the arthropod to a thumb. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I mentioned on my talk page are still relevant (the eye is too big to fit inside of the sclerotic ring, the tip of the lower jaw is still too square, and tyrannosauroid-grade filaments probably couldn't have been green.). This also should be at WP:DINOART. Additionally, the nostril is very wierdly shaped and large, I suspect that the front of the snout is too sloped, the lines suggesting filaments right now are pretty chaotic in their angling, there still needs to be more detail and more shading, and the image isn't cropped very well, as the tyrannosaur is not the main focus of the image, and so little of it is shown. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edaphosaurid "Naosaurus" mirabilis is renamed Bohemiclavulus by Spindler et al. (2019), who also declare Edaphosaurus pugneri a nomen dubium within Edaphosauridae. Given the paper by Spindler et al., this image may need to be either deleted or revised.
Frederik Spindler; Sebastian Voigt; Jan Fischer (2019). Edaphosauridae (Synapsida, Eupelycosauria) from Europe and their relationship to North American representatives. PalZ. in press. doi:10.1007/s12542-019-00453-2.68.4.252.105 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
It certainly shouldn't be deleted, but the names should be changed. If the images don't exist as separate files, this could be done too. But what is credneri now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This collage has recently been added to the Plesiosauria article. I realized that none of these images have passed through here before (although I think that we've talked about the Elasmosaurus). More seriously, none of the source images nor DiBgd are credited, technically making it copyvio. Could someone fix this? (I'm not too sure how to properly credit multiple images in a case like this.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smallest one yet!I can't think of something clever to put in the caption
I'm currently working on Alkenopterus, the last of the onychopterellids, so I'll move to the family once I finish it. A. brevitelson measured 7.5 cm, while the other species, A. burglahrensis, reached only 2.03 cm (it's in fact the smallest eurypterid). For the size diagram of Onychopterellidae, Onychopterella kokomoensis (16 cm, [26]), Tylopterella boylei (7.5 cm, [27]) and A. brevitelson should be used. Restoration of A. burglahrensis: [28].
The fifth pair of appendages looks a bit unnatural this close to the sixth pair (I admit that I'm to blame here, I could have drawn it better). Maybe you could extend it a little more, just a little, but this is purely aesthetic and you can skip it. Everything else looks good. SuperΨDro15:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm definitely guilty of some late responses myself. I'll proceed with the big comparison if I've got time later today. I may also work on Vinetopterus - there were reconstructions of it in that paper you linked. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiarized with Vinetopterus or the moselopterids and I don't know if the restorations may be outdated or what differences did the species have, but if you want to create it, V. martini reached 4 cm and V. struvei measured 9 cm. SuperΨDro08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
, i decided to make a non shrinkwrapped basilosaurus drawing, I made it more mammalian, this is just a sketch and not my final, just wanted toget thoughts.--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be improved by changing the face so its not sea-lion-esque and smoothing out curves. Shading and more smooth colouration would also improve it significantly. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is the end of the tail so skinny compared to the rest of the body? Modern cetaceans have a pretty bulky distal tail, and since Basilosaurus swam using a similar method of propulsion, I don't see why this shouldn't be true for Basilosaurus either (although definitely not as extreme as in some cetation species). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. This definitely shouldn't be used without being brightened; we also already have a perfectly servicable illustration of Inostrancevia hunting Scutosaurus on the page already. The perspective on the head doesn't look too bad, but it's hard to make out details. I think the bigger problem might be that the neck is too long. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Inostrancevia is missing its incisors (and everything but the canines it seems), that's a pretty big deal. But yeah, we are getting a lot of random artwork uploaded without review in various places. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know the person who uploaded it, they were not aware of the paleoart review process and I'll remind them. I'm not entirely sure how we should make it clear that such a process exists for artists who do not have much experience with Wikipedia editing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far what I and some others have done have simply been to notify editors who add such images on their talk pages that there is a review process. Not sure what else that could be done. It seems a lot of the drive by paleoartists here are also active on Deviantart, maybe a group or something there could help spread awareness and maybe even recruit more artists... FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by a DeviantArt user to do a chart comparing Titanoboa to a green anaconda and a reticulated python; I'm assuming he was referring to the existing chart so it would make sense to modify it. I've applied some of the comments from the original image review [31] like adding a grid and some colour, added a little more detail etc. The work in progress can be seen here: [32]
One difference is the DA user wanted to use 6.95m for the python, which the Wiki article is stating is 'one of the largest scientifically measured'. (I'm not massively clued up on snakes but I read the source (Fredricksson 2005) and done a quick search and there are mentions a 10m python reported from 'Raven 1947'. The wiki article doesn't mention this so I'm guessing it doesn't count as 'scientifically measured'.) At the moment, the chart is using a captive snake "Medusa" at 7.67m. Would you guys prefer to use the 6.95m measurement or a wild python? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool, perhaps Gigantophis could also be added, and maybe other giant extinct taxa (if there are any)? I've always thought that it would be cool to have a diagram for snakes similar to Smokeybjb's crocodilian size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly look into doing Gigantophis. Regarding Titanoboa; there is a SVP conference abstract [34] that provides a newer length estimate of 14.3m and a skull estimate. Are conference abstracts sufficient enough citation material? or is it still an 'unpublished idea'? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be called Broghammerus reticulatus[35], and Python reticulatus wouldn't be correct either. The reticulated python doesn't belong in genus Python, and the proper name for this species is Malayopython reticulatus[36]Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That last link didn't work but thanks for the info, your comment led me to this interesting read [37] (which is linked to in the Wikiedpia article) I guess every scientific feild has it's 'outsiders'.
Here is a link to a potential newer version (not 'polished' and I havn't corrected the name yet) [38] In this version I have other estimates ( Titanoboa 14.3m (+/-1.28m) and Gigantophis 9.3-10.7) faded behind the main silhouettes. The larger version of Gigantophis is 10m in this diagram, splitting the difference between 9.3 and 10.7; trying showing both ends of the error margins clutters the diagram. Based on the research I've read, Madtsoiidae isn't well known morphologically so I based the torso depth on the height of the Gigantophis vertebrae and comparison to images of other large snake skeletons, which seem to be 4ish, maybe 5? times the height of a vertebra? (Anyone know of any concrete numbers?) The skull shape was based on a Wonambi naracoortensis skull diagram. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A variety of animals from the Burgess Shale. Here’s the description I wrote for it.
Deep in the early Cambrian ocean, below the shadow of the Cathedral Escarpment (A giant rock shelf formation), life goes on as normal. Bioluminescent Amiskwia swim in groups, trying to escape the carnivorous Opabinia. It can walk on the sea floor with legs, or swim through the water with undulating fins.
Among the algae, strange sponge relatives called Choia exist, holding themselves just above the rock surface. Hallucigenia sparsa feed on the marine snow that falls, catching it on hairy tentacles and shoving it in their mouths. Aysheaia feed on sponges called Vauxia, which grow on the rocky substrate.
Preying on hard shelled animals like trilobites, using its armoured antennae to break open armour, Anomalocaris dwarfs everything. It is followed closely by a shoal of Pikaia, which survive by feeding the scraps left behind when Anomalcaris finishes messily ingesting it’s prey with a horrifying circular mouth part. It can see Opabinia with the best eyes that would ever evolve for millions of years, only rivalled by dragonflies and possibly griffinflies.
The Opabinia, though it has 5 compound eyes, still has a more limited resolution, and doesn’t notice the Anomalocaris swimming towards it through the gloom of the depths.
First of all I want to clarify that this is a beautiful piece of art, and that all my comments focus solely on its worth as a portrayal of modern paleontological notions. For example, I don't believe that there is enough empirical evidence to justify the bioluminescent Amiskwia, despite the fact that it is a very creative and visually appealing concept. You have made good arguments for bizarre interpretations in the past (your bright green Hallucigenia, for example), and I would like to see if you have further elaborations on the matter. Just make sure not to infringe upon Wikipedia's "No original research" clause (WP:NOR) too much. Also, I was wondering whether you were aware of the several studies questioning Anomalocaris's role as a predator of hard-shelled animals. It probably wouldn't affect the illustration, but it would certainly affect the "plot" you seem to be crafting in the description. Speaking of the description, it was the only thing which led me to notice some of the background critters, such as the Hallucigenia, Pikaia, Aysheia, and Vauxia. Their relative invisibility is justifiable considering the murky composition, but still a bit counterproductive if the piece is viewed as an educational piece of art. In conclusion, this piece is very well-made and creative as a piece of original artwork, but I'm not sure if it functions well-enough as an educational tool to enhance or elaborate on the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Considering how the bioluminescent Amiskwia seem to be the sole light source in the piece, the illustration would not really function if they were removed. I'll see what other reviewers think of it, but am personally unsure whether it passes Wikipedia's standards or whether the bioluminescent Amiskwia are too speculative (or justified by too much original research) to allow to be used on a site which advertises itself as an encyclopedia. It's a wonderful illustration though, and it's 100% worth posting elsewhere. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. While the bioluminescent Amiswkia is speculative, I believe there is no evidence against it either, and I wouldn’t ever suggest this in article. Bioluminescence is widespread throughout Eukaryota, and there are even bioluminescent species of Chaetognaths, which are some of the closer living relatives of Amiskwia. Especially considering the believed deep sea habitat and the fact that we don’t have any living animals in the grouping Amiskwia was apart of, I believe that the bioluminescence in this animal is harmless speculation, as with the colouration of most extinct organisms.
Regarding the Anomalocaris, whether or not it fed on shelly fauna is still debated. Personally I fall on the side that it exploited the weaknesses in shells by shaking and contorting prey, before using its jaws to either bite open the shell or just suck out soft tissue from the breakage (this stance is supported in some articles, though other articles oppose it, hence the debate. No firm conclusion has been reached). The Aysheaia, Hallucigenia, and Vauxia are not the main subjects of the image, and are merely there to flesh out the environment should the viewer inspect it closer. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up good points, especially about the existence of bioluminescent chaetognaths. However, the abilities of modern bioluminescent chaetognaths seems to differ quite a lot from the bright solid glows of those in your illustration.[40] In addition, I'm not the only reviewer here, and some editors may have more comprehensive criticism (especially considering how I am no expert on Burgess Shale fauna). Hopefully there will be enough activity here that you would get another substantial evaluation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about invertebrates, but as I noted on the Hallucigenia talk page, we should steer clear of including our own original research on paleoart, we should only reflect what has been previously suggested by researchers. And this advice is not something to be taken lightly, as we may risk a ban on all user made paleoart if we don't follow this rule, as it has created problems several times in the past. Believe it or not, some editors have suggested that usermade paleoart should not be allowed at all, with much drama to follow. We don't want that again, so any such images that breach the OR rules in an obvious way will not be used. So no, this is not the place for "All Yesterdays" style experimentation, which we should maybe make clear in the guidelines above. I have started a discussion about this general issue here[41]. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am against depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence here. As far as I know, bioluminescence is rare in gnathiferans (to my knowledge, it is not known in rotifers, gnathostomulids, or micrognathozoans, and is rare and unlikely to be the ancestral condition in chaetognaths) thus its presence in Amiskwia is a level 3' inference. As I said in the OR in paleoart talk page, I think speculation should be avoided except when necessary in the context of Wikipedia articles; depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence is both unnecessary and likely to inspire the unjustified paleoart meme of bioluminescent Amiswkia. This isn't a paleoart gallery, it's an encyclopedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the bioluminescence issue, this piece misrepresents the sizes of the Burgess Shale fauna. Opabinia ranged from 43 to 70 mm [42] and Amiskwia ranged from 7.4 to 31.3 mm [43], so Amiskwia was about one-third the length of Opabinia. The Anomalocaris seems rather large, but perhaps not implausibly so. Furthermore, Amiskwia is a fairly rare animal, so I'm not sure depicting large groups of them is a good idea. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well rarity of Amiskwia in the fossil record isn't indicative of rarity in the Cambrian, just rarity of fossilization which is to be expected with soft bodied organisms (even in the Burgess Shale). There's this study that says that it's possible many creatures were bioluminescent in the Cambrian as a warning display to predators, and so many reconstructions of Cambrian fauna are incorrect. It doesn't specifically identify Amiskwia with hard evidence of bioluminenscence, but if I'm reading it right, it's saying it's possible that any (especially smaller) creature could have had it. Of course, it probably wouldn't have been so bright, and his entire explanation relies on the idea that the evolution of eyes started the Cambrian explosion (which doesn't make any sense because unless it's the mantis shrimp basically nothing in the sea relies on its eyes), so really, we're kind of in the wind if bioluminescence was common or even a thing in the shallow seas of the Burgess Shale User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know it's been months, but I only just saw this. The article you linked doesn't mention bioluminescence at all; it's talking about iridescence, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Bioluminescent animals don't look like the Amiskwia in this image—as far as I'm aware they generally aren't bright enough to cast a light on surfaces—and moreover, bioluminescence in Amiskwia is not supported by phylogenetic bracketing. Moreover, my other objection, that the scale of the animals in this image is inaccurate, remains unaddressed. As such, this image "differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements" (i.e. body size and capacity for bioluminescence) and meets the criteria for removal stated at the top of this page. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
It doesn't seem like this'll ever be resolved, should we tag it as inaccurate with an explanation that there is no proof of this feature, so we can finally archive? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to make of this honestly; it was posted here without comment by an anonymous IP whose only edit record is here, and likewise the only actions of the commons user who uploaded it was just that. The image itself is a known illustration from deviantART[44], but there it is clearly watermarked and the full resolution is not available unlike this image. It's licensed as their own work, which lines up with the lack of watermark and high resolution, and a reverse image search doesn't turn up any other examples of the image outside of deviantART and Wikipedia, let alone without a watermark and at this resolution. I'm not sure how else this could be uploaded if it's not the original artist, but I don't know if we can be sure of that and let the image stay up on commons as a Creative Commons image. Thoughts? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you that I don't see any real possible other way for someone to have uploaded this work if it wasn't there own, and following the nice guideline of assuming good faith I think that the lack of any alternative that we can see as possible means that we should assume this is their own work. I think its possible there is an underbite in the art, although that could be perspective, but I don't know enough about Basilosaurus or its relatives to say much else on the accuracy. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the B. isis skulls look like they've got a bit of an underbite (the species isn't specified here). I will say that the perspective does make the tail look a bit unusual, but this image does quite a nice job on the head - unlike virtually every single other restoration that we have (expect maybe this one: File:Basilosaurus BW.jpg). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pectoral fins seem too far back; in whales, they are just behind the head and neck. I'm not as confident on this next issue but the dorsal fin seems very far forward compared to other reconstructions. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be a good time to review the other Basilosaurus restorations[45] we have? Most of the others were uploaded before the paleo review page was started... We need to apply the "inaccurate paleoart" tag more generously, as this is often not done even when an image is deemed such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a gallery below of our other images (I actually was thinking of doing something like this soon!):
I have no clue what the heck that head's based on
Tail very thin
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head doesn't match bulky body
Original of the former
Too deep body
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head
Should have much more oral tissue going by modern whales
General proportions
Shrink-wrapped head, "surfin' serpents" meme, no dorsal fin
I think the last one can be excused and used as a historical example. The ones with the demon heads could probably be modified more easily than the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the least inaccurate and probably most worth fixing would be Dmitry's and Pavel's but I agree they all have inaccuracies. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give those two a shot, anything else that should be fixed in them? Seems odd that the raised area around the nostrils would be so obvious in the living animal, or what? Maybe the one with the thin tails too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps modify Pavel's one following B. isis, as Dmitry's is B. cetoides? That way, we can have a restoration for each species. Also, Pavel's has a strange constriction in its profile after the pelvis, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, I'd imagine it would not even be discernible, but even most modern restorations seem to show it. Also, modern whale skulls give little indication of what the living animals look like... FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basilosaurus had 10 teeth on either side of the jaw, I’m only counting 9 (but it’s kinda blurry if you zoom in that much, so I don’t know). The head seems about the right size, I don’t know why it’s been called shrink wrapped, but I will say the top of the skull seems really bony (like it’s an exact outline of the skull) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This recontruction by Nobu Tamura is currently the only image of Umoonasaurus that we have. It is rather old and needs some corrections:
The nostrils are inexplicably huge
The paddles have a very oar-like appearance and don't account for the powerful musculature supported by the limb girdles. They also are missing the trailing edge
It is missing a caudal fin
Points two and three follow Witton's The Paleoartist's Handbook. Does anybody want to make the above changes?
I plan to draw the skull of this animal in dorsal and lateral views whenever I get time which may be weeks, or months if things go really badly :(. For this drawing, should I use a color key or in-image abbreviations?
I've started to have a go at it, and will upload when finished. I use the clone/stamp tool for simple outline readjustment and painting out or drawing in lines and shrinking ears and nostrils, airbrushes to add in nostrils and ears, perspective to roughly distort something, smudge to smooth out unwanted texture or patterning and creating strangely-shaped new regions (i.e. caudal fins), rotate to change positions, scale to fix too big/small areas, multiple layers if I'm extending an appendage (i.e. neck elongation). I see that Umoonasaurus would have had quite a puny caudal fin based on a chart by Lythronax: [48]. Any recommendations for additional tools to use or other stuff to change? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be doing this already, but what I've found useful for being precise with additional elements of images I was adjusting (such as the caudal fin and larger paddles) is to draw the outline of these with some base colour, and then fill out the outline, rather than to try drawing these additional areas with the clone stump or any other imprecise tool Then they can easily be filled out afterwards with whatever tool you want. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that I forgot about this long ago... there is just so much that jumps out as inaccurate here it may just be simpler to create a whole new image for this guy. I did start work on such an image, but I never completed it. Looking back at it, however, I realize that I got very close to doing so, so I may try to wrap it up some time during this or next month. For now though, this section probably should just be archived. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my marine reptile size comparisons. I've been playing with the idea of making a rogue's gallery or marine reptiles size comparison, and am considering finally doing it.
Taxa in need of review
It’d be kinda redundant to have both dorsal and lateral size diagrams (but that’s just my opinion), and for the Tylosaurus size diagram, you’ll have to ask Orthogonal Orthocone who took it down in October without giving a reason. It looks like it might’ve been an accident when s/he was shuffling text around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just one file, sort of like my Hibbertopterus (I'm still not done with it?!) By the way, how accurate is this Placodus skeletal: [49]? I love marine reptiles but lack much knowledge on them thanks to paywalls (seriously, it would be cheaper to buy 4 copies of the GSP field guide than to get access for 30 days on some papers!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unorthodox tail fluke, though? I'd expect something more like this (and what you have in the diagram):[51] Also, the fluke shouldn't really make the tail longer, as its tip would follow the length of the bony tail. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, although I also see that I forgot about this quite a while ago (once again), sorry about that. With some more experience with plesiosaurs now I can see even more issues: the paddles lack trailing edges, the tail's far to thin, there probably should be more teeth visible, and the visible teeth are the wrong shape and size. I think that this may go beyond my ability to easily fix. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting up this recent PaleoEquii art for review for the sake of it. I think it looks really good, and I personally know that the artist is quite knowledgeable on Camrbian fauna. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The shape of the tail looks a little off. I count eight segments in this reconstruction; Ooedigera had seven. The terminal segment looks too pointed. Would there have been a narrow, rayed fin along the margins of the tail like that? I'm not extremely familiar with vetulicolian anatomy, but that seems different from other reconstructions. Also, if I'm reading Vinther et al. 2011 (the original description) correctly, the tail would have been somewhat more asymmetrical dorsoventrally and had a more prominently scalloped dorsal margin of the first four segments. The body also doesn't look particularly laterally compressed, which Ooedigera is described as being. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's all that needs to be changed? According to Vinther et al., "a broader flattened region extends ventrally all the way from segment 2 to 7 and dorsally between segments 5 and 7", and they repeatedly emphasize the importance of this dorsoventral asymmetry. Your reconstruction doesn't look anything like that. Based on my interpretation of the text, it should look something like this [52] (apologies for the quickness of the sketch, it just needs to get my point across), with a scalloped dorsal margin along the first few tail segments, and no 'fin' along the margins. In addition, the dorsal margin of the tail should probably be approximately aligned with the dorsal margin of the body, as in other vetulicolians, not dorsoventrally centered. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to PaleoEquii, who said "I think that's all that needs to be changed" after changing one detail, without responding to any of my other criticisms. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it looks better than our current reconstruction which is somewhat reminiscent of a bejeweled vacuum cleaner (no offense to the creator). It's in lateral view so I don't think dorsal anatomy is going to be very prominent, and it should be a pretty easy fix. Just make the back end of the tail a bit more bulbous on the top, and the first few ridges a bit steeper. As for my former comment about shading, it actually looks fine the more I look at it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one more than the old one too but that just makes it all the more important to make sure this is up to high standards of accuracy. I'd like for PaleoEquii to either revise this image in response to my critique or justify his interpretation as opposed to mine. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue (the tail fin) has just been fixed, and I think that the rest of the anatomy is consistent with what is known of the animal. It was a soft-bodied creature and I wouldn't doubt that it was capable of some variability in its body shape. As it stands, the body looks taller than wide, which resembles the fossil and corresponds with the described lateral compression, the extent of which is not fully set in stone due to the 2D preservation. And the tail looks to be positioned above the dorsoventral midline, as it is above the body's gill slits. Perspective may be responsible for some ambiguity there, in addition to the clearly convex dorsal surface ("egg-shaped", according to the paper's etymology). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right that the body is within acceptable bounds of accuracy, but I still have some concerns about the tail, to be honest. I've never seen a reconstruction of a vetulicolian with a thin, seemingly translucent, rayed tail fin like this depiction, so I want a source on that, or for it to be changed. Near as I can tell, the thinner fin-like region of the tail is still composed of the same shell material as the rest of the tail. The shape also still looks off in a few details--the peaks of the scalloped axial region edges don't seem to line up with the segment boundaries in some places, when they probably should. The axial region (i.e. the non-fin portion) is described as consisting of "hourglass-shaped" segments and that appears to refer to the concave dorsal and ventral margins of each segment of the axial region. Finally, the seventh tail segment is more or less triangular in Ooedigera, which is not how it looks in this image--and it doesn't look angled in a way that would explain the difference either. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for the tail segments, they should go inwards rather than outwards so that in dorsal view a segment would have an hourglass shape, the ventral side of segments 2–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, the dorsal side of 5–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, and the ray fin is highly implausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk07:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the tail fin is consistent with tunicate larvae and especially conodonts and lancelets, which seem to resemble the "bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome" model quite well, especially compared to the oddly derived shape of ambulacrarians. And responding to dunk, the hourglass shape is meant to be in lateral view, not dorsal view. The scalloping persists throughout the tail as far as it appears in the fossil. From my interpretation of the source's text and imagery, the illustration is completely consistent with the fossil evidence. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conodonts, tunicates, and lancelets don't have shells on their tails, so I'm not sure they're the best model. Given that the life reconstructions of Nesonektris in its original description (which is a reliable source) lack such a fin, I'd like a source justifying depicting it to the contrary, not just supposition. Also, the shape of segment 7 is clearly inconsistent with the fossil in my eyes, and the shape of the rest of the tail still looks off to me in various respects, as should be evident by comparing my sketch to PaleoEquii's painting. I'm pretty sure that the transition between the axial region and 'fin' ventrally should also be concave, to complete the hourglass shape of the axial region ("there is a broad axial region with concave margins on each segment, giving each of the seven segments an hourglass shape"), but note that that transition between axial region and 'fin' is more a matter of mediolateral thickness of the segmented region than transition from a segmented structure to a thin translucent rayed fin. FanboyPhilosopher is, however, right that there is no reason to depict the segments as convex in dorsal view (as the tail is not preserved in a manner that would show that). Ornithopsis (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the segments still don’t have an hourglass shape in lateral view. The dorsal aspect is fine but the ventral aspect is convex where it should be concave, so each segment right now ends up sort of saddle shaped (if I’m looking at this right) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. That, the structure of the fin, and the shape of the final segment are my main concerns left with this image, and I'd really like to see those concerns addressed because we definitely need good vetulicolian art like this on Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoEquii: So really, there's only 3 fixes and then we're set:
1. Make the tail segments hourglass-shaped rather than saddle-shaped
2. Remove the ray fin
3. Make the final tail segment sharper (like how it was in the original version)
The tail should be fine now. I don’t see the harm in ornamentation or even simple colour on the tail fin? The fossil itself isn’t exactly pristine. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks saddle-shaped (both the dorsal and ventral sides should be concave, right now the dorsal is concave and the ventral is convex). The ray fin would be more likely if it were a chordate, but it wasn't, it had armor, so a ray fin is not very plausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "ray" fin is fine, it looks like its supposed to except for the colouration giving the appearance of rays, but a striped pattern isn't a dealbreaker. I can't comment on the rest tho. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of an hourglass figure at this point is simply down to perspective. As for the fin, Ooedigera had a much softer body than Chengjiang Vetulicolians. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments: first of all, this is an educational website; if it's misleading but not demonstrably wrong that's still a concern (although admittedly not a dealbreaker). However, more to the point: the "fins" of Ooedigera are laterally compressed extensions of the segments, not a separate structure, as I understand it. They should be segmented like the axial region, not a separate unsegmented structure. I'll also link to my revised sketch of it; I still think that various aspects of the tail anatomy in PaleoEquii's reconstruction look wrong to me [53]Ornithopsis (talk)
At this point he has told me that if you all are not satisfied with his illustration, then Ornithopsis's sketch would be a better replacement for the article's current artwork. Wikipedia is kind of an afterthought for him and he's more invested in his current work. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything incorrect enough about it to not be used, it seems to be a matter of interpretation of the description. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii is a better artist than I am, so I'd rather his work be used than mine, once my concerns have been addressed in some way. My concerns aren't just a matter of interpretation. The "tail fin" of vetulicolians is essentially a sclerotized extension of the segments, not a separate unsegmented structure as it appears in this image. Unless somebody can provide a citation indicating otherwise, that's still a problem with this image. I can try to make adjustments to PaleoEquii's image to bring it to my standards of accuracy if he isn't interested in editing or defending it himself. Also, Fanboyphilosopher, since you seem to be acting as PaleoEquii's envoy, could you please tell him that it would be nice if he posted his images for review rather than adding them directly to articles? I promise I'm not going to always be this hardass about it; it's just a matter of principle. I do have a question about his latest Ursulinacaris reconstruction, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii, it might be more efficient to upload basic sketches of animals you're reconstructing, which we can critique and you can very easily change, and when the basic sketch is deemed accurate, then you flesh it out completely. Also, I'm not entirely certain, but the eye seems very advanced for a Cambrian creature. I'd think the eye'd look more like that of a nautilus or maybe a compound eye. Were you trying for a photoreceptor look like what you did here? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eyes had already become extremely complex by the Cambrian. Anomalocarids, for example, had dichromatic vision, extremely powerful compound eyes with large retinas, and stalks. To view all Cambrian eyes as simple is incorrect. A more apt comparison for Anomalocarid eyes would be those of crabs and dragonflies. PaleoEquii (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii's reconstruction of the eye looks fine to me. I had more of a question/comment than outright criticism, in this case: given that Ursulinacaris is likely to be the most basal hurdiid, given the anatomy of its frontal appendages, is it a good idea to reconstruct it with a Hurdia/Aegirocassis-like head shield? I would think that a smaller head shield (like Tamisiocaris and Peytoia) would be more likely with phylogenetic bracketing. If you think changing it isn't justified, I won't argue further on that point though. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers at the ROM have uncovered whole-body specimens of Stanleycaris from the “Thick” Stephen Formation recently. Don’t know when it’ll be published, but it’s already been in the PalAss conference. As for Ursulinacaris, no phylogeny has included it, but I and some other researchers find it close to Pahvantia, mostly based on the gracile nature of the endites. Think of it as “informed speculation”. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, that's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Fair enough on Stanleycaris, but wouldn't that only support my concern that a basal hurdiid (such as Ursulinacaris seems to be in the absence of published evidence otherwise) shouldn't have a Hurdia-like head shield? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no body specimens of Ursulinacaris, nor published phylogenies, nor any published ideas on what the whole animal looked like. I’ll be honest, I don’t see the problem. I’m not saying it’s one way or another, this is my interpretation. I could defend my interpretation, but it doesn’t really matter if we aren’t allowed to do “original research”. This interpretation of the animal, as far as published literature is concerned, is just as valid. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I also disagree with using solely original research to support a speculative reconstruction, I don't think that's a problem here. As said, the source doesn't offer a phylogeny, and instead notes "Crucially all hurdiids show unique characteristics in their frontal appendage morphology when compared to other members of the family, with no apparent sequential acquisition of characters that would provide resolution from a phylogenetic analysis". It also says that Pahvantia's paired setae may be homologous with the paired endites of Ursulinacaris and non-hurdiids. So there isn't really a clear phylogeny to engage in phylogenetic bracketing, and using Pahvantia as a basis for the carapace reconstructing is no worse (and may be better) than other choices. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly satisfied with your explanation, but as I said, I'll drop it as I admit it's too hard to prove either way. However, upon closer examination of the appendages, I note that you appear to have depicted it with the endites reducing in size beginning on the sixth podomere rather than the eighth--i.e. with only three pairs of elongate endites instead of five. I would have assumed the rest were hidden by the carapace, but the position of the shaft endite seems to indicate otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be happy to discuss it more on another platform, but I’m simply following the rules set out here. There are five pairs of elongate filtering endites, and two smaller, reduced endites after them. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. It still needs work; the five elongate endite pairs should all be close to the same length, around twice that of the associated podomere (podomere 7 endite height to podomere height ratio is 1.3 in your reconstruction but 1.9 in the holotype) and the reduced endites should also be longer (podomere 8 ratio is 0.7 in your reconstruction but 1.5 in the holotype). The segments also don't exhibit the change from deep but proximodistally short in proximal segments to more elongate in more distal segments (podomere 5 height:depth ratio is 2.3 in the holotype and 1.5 in your reconstruction; podomere 8 ratio is 0.75 in the holotype and 1.75 in yours). Ornithopsis (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be working on the Ursulinacaris any further; I’ve decided it would be best for me to only upload here infrequently at most. Use it or not, I do not want the Ursulinacaris illustration edited. PaleoEquii (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that PaleoEquii has blocked me on Twitter as they feel that my criticism of their work has been unfair in its intensity, and I feel that may be the cause of their decision to not upload work to Wikipedia as well. I apologize if they feel I have been unfairly harsh towards them; it was not my intention to be a jerk but it seems that I may have been. If they wish, and others here agree it would be for the best, I am willing to refrain from participating in reviewing any of their future uploads. Aesthetically, their work is far above the standard of much of the paleoart on Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to lose that because of my rudeness. I only wish they were more open to fully participating in the paleoart review process. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with what happened offsite, but your comments here strike me as quite reasonable. The spirit of this review process is to ensure that our images hold up under all kinds of technical scrutiny. It is not a gallery, and it is not DeviantArt (and I think many uploaders - not to point fingers specifically - forget that). If PaleoEquii is not willing to have this image edited, and if there are still clear outstanding issues of accuracy or plausibility, we have no choice but to tag it as inaccurate, regardless of how high-quality it may be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is unlikely to be resolved, could anyone who knows the details add inaccuracy tags and explanations? Ornithopsis or Fanboyphilosopher? Though it is understandable critique of one's artwork can feel personal, that's just the name of the game for palaeoart; the point is to be as accurate as possible, artistic expression is secondary to this, and if one is unwilling to modify images according to facts, such images are rendered misleading and useless for our purposes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in January I talked with PaleoEquii (aka PrehistoricaCM) off-site to get a sense of the issues surrounding his interpretation of Ursulinacaris. He personally thinks that the differences are trivial and he's not interested in making any more art for Wikipedia. But whatever the case, I've added the inaccuracy tag and hopefully we can close the discussion. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added an inaccurate art template to Ooedigera. Unfortunately, the current illustration on the Ooedigera page is also inaccurate; I am adding an inaccurate art template to it too and removing it from the page. I think we can consider this discussion closed, as both works being discussed have been deemed inaccurate and are not in use on English Wikipedia anymore. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realized recently that the size comparison in the megalodon article was removed, possibly to it looking to much like a great white. I have been thinking about creating a new size comparison for adding O/C. chubutensis, and having a less great white-like look. I also have been considering doing a life restoration for O/C. megalodon, or perhaps O/C. chubutensis. Here is lineart for a generic otodontid: [55], based on the shortfin mako, smalltooth sand tiger, and basking shark. If it's good enough, I'll proceed with the size comparison and life restoration. Pinging Dunkleosteus77 and Macrophyseter, our main prehistoric shark editors. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the generic otodontid lineart could be a possible representation for some of its members like Otodus, Cretalamna, Megalolamna, etc, but not likely for those in the' Carcharocles' genus, at least starting C. angusteidens; it doesn't seem to well represent a form designed for the extreme strength megalodon may have possessed, but rather a more generalist morphology. The body shape I'm more used to would be that of what could essentially be described as a beefed-up lamnid, which appears to be the appearance most used in DA that isn't derived from Carcharodon. This [[56]] drawing of a generic Carcharocles shark presented by Kent and Ward (2018) would be a more ideal representation. Macrophyseter | talk00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, darn it, I forgot about Cretolamna. Looks like I've gotta make the first dorsal fin smaller, the second one larger, the pelvic and rear fins more triangular. I'll post a new version once I've fixed the current one. Perhaps I should go for Megalolamna, as we don't yet have a life restoration for that... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shaidng has been added: [58]. Apparently Megalolamna was an inshore shark, so I'm thinking of coloring it a bit like a sand tiger shark, with a brownish hue. I found the paper that described M. paradoxodon, it's been very useful: [59]. It suggested a phylogenetic placement for Megalolamna between Cretalamna & non-"Carcharocles"-grade Otodus, which I think the image already resembles. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly based on the photo of a "Cretalamna" body fossil that used to be on its Wikipedia page (which I removed), which is actually a new species of Lebanese odontaspidid. As such, this reconstruction needs to be reworked and should be removed from the page for the time being. There are some other aspects of the soft tissue that are incorrect, like the teeth in the lower jaw not being visible. I recommend using photographs of lamnids like porbeagles for reference.Carnoferox (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a few weeks back I had another DA request to update the existing diagram, which I have been working on. At the moment my WIP has primarily been using the Gottfried skeletal, which extrapolates from the Great White but is more robust generally, especially the jaws, with larger fins. The very rough WIP can be seen here: [60] This has taken me a while because I have been trying to fact check the Wikipedia articles for the lengths and estimates of the relevant animals. I'm not too fussed about which silhouette we use because Meg is only known from teeth and vertebrae which don't say much as to overall build and proportions. Maybe a generalised/generic silhouette is the way to go, but ultimately, any silhouette is going to be made up and be speculative. That said, I'd be happy to hear what any of the shark editors think. In my version, I was going to add question marks in the Meg silhouettes, as I have done with some of the really fragmentary sauropods, just to make it clear to the viewer it's speculative. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ?s are a good idea perhaps you should add the maximum size for the whale shark. Also, it seems like O. (C.) megalodon loses to the whale shark for the prize of the biggest shark ever, if only by a tiny bit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's become apparent looking into shark measuring is that even though there are standards, those standards can be interpreted differently or that different terms are being used interchangeably. Generally speaking there is 'Standard Length' and 'Total Length'. Standard length excludes the caudal fin; some might measure to the base of the caudal fin (precaudal length), it's possible that some are measuring to the notch on the far side (called Fork Length). Total length includes the caudal fin but there are two ways people measure it. One way is the shark positioned in a life pose and measured between the snout and tip of the caudal fin. (between pegs); this is similar to how it might get illustrated in a scale chart. The other way is by measuring the standard length and then just adding on the caudal fin length. This can quite drastically change the perceived size in a scale chart as it does not take into account the angle of the caudal fin. (Not dissimilar to scaling a dinosaur silhouette to the length of the silhouette vs measuring along the curves of the vertebral column.)
The are a lot of reports of large ~18m whale sharks, however, I'm currently not aware of any that have detailed measurements. One '18.8m' individual was measured as being 15m SL and then they added on the tail using an equation to get the TL. I know of two reports with detailed measurements from Indian fisheries, one is a 12.18m male and the other a 14.5m female. After trying to use the measurements to illustrate them I realised they probably contain mistakes and/or typos (these are older reports that predate portable computers, so these would have been written down by hand and typed up at a later date). The SL of 12.18 male was reported as 10.23m. After illustrating it is seems that 10.23m is the actual TL and then later this got mistakenly changed to SL and then the authors added on 1.95m of caudal fin. [61] The 14.5m individual hasn't got the same level of detail in measurements but I suspect it was actually 11.5m and there has been a typo, otherwise it's proportioned like no other whale shark I've seen. Another possibility is that it was 14.5m meters and some of the measurements have been placed in the table incorrectly. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a new WIP for the Megalodon update [62]. At the moment the largest I have found in the literature is estimated at 17.9m and the average size, across geologic time, according to Pimiento&Balk 2015 is ~10m based on 544 teeth. The whale shark is scaled to 9m because they mature at about 8-9m. The Wikipedia article and the original version state average adult as 9.8m and cites Guinness Animal Facts&Feats, I can't get a book preview, can anyone confirm that? They get larger; Guinness records claims the largest accurately measured is 12.65m near Pakistan in 1949 but looking into fishery records it seems that individual was 11.58m (I have yet to find a copy of the original source which was published in a weekly magazine) so I'm not sure where the Guinness number comes from? McClain et al 2015 support an individual estimated at 18.8m as the largest. The Great White is scaled to 4.7m which in Gottfried 1996 sample was the smallest mature female. I might also include the largest female which was 6.1m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, a new user reverted the old chart back which is probably not surprising considering the subject. Because the old chart was so widely used and many of the image captions became obsolete with the loss of the whale shark, I've decided to upload under a new file name, inserted above. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a potential update to the megalodon scale chart based on Shimada 2019. [63] Shimada suggests only using anterior teeth for estimation which is claimed to be more reliable. (The 17.9m estimate used previously is based on a lateral tooth). Shimada estimates the tooth with the tallest crown height to be 13.5-14.2m TL based on new equations or using the tooth with a tallest total height and the Gottfried equations 15.3m. Currently I've gone for 14.2m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to modify the old one too to newer sizes so its not outdated in every page its used? I don't have the .svg editing ability so I'm just wondering the possibility. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. The original intention was for the new one to replace the old one but because I decided to remove the whale shark it creates issues with image captions relating to the old chart. That said, there are some problem users over at the wiki commons that reverted my update. I then decided to update the description on the old image, which was full of errors and misleading statements (see the image history and talk page) but they reverted those as well. The old image doesn't represent the science very well. The idea that there is a 'conservative' and a 'maximum' is also problematic in my eyes; which of the many estimates do we decide is 'conservative'? (I don't think those words even appear in the literature until Shimada 2019). 20m estimates exist but one is purely hypothetical based on scaling trends in the great white and assumes a questioned 7m GW existed. Shimada 2019 shows that another ~20m tooth based estimate is a mistake. Admittedly, considering how many estimates are out there, deciding which estimates to show in a scale chart is difficult. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like File:Longest dinosaurs2.svg and File:Largesttheropods.svg. I'm counting 6 estimations for max size: 13 m by Randall 1973; 25 m by Schembri and Papson 1994; 25 m by Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996; 16.5 m by Jeremiah 2002; 18 m by Shimada 2002; and 15 m by Shimada 2019. If we're doing average size, we could use Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996, 10.5 m and 14.3 m for males and 13.3 m and 17 m for females; or 10.5 m by Pimiento and Balk 2015 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in terms of layout? Finally got a full copy of Gottfried 1996 who do use the phrase 'conservative maximum TL' for their 15.9m estimate. Either way, the existing chart's 'conservative' is too large for Gottfried 1996. Shimada 2019 effectively resizes this estimate to 15.3m after remeasuring the tooth in question. I personally think for this chart we should stick to more recent estimates, ie Shimada 2019 should be used over Shimada 2002. Shimada 2019 also shows that many of those estimates above are not reliable or have made mistakes. I have no issue mentioning larger estimates in the text but I don't think we should show them. Regarding 'Average'; there is 'average megalodon size' including juveniles & adults (ie Pimiento and Balk 2015), or 'average adult megalodon' (ie Gottfried 1996 10.5-14.3m for males); I have currently gone with a global estimated average of 10.5 m as suggested by Pimiento and Balk 2015 and also happens to be the size that Pimiento 2010 consider being adults & Gottfried's 'smallest mature male'. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly based on Theropsida's Mycterosaurus from 2009
Seems to be a composite of Theropsida's and John Sibbick's reconstruction
.jpg)
Shonisaurus
Shastasaurus
Archelon
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Wasn't able to fix this one.
Done
Done
Done
Done and added Lende
Done
I don't think this needs any changes
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Slighty edited.jpg)
.jpg)
Sharovipteryx skeletal
Thalassodromeus skull
I have no clue what the heck that head's based on
Tail very thin
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head doesn't match bulky body
Original of the former
Too deep body
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head
Should have much more oral tissue going by modern whales
General proportions
Shrink-wrapped head, "surfin' serpents" meme, no dorsal fin
![[1]](https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/apsisaurus-588.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.reptileevolution.com/images/archosauromorpha/synapsids/Heleosaurus588.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.kheper.net/evolution/therapsida/Titanophoneus.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/53240705/dinocephalosaurus.0.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elasmosaurus_Size.svg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://plesiosauria.com/wp-content/uploads/liopleurodon2_newmantarlo.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://chasingsabretooths.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/anatomy-of-rubidgea-bite.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mixopterus_Size.svg){kind=link}
_BHL32125916.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bohemiclavulus.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Onychopterella_Size.svg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tylopterella_Scale.svg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alkenopterus_burglahrensis_restoration.png){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilosaurus1DB.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gidley-1913-Basilosaurus-cranium-neck-reconstruction.JPEG){kind=link}
![[50]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mV0_w-4tB0/XESLVrH08BI/AAAAAAAAAg8/lVS0kRJRuJALEr4q2YNI-XFRAHQAEcAUACLcBGAs/s1600/Liopluerodon%2BBW%2Bedit.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Makhaira_rossica.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bx503MmNs30/XOGdCIS6f5I/AAAAAAAAApU/Xn2v9mYpT_QJjAK9Fvnf7-Hf-ElPIGIpgCLcBGAs/s1600/g5110.png){kind=link}
![[56]](https://pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png%7C//pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png){kind=link}
![[57]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gBNJYmVLF1A/XOU3Od31fPI/AAAAAAAAApg/9pZhlTRJ8sESf_v_FvW0NFBjUDZoPjyYgCLcBGAs/s1600/Oto1.png){kind=link}
![[58]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--txJps65n-k/XOW_8UwkUUI/AAAAAAAAAps/gI-jxycj4A4pVXS986ssSbHfMQdej5kYACLcBGAs/s1600/Megalolamna%2BLineart.png){kind=link}
