Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Mosasaurus Size Comparison
Macrophyseter: I've begun work on making the silhouettes for two of the species: [1]. M. missouriensis is at the top in blue, and M. lemonnieri at the bottom in yellow. The bars represent skull length, and the silhouettes are not to scale. I've temporarily omitted the arms for the two silhouettes, since the M. lemonnieri specimen that I based the schematic on doesn't have very good forelimb material (although perhaps another specimen does?) and M. missouriensis seems to have lost (taphonomically) its forelimbs entirely. M. hoffmannii doesn't seem to do too well in the forelimb department either, but perhaps "M." conodon ([2]) could help here? I don't know if there's any extensively complete articulated material for M. hoffmannii (it doesn't look like it), so it may take a bit more work to assemble and/or cross-check an outline for it than the other two species. Any comments so far? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think they're great! Regarding the "missing" body parts, they are largely recorded taphonomically, but not much seems to be published in journals. I would recommend looking into Street (2016), which documents much of the diagnostic fossils of each taxon and contains photos of the parts you are referring to [3] (The thesis is over 300 pages, so it takes a long time to load. I would recommend downloading it if you are going to look into it again in the future). In addition, Lingham-Soliar (1995) has reconstructed the forelimbs of M. hoffmannii [4] (page 172). One concern I have is that the tail of both models may be too small. For M. lemonnieri, I think the downturn should begin around or after the caudal peduncle (The tail vertebrae with the dots at the beginning of the blue section of your crude arrangement of the skeleton). For the other Mosasaurus species, referring to Lindgren et al. (2011) may be a good reference for the positioning of the tail [5][6]. However, as for the shape of the tail fluke, I've heard Lindgren personally recommend proxying the Prognathodon tail (Lindgren et al., 2013), although someone has pointed out the Prognathodon tail is biomechanically inefficient compared to the Lindgren et al. (2011) version. Perhaps either one or a blend would work. Macrophyseter | talk 00:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here are the new, finalized silhouettes for the same two species: [7]. Any thoughts on these? M. missouriensis now has its skull based on the diagram in the article, the tail fins (which were indeed way too small) are now a Prognathodon-hypothetical Mosasaurus intermediate, and forelimbs based on those of M. hoffmannii have been added (thanks for that paper link). I've begun work on approximating an outline for M. hoffmannii, but it looks like it'll take some time to come together (though I think that it will almost certainly be done within a week, if not sooner). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- The general bodies are much better! I still have a comment about the forelimbs, though. First, the proportions between it and the rear paddles seem off (the rear paddle is a lot bigger than the front proportionally speaking), although this may be because much of the forepaddle is hidden with the rest of the body. If optical illusions are not the cause of my observation, then I would recommend scaling the forepaddles to be of similar size or slightly bigger than the hindpaddles (granted that proportions inferred from fossil evidence are kept and unless fossils say otherwise). Second, you don't have to generalize M. hoffmannii for the forepaddles for all species; for example, you could use MOR 006 for the forepaddle of M. missouriensis, given that Street (2016) argues the specimen is of that species, and not M. conodon as Ikejiri and Lucas (2014)[8] argued. Macrophyseter | talk 00:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize that the MOR specimen was reassigned to M. missouriensis. I've redrawn the forepaddles following your advice (although I might go back and recheck their size later). With M. lemonnieri, the front paddles genuinely seem to be quite small in the illustrated specimen, although they are pretty fragmentary. I've also created a rough M. hoffmannii silhouette following various images of fossils (especially those in Lingham-Soliar (1995) and Street (2016)) and a little help from M. lemonnieri and M. missouriensis for the tail, hind paddles, and a few other anatomical aspects. I've scaled the skull to the 1:7 ratio for this silhouette. The three silhouettes can be viewed here: [9]. How do these look? Mosasaurus has quite a complex history, so I think that I'll read through the article and literature more thoroughly once I have a good chunk of uninterrupted time (unfortunately, I've been quite busy this week). I am getting rather curious to see how M. hoffmannii compares to Bunker in terms of size... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Street (2016) is a PhD thesis, so it's not necessarily official. Also, regarding the forepaddles of M. lemonnieri, the ones on the skeleton are incomplete; they likely appear to be missing a number of phalanges. Additionally, a bit of a nitpick but make sure that the size of the chest for M. hoffmannii is consistent with the size of the ribs and the "barrel-shaped" chest characteristic per Lingham-Soliar (1995). Other than those, I think the figures are wonderful! Macrophyseter | talk 22:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I became dissatisfied with my M. hoffmannii silhouette, so I completely redid it. While I relied on scale bars a bit more than I'd like, I cross scaled multiple specimens and got similar results, although an SL:TL ratio that was a little shorter (as in it had a larger skull) than 1:7. I've also tried making it more obviously deep-chested. I assumed 7 cervicals after M. lemonnieri and gave it 32 dorsals following the estimated count in the article, and simply scaled the tail from M. lemonnieri to fit the overall presacral length. The hind paddles were also restored after those of M. lemonnieri, scaled to fit the tibial and femoral length of M. hoffmannii. I'll look into resizing the forepaddles of M. lemonnieri. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- ...And I forgot to actually provide a link to the WIP: [10] --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Another thought (sorry for so many comments in rapid succession): Where does the 1.71m SL estimate for CCMGE 10/2469 (the correct-er number for PRM 2546, I now realize) come from? The paper cited for it in the article just says that the SL is more than 1.7m, and Zeitlow's thesis seems to give the length at ~1.7m. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be safe to assume seven cervical vertebrae, which I think is consistent with most mosasaurs. For the M. hoffmannii redesign, I don't have any comments at the moment; I think it's great as is! Regarding the 1.71 estimate, Grigoriev (2014) wrote that the Penza specimen's dentary is "more than" 1020 mm and the postmandibular unit is 690 mm, which adds up to 1710 mm for the lower jaw. I think the paper rounded it to 1.7m to keep it simple. Zietlow states that she got her estimates based on photographs of the Penza specimen and correlating with corresponding scale bars (in other words, she didn't personally examine the specimen). My intuition would prefer running with Grigoriev's measurements as he made them directly on the specimen/cast. It is interesting to note, though, that Zietlow estimated the lower jaw to be 1.8m. But if you think it would be better to run with Zietlow's estimates, then I don't think scaling the model a bit would hurt too much. Macrophyseter | talk 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Silly me, that was mandibular length, not skull length (which explains the discrepancy)! I've rescaled the forelimbs of M. lemonnieri, and I have no idea how they turned out to be so darn short the first time around. Here's the WIP size comparison, with all four of the requested specimens scaled: [11]. The tylosaurin ghost behind the Penza specimen represents Bunker, who was thrown in there more for fun than anything else (I don't plan on including Tylosaurus in the final diagram). I'll try to put together another M. hoffmannii silhouette for the older 1:10 ratio tomorrow. Any thoughts on the current image? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current format is awesome! I'm excited to see how it would look with the additional Russell (1967) proportions. A possible suggestion, based on the Bunker ghost in the current draft, what if you also represented the Russell estimate in the same ghost effect (Although there's the color-coding issue to consider...)? Also, don't forget to specifically label the two proportions as estimates based on their corresponding papers. Macrophyseter | talk 23:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Silly me, that was mandibular length, not skull length (which explains the discrepancy)! I've rescaled the forelimbs of M. lemonnieri, and I have no idea how they turned out to be so darn short the first time around. Here's the WIP size comparison, with all four of the requested specimens scaled: [11]. The tylosaurin ghost behind the Penza specimen represents Bunker, who was thrown in there more for fun than anything else (I don't plan on including Tylosaurus in the final diagram). I'll try to put together another M. hoffmannii silhouette for the older 1:10 ratio tomorrow. Any thoughts on the current image? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be safe to assume seven cervical vertebrae, which I think is consistent with most mosasaurs. For the M. hoffmannii redesign, I don't have any comments at the moment; I think it's great as is! Regarding the 1.71 estimate, Grigoriev (2014) wrote that the Penza specimen's dentary is "more than" 1020 mm and the postmandibular unit is 690 mm, which adds up to 1710 mm for the lower jaw. I think the paper rounded it to 1.7m to keep it simple. Zietlow states that she got her estimates based on photographs of the Penza specimen and correlating with corresponding scale bars (in other words, she didn't personally examine the specimen). My intuition would prefer running with Grigoriev's measurements as he made them directly on the specimen/cast. It is interesting to note, though, that Zietlow estimated the lower jaw to be 1.8m. But if you think it would be better to run with Zietlow's estimates, then I don't think scaling the model a bit would hurt too much. Macrophyseter | talk 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Another thought (sorry for so many comments in rapid succession): Where does the 1.71m SL estimate for CCMGE 10/2469 (the correct-er number for PRM 2546, I now realize) come from? The paper cited for it in the article just says that the SL is more than 1.7m, and Zeitlow's thesis seems to give the length at ~1.7m. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- ...And I forgot to actually provide a link to the WIP: [10] --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- I became dissatisfied with my M. hoffmannii silhouette, so I completely redid it. While I relied on scale bars a bit more than I'd like, I cross scaled multiple specimens and got similar results, although an SL:TL ratio that was a little shorter (as in it had a larger skull) than 1:7. I've also tried making it more obviously deep-chested. I assumed 7 cervicals after M. lemonnieri and gave it 32 dorsals following the estimated count in the article, and simply scaled the tail from M. lemonnieri to fit the overall presacral length. The hind paddles were also restored after those of M. lemonnieri, scaled to fit the tibial and femoral length of M. hoffmannii. I'll look into resizing the forepaddles of M. lemonnieri. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Street (2016) is a PhD thesis, so it's not necessarily official. Also, regarding the forepaddles of M. lemonnieri, the ones on the skeleton are incomplete; they likely appear to be missing a number of phalanges. Additionally, a bit of a nitpick but make sure that the size of the chest for M. hoffmannii is consistent with the size of the ribs and the "barrel-shaped" chest characteristic per Lingham-Soliar (1995). Other than those, I think the figures are wonderful! Macrophyseter | talk 22:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize that the MOR specimen was reassigned to M. missouriensis. I've redrawn the forepaddles following your advice (although I might go back and recheck their size later). With M. lemonnieri, the front paddles genuinely seem to be quite small in the illustrated specimen, although they are pretty fragmentary. I've also created a rough M. hoffmannii silhouette following various images of fossils (especially those in Lingham-Soliar (1995) and Street (2016)) and a little help from M. lemonnieri and M. missouriensis for the tail, hind paddles, and a few other anatomical aspects. I've scaled the skull to the 1:7 ratio for this silhouette. The three silhouettes can be viewed here: [9]. How do these look? Mosasaurus has quite a complex history, so I think that I'll read through the article and literature more thoroughly once I have a good chunk of uninterrupted time (unfortunately, I've been quite busy this week). I am getting rather curious to see how M. hoffmannii compares to Bunker in terms of size... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think they're great! Regarding the "missing" body parts, they are largely recorded taphonomically, but not much seems to be published in journals. I would recommend looking into Street (2016), which documents much of the diagnostic fossils of each taxon and contains photos of the parts you are referring to [3] (The thesis is over 300 pages, so it takes a long time to load. I would recommend downloading it if you are going to look into it again in the future). In addition, Lingham-Soliar (1995) has reconstructed the forelimbs of M. hoffmannii [4] (page 172). One concern I have is that the tail of both models may be too small. For M. lemonnieri, I think the downturn should begin around or after the caudal peduncle (The tail vertebrae with the dots at the beginning of the blue section of your crude arrangement of the skeleton). For the other Mosasaurus species, referring to Lindgren et al. (2011) may be a good reference for the positioning of the tail [5][6]. However, as for the shape of the tail fluke, I've heard Lindgren personally recommend proxying the Prognathodon tail (Lindgren et al., 2013), although someone has pointed out the Prognathodon tail is biomechanically inefficient compared to the Lindgren et al. (2011) version. Perhaps either one or a blend would work. Macrophyseter | talk 00:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is uploaded! I had no idea how to apply the 1:10 ratio while keeping the known proportions of M. hoffmannii, so I just increased the torso length by ~1/3 (very roughly following the dorsal count M. lemonnieri) and stretched out the tail until the animal was 17m long. How does this look? I've tried to include citations and links to all the stuff we referenced, please let me know if I forgot anything (also, which publication are the M. lemonnieri skull lengths from?). (On a more humorous note, this isn't the first time that ghosts have popped up in a discussion about one of my images before, oddly enough...) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be accurate to depict the 1:10 ratio as something of excessive elongation; rather it should be depicted as a robust larger body with a smaller skull in proportion to boot. Perhaps one way to put it would possibly be to somewhat use M. lemonnieri as a proxy and then adjust the postcranial a bit to fit the ratio. Maybe this model [12] (which reconstructs the ratio near 1:10 or a bit less and claims to receive input from the major Mosasaurus authorities) could give an idea of what the body would be like for the 1:10 ratio. The skull lengths for M. lemonnieri should be from Lingham-Soliar (2000).Macrophyseter | talk 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've roughly created a M. hoffmannii/M. lemonnieri combo postcranium and shrunk the skull to be 1/9 of the length of the vertebral column for the 1:10 ratio, does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great! One last thing is that there's a typo where there's a period after the et in Fanti et al. when there shouldn't be. Besides that, I think the scale is about good for use in the article. Big thanks for taking the time on the diagram! Macrophyseter | talk 23:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you like it! This was quite an interesting one to make, and it was neat to see just how completely known M. missouriensis is and how this genus compares to Tylosaurus. Also, if I hadn't made this chart, I might never have realized that there isn't a period after the "et" in "et al."! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I have to give you credit for this: "Size comparison of the mosasaurin mosasaurine mosasaurid mosasauroid Mosasaurus" this is a work of genius. Macrophyseter | talk 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hehe, it started with me feeling indecisive about whether "mosasaurin" or "mosasaurine" was the better descriptor for "mosasaurid" here. I ended up putting them both in, so I felt compelled to add "mosasauroid" after that... type genera can be fun. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I have to give you credit for this: "Size comparison of the mosasaurin mosasaurine mosasaurid mosasauroid Mosasaurus" this is a work of genius. Macrophyseter | talk 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you like it! This was quite an interesting one to make, and it was neat to see just how completely known M. missouriensis is and how this genus compares to Tylosaurus. Also, if I hadn't made this chart, I might never have realized that there isn't a period after the "et" in "et al."! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great! One last thing is that there's a typo where there's a period after the et in Fanti et al. when there shouldn't be. Besides that, I think the scale is about good for use in the article. Big thanks for taking the time on the diagram! Macrophyseter | talk 23:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've roughly created a M. hoffmannii/M. lemonnieri combo postcranium and shrunk the skull to be 1/9 of the length of the vertebral column for the 1:10 ratio, does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be accurate to depict the 1:10 ratio as something of excessive elongation; rather it should be depicted as a robust larger body with a smaller skull in proportion to boot. Perhaps one way to put it would possibly be to somewhat use M. lemonnieri as a proxy and then adjust the postcranial a bit to fit the ratio. Maybe this model [12] (which reconstructs the ratio near 1:10 or a bit less and claims to receive input from the major Mosasaurus authorities) could give an idea of what the body would be like for the 1:10 ratio. The skull lengths for M. lemonnieri should be from Lingham-Soliar (2000).Macrophyseter | talk 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is uploaded! I had no idea how to apply the 1:10 ratio while keeping the known proportions of M. hoffmannii, so I just increased the torso length by ~1/3 (very roughly following the dorsal count M. lemonnieri) and stretched out the tail until the animal was 17m long. How does this look? I've tried to include citations and links to all the stuff we referenced, please let me know if I forgot anything (also, which publication are the M. lemonnieri skull lengths from?). (On a more humorous note, this isn't the first time that ghosts have popped up in a discussion about one of my images before, oddly enough...) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I just realised I hadn't done a "proper" mosasaur restoration yet, so tried with a simple Igdamanosaurus (based mainly on Globidens, since this genus is little known).[13] Any issues? Perhaps Macrophyseter has something? FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given that we only know of this taxon by some teeth and lower jaw material, if you want to give some emphasis on the distinctness of the taxon, I would suggest that the mosasaur should have its mouth open with its jaws and teeth accordingly reconstructed from the available fossil evidence. Since the postcranial would remain largely speculative (as is Globidens), I would personally use Prognathodon as inspiration. I'm not sure if a 1:5 skull-TL ratio that the current sketch employs would work. Maybe elongate the body into a 1:7 skull-TL ratio consistent with Prognathodon? In addition, I would also personally suggest a more Prognathodon-like tail. This is a great start! Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll try to modify accordingly! I wonder if the teeth would even be visible with an open mouth in side view? A least the teeth of monitor lizards are hardly visible when they open their mouths, and this genus didn't seem to have proportionally large teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- The lips would largely keep the upper teeth hidden, but when concerning lower teeth, it depends. I've seen plenty of restorations of the side profile where lower teeth are visible. Good thing that the available fossil evidence is of the lower jaw. Macrophyseter | talk 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tried to change proportions and open the mouth, and overlaid an image of the jaw, but I'm not sure how it would fit size-wise?[14] FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think it looks much better now. Regarding the jaws, I think for now it would be best to stick with the diagram from Lingham-Soliar as you did. One last thing is a bit of a nitpick. The neck seems a bit shrink-wrapped (or the back is arched too much?), maybe streamlining the back/upper dorsal section of the neck would work? Macrophyseter | talk 02:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some more anatomical fixes[15], more suggestions, Macrophyseter? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the design is pretty neat now! At this point there's only one nitpick I can provide (the back could use a little bit of flattening), but I don't think it's too necessary to address, so I would give the decision to you. It'll work well for the article! Macrophyseter | talk 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll do it! You mean it shouldn't be rounded like that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Probably so. I don't think many mosasaur spines would arch to your current depicted extent (at least not in Prognathodon by proxy); if they do indeed, then the body would still be more streamlined. Macrophyseter | talk 16:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here's an attempt[16], Macrophyseter certainly looks a lot less dumpty! And thanks for the pointers, will certainly come in handy if I try to draw one again (this is a bit of a test run)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- That fixes it a lot! I think it's pretty good now; I don't have any more comments. Macrophyseter | talk 23:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I've now added it to the article (and here). FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- That fixes it a lot! I think it's pretty good now; I don't have any more comments. Macrophyseter | talk 23:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here's an attempt[16], Macrophyseter certainly looks a lot less dumpty! And thanks for the pointers, will certainly come in handy if I try to draw one again (this is a bit of a test run)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Probably so. I don't think many mosasaur spines would arch to your current depicted extent (at least not in Prognathodon by proxy); if they do indeed, then the body would still be more streamlined. Macrophyseter | talk 16:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll do it! You mean it shouldn't be rounded like that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think the design is pretty neat now! At this point there's only one nitpick I can provide (the back could use a little bit of flattening), but I don't think it's too necessary to address, so I would give the decision to you. It'll work well for the article! Macrophyseter | talk 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Some more anatomical fixes[15], more suggestions, Macrophyseter? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it looks much better now. Regarding the jaws, I think for now it would be best to stick with the diagram from Lingham-Soliar as you did. One last thing is a bit of a nitpick. The neck seems a bit shrink-wrapped (or the back is arched too much?), maybe streamlining the back/upper dorsal section of the neck would work? Macrophyseter | talk 02:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tried to change proportions and open the mouth, and overlaid an image of the jaw, but I'm not sure how it would fit size-wise?[14] FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- The lips would largely keep the upper teeth hidden, but when concerning lower teeth, it depends. I've seen plenty of restorations of the side profile where lower teeth are visible. Good thing that the available fossil evidence is of the lower jaw. Macrophyseter | talk 22:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll try to modify accordingly! I wonder if the teeth would even be visible with an open mouth in side view? A least the teeth of monitor lizards are hardly visible when they open their mouths, and this genus didn't seem to have proportionally large teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given that we only know of this taxon by some teeth and lower jaw material, if you want to give some emphasis on the distinctness of the taxon, I would suggest that the mosasaur should have its mouth open with its jaws and teeth accordingly reconstructed from the available fossil evidence. Since the postcranial would remain largely speculative (as is Globidens), I would personally use Prognathodon as inspiration. I'm not sure if a 1:5 skull-TL ratio that the current sketch employs would work. Maybe elongate the body into a 1:7 skull-TL ratio consistent with Prognathodon? In addition, I would also personally suggest a more Prognathodon-like tail. This is a great start! Macrophyseter | talk 16:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Some cervids
Greetings. There are five paleoart images currently on the List of cervids article, which is currently a featured list nominee. All are listed as being editor-made works. While reviewing the list, I searched to see if any of the images had gone through the paleoart review process and only found a incomplete-looking review for one of them. So now I am asking, as these images acceptable? I do not want a featured list to have inaccurate or poor quality images. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I always thought the eye of that Megaloceros was way too big... FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- The feet of the Libralces look a bit off … especially the strong flexion of the right front foot. And the cross-over posture of the hind feet makes me wonder if the elk is looking for a toilet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I definitely think the Megaloceros's eye is too big. Red deer, wapiti and moose (the biggest cervids I know about, but I don't know much) don't have eyes anywhere near that big or protruding.Borophagus talk 12:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try to shrink it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Made it much smaller, how does it look, Borophagus? FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Much more natural! Borophagus talk 07:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Made it much smaller, how does it look, Borophagus? FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try to shrink it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Enchoteuthis
I uploaded my Enchoteuthis reconstructions at the request of User:Borophagus for use on the new page. The process and references behind them are documented here: https://incertaesedisblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/reconstructing-fossil-cephalopods-enchoteuthis-tusoteuthis/ Carnoferox (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- If Dirk Fuchs gave some input, I'd say this version's pretty good. Plus, your article did cover every aspect of its anatomy, so in my honest opinion, this one seems good.Borophagus talk 07:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you guys think this picture should be included in the enchoteuthis article? I personally think that the process through which it was created outlined in the article is at the very least a good attempt at realistically reconstructing enchoteuthis and the graphic featuring the reconstruction is the best visual representation there currently is of it, I think there would be no problem with including the image, maybe with a little explanation in the description description. Also I put the picture on the article a couple of days ago because I didn't know this paleoart review page existed sorry about that. CordiBordi (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I added the image back to the Enchoteuthis page now that it has been approved. Carnoferox (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you guys think this picture should be included in the enchoteuthis article? I personally think that the process through which it was created outlined in the article is at the very least a good attempt at realistically reconstructing enchoteuthis and the graphic featuring the reconstruction is the best visual representation there currently is of it, I think there would be no problem with including the image, maybe with a little explanation in the description description. Also I put the picture on the article a couple of days ago because I didn't know this paleoart review page existed sorry about that. CordiBordi (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't quite know how I didn't notice this before (and this'll probably never be seen), but I'm not the guy who requested the image! Borophagus (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I've decided to take a shot at drawing the rather underrated Triassic ichthyosaur Qianichthyosaurus. A rough WIP can be seen here: [17], based on the skeletal in this paper. It's pretty rough at the moment, but I intend to smooth it out later. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good so far, but the end of the snout looks a little too rounded. If the skeletal's anything to go by, it should look more triangular towards the top. Otherwise, from what I can see, it's good!Borophagus talk 08:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've refined, colored, and uploaded it. Any thoughts? I tried to make the snout appear a bit more pointed, although I'm not sure how well it was conveyed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looking pretty good. The snout does look a little more triangular, so as far as I can see, it's accurate! Borophagus talk 08:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've refined, colored, and uploaded it. Any thoughts? I tried to make the snout appear a bit more pointed, although I'm not sure how well it was conveyed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why does it have a dorsal fin and a bilobed tail when the skeletal doesn't? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Qianichthyosaurus is more closely related to parvipelvians than Mixosaurus, which also shows those features. As Qianichthyosaurus has a deeper body and more strongly downturned tail, I assumed that giving it these features would be reasonable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Nobu Tamura's latest Mammals & Synapsids
Any thoughts on Nobu's mammals & proto-mammal paleoart? I've labelled his takes on Proburnetia, Lemurosaurus & Kolponomos as "speculative", due to the former two being only known from skulls, while latter has a similar predicament & I think it has some taxonomic issues. He has decided to depict the latter as a otter-like stem-pinniped, not unlike proto-seal Puijila. Which I think isn't an uncontroversial opinion of the current placement of Amphicynodontinae, but I could be wrong. Monsieur X (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- The biarmosuchians look too skinny. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- The head shape of the Lemurosaurus immediately strikes me as pretty wonky; compare to my reconstruction that currently is on the page—the supraorbital horns are shaped slightly wrong, there's no midline crest, and there aren't any of the smaller tubercles. It's also just oddly-shaped. Additionally, there appears to be a raised region on the snout for the base of the canine, giving it an almost dicynodont-like appearance—that also strikes me as odd. The postcrania also strike me at a first impression as probably a little too pelycosaury, although I haven't carefully compared it to Biarmosuchus to confirm that. Do we really need this image of Lemurosaurus, though? We already have my reconstruction of its head and the postcrania are speculative. Similar concerns apply to Proburnetia. I approve of the soft-tissue choices made for the Kayentatherium, although I haven't checked its anatomical proportions. No comment on the crown-mammals; they're a bit outside my area of expertise. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- On a semi-related topic, regarding NT's Docofossor (File:Docofossor NT.jpg), I find it somewhat concerning that the image of the fossil is labeled as "(c)2015 Zhe-Xi Luo". I'm wondering if it might be best to remove it due to copyright concerns? 23:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The image can easily be removed using any image editing software. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've removed such inserts from some of NT's other images. They also just clutter the image, so I've even removed them from images where the insert was free too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Did it in GIMP in under a minute. Now, however, there's a huge amount of white space, so I'm wondering if it needs to be cropped even more. Should the text be relocated or just cropped out? (Also, sorry, it looks like I signed with an extra tilde in my first comment here.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Better to move, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Better to move, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Did it in GIMP in under a minute. Now, however, there's a huge amount of white space, so I'm wondering if it needs to be cropped even more. Should the text be relocated or just cropped out? (Also, sorry, it looks like I signed with an extra tilde in my first comment here.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've removed such inserts from some of NT's other images. They also just clutter the image, so I've even removed them from images where the insert was free too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- The image can easily be removed using any image editing software. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think that the belly on Astrapotherium could be rounder and downwards, until the knee. Carodnia and Diadiaphorus look just right to me.--Rextron (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've enlarged the belly. A bit dark, but better than nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Nobu Tamura's Champsosaurus
The main thing that leaps out to me is that the temporal fenestrae are shrinkwrapped. In life the large temporal fenestrae are thought to have anchored significant jaw muscles. Gabriel N. U.'s restoration looks much more realistic. The bright green colour also strikes me as unlikely compared to living crocodiles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Should be easy to fix. What would be a better colour? Just less saturated? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- A gharial-like tan colour would probably be good, though a less saturated dark green like is known from some crocodiles would also be fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the teeth go much further back in the jaws than in the drawing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ouch, and judging on the perspective of the top of the head, you should be able to see the inner side of the lower jaw slightly from above, but it just disappears... FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we can consider the coloration inaccurate. Crocodilians vary considerably in coloration and large semiaquatic lizards can be rather brightly colored. Choristoderes aren't really perfect ecological correlates of crocodilians anyway. We've gotten criticized for making arbitrary changes to people's art before, so I don't think we should get into the habit of changing things based on something as uncertain as that. That said, the head anatomy looks pretty wonky in general and probably could do with some reworking. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've painted out the fenestrae, drawn more teeth, fixed the perspective of the lower jaws, made the back toes less lumpy, and turned the saturation very slightly down, it is hardly noticeable. But I just wondered, should it have webbed toes? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Champsosaurus is thought to have been so aquatically adapted that moving on land was probably difficult. Webbed feet are known from both Monjurosuchus and Hypalosaurus, but as far as I know no preserved skin on the foot is known for any member of Neochoristodera. The reconstructions of Champsosaurus in Erickson (1985) include webbed feet, so I would include them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added webs, similar to this Monjurosuchus:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Champsosaurus is thought to have been so aquatically adapted that moving on land was probably difficult. Webbed feet are known from both Monjurosuchus and Hypalosaurus, but as far as I know no preserved skin on the foot is known for any member of Neochoristodera. The reconstructions of Champsosaurus in Erickson (1985) include webbed feet, so I would include them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've painted out the fenestrae, drawn more teeth, fixed the perspective of the lower jaws, made the back toes less lumpy, and turned the saturation very slightly down, it is hardly noticeable. But I just wondered, should it have webbed toes? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we can consider the coloration inaccurate. Crocodilians vary considerably in coloration and large semiaquatic lizards can be rather brightly colored. Choristoderes aren't really perfect ecological correlates of crocodilians anyway. We've gotten criticized for making arbitrary changes to people's art before, so I don't think we should get into the habit of changing things based on something as uncertain as that. That said, the head anatomy looks pretty wonky in general and probably could do with some reworking. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ouch, and judging on the perspective of the top of the head, you should be able to see the inner side of the lower jaw slightly from above, but it just disappears... FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the teeth go much further back in the jaws than in the drawing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- A gharial-like tan colour would probably be good, though a less saturated dark green like is known from some crocodiles would also be fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Undorosaurus Size Comparison
I unexpectedly found an Undorosaurus skeletal in a paper yesterday, so I decided to create a size comparison for this ichthyosaur. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Any potential for the other species? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the cited paper, U. trautscholdi and U. kielanae aren't known from the best of remains, and even U. nessovi isn't terribly complete either. I tried scaling U. nessovi, but as it's not the most complete taxon ever, it didn't go super well, it fell outside the rather broad range of size estimates for this genus. I can try to do this again if strongly desired (although it may take some time, as I haven't had a lot of spare time lately, unfortunately). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Replacement for Dunkleosteus reconstruction(s)
I noticed a number of the reconstructions for Dunkleosteus are a little outdated, so I decided to take a stab at a newer, hopefully more accurate one. The Bogdanov reconstruction is shrinkwrapped, with a tail much too eel-like for a sharklike apex predator and external sclerotic rings, which is unlikely. The muse reconstruction, while not shrinkwrapped, has fins that are too round and a tail that is, again, too eel-like to support the fast-paced lifestyle of a pelagic apex predator.
My revised has subtly visible yet not shrinkwrapped cranial armor, as well as integument inspired by whitetip sharks, tiger sharks, and masked puffers. I collaborated with paleontology student Tyler Greenfield on this one, who gave me pointers about the fin shapes and and suggested the presence of tiger shark-like stripes. The paper "Ecomorphological inferences in early vertebrates: reconstructing Dunkleosteus terrelli (Arthrodira, Placodermi) caudal fin from palaeoecological data" also suggests that this animal had a prominent anterior lobe on its tail, forming an almost lunate shape much like modern sharks and other predatory fishes like Sailfish and Tuna, so I incorporated this into this reconstruction.
One thing I'm not sure about is the nuchal gap in the reconstruction. I gave it a prominent dip in its integument where the nuchal gap on the skull is, but I'm considering removing this in favor of a completely smooth region on the top of the head to give it a more streamlined look. What do you think? Besides this, are there any other suggestions you would make about this reconstruction before I replace these older ones, or do you think the originals shouldn't be replaced at all? Entelognathus (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think showing one of both types of reconstructions would be useful where the caudal fin paper is discussed. In that case, keeping either of the old ones would be useful, but I would rather flip the second one horizontally.
- One observation is that all of these reconstructions appear significantly more gracile than the one in the caudal fin paper, which looks like it includes a body length regression analysis.
- No thoughts on the nuchal gap, I don't think we have a good enough taxon to bracket from? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Compared to the reconstructions in Ferrón et al 2017 the upper lobe looks too large. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions! I made the body and tail shape a little more similar to Ferrón et al 2017's rendition, and made the nuchal gap marginally less visible.Entelognathus (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Entelognathus, new versions of images should preferably be uploaded "over" the old one, you can see a button for this at the button of an image's page, saying "Upload a new version of this file". FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! I'll do that from now on. Entelognathus (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Entelognathus, new versions of images should preferably be uploaded "over" the old one, you can see a button for this at the button of an image's page, saying "Upload a new version of this file". FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions! I made the body and tail shape a little more similar to Ferrón et al 2017's rendition, and made the nuchal gap marginally less visible.Entelognathus (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Compared to the reconstructions in Ferrón et al 2017 the upper lobe looks too large. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Entelognathus: the section will be archived by a bot eventually :) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Should we remove the other reconstructions since they're outdated? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know about removing them per se, but they definitely should be labelled. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- If they show earlier ideas about its morphology, they can be used to illustrate that. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- The life restoration by Hugo Salais in figure #4 in Ecomorphological inferences in early vertebrates: reconstructing Dunkleosteus terrelli (Arthrodira, Placodermi) caudal fin from palaeoecological data is under a commons compatible license, though I am not sure if it has already been uploaded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- If they show earlier ideas about its morphology, they can be used to illustrate that. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know about removing them per se, but they definitely should be labelled. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mastodonsaurus Size Comparison
I've created a size comparison for this giant amphibian, scaled to the size indicated in the skeletal diagram in the paper. Comments? One thing I wonder: would Mastodonsaurus have had a caudal fin (our restorations seem to show it without one, but this sort of structure hardly seems rare in aquatic temnospondyls)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW all of Mark Witton's reconstructions give it a tail fin. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have had one either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- This paper ([19]) has a generalized capitosaur skeletal with a soft tissue outline, would it be a good reference for the fin's hypothetical shape? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you could use it. I don't know enough about whether there are specific osteological correlates for caudal fins in temnospondyls. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've given it a caudal fin, based roughly on that diagram. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you could use it. I don't know enough about whether there are specific osteological correlates for caudal fins in temnospondyls. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- This paper ([19]) has a generalized capitosaur skeletal with a soft tissue outline, would it be a good reference for the fin's hypothetical shape? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here's another temnospondyl size comparison, of the (much smaller) genus Sclerocephalus. Comments? If I can find its skeletal diagram again, I'll see if I can do one for Siderops tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's just me, but the head looks a bit small compared to the fossils. Perhaps it's the soft tissue? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to look into this a bit more (I reposed the diagrammed in situ specimen and it actually seems like the skull may be too large, which is weird, because it doesn't look like that should be the case.) Here's a version with the skull in black if that helps for referencing the true skull size: [20] --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the proportions following the articulated specimen, although that did actually made the head smaller. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like it checks out. The skull on the specimen looked bigger than it actually was... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the proportions following the articulated specimen, although that did actually made the head smaller. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to look into this a bit more (I reposed the diagrammed in situ specimen and it actually seems like the skull may be too large, which is weird, because it doesn't look like that should be the case.) Here's a version with the skull in black if that helps for referencing the true skull size: [20] --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Siderops has been completed! (I'd gotten its and Koolasuchus' description papers mixed up for some reason.) Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks reasonable, maybe a bit more of a caudal fin on this one too? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've expanded it a bit more. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks reasonable, maybe a bit more of a caudal fin on this one too? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's just me, but the head looks a bit small compared to the fossils. Perhaps it's the soft tissue? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here's a Paracyclotosaurus davidi size comparison. Comments? (Also, I fixed the Wikidata entry that said it was a salamander.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks reasonable. Any potential for the other species? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- P. morganorum is pretty fragmentary. I'm having difficulty finding out much about P. crookshanki, though it seems like it may be more complete. Is it, and if so, do you know of any good references for it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- P. crookshanki has a complete skull, figured here: [21] I am not sure if there are images of the skull in lateral view. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I unfortunately don't seem to have access to that publication. Is P. crookshanki estimated to be significantly larger/smaller than P. davidi? Otherwise, I think that it may be best just to include P. davidi. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The complete skull is reported to be 469 mm long, 340 mm wide across the quadratojugal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, quite a bit smaller then. Is there a total length estimate for this species though? I fear that its inclusion could be WP:OR if one doesn't exist. Oh, I just noticed this, but the Paracyclotosaurus article encompass a lot of the description paper. The text is claimed to be CC-BY and the images PD, but the BHL link indicates that the article's under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0! That's concerning... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- The complete skull is reported to be 469 mm long, 340 mm wide across the quadratojugal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I unfortunately don't seem to have access to that publication. Is P. crookshanki estimated to be significantly larger/smaller than P. davidi? Otherwise, I think that it may be best just to include P. davidi. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- P. crookshanki has a complete skull, figured here: [21] I am not sure if there are images of the skull in lateral view. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- P. morganorum is pretty fragmentary. I'm having difficulty finding out much about P. crookshanki, though it seems like it may be more complete. Is it, and if so, do you know of any good references for it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks reasonable. Any potential for the other species? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Clevosaurus
Based on image from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-bristol-undergraduate-reconstructs-skulls-species.html and https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reconstruction-of-the-skulls-of-lepidosaur-rynchocephalians-A-Clevosaurus-hudsoni_fig12_331255559 for labelling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Cynognathus
Added by UniverseScienceItaly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The limbs bother me. The right forelimb doesn't look like it's in a semi-sprawling stance; it looks like it's broken. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cynognathus is not a probainognathian, and so should probably not have whiskers or an otherwise mammal-like snout (source). Agreed that the stance looks awkward and implausible. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Morganucodon
Skull of Morganucodon oehleri based off a sketchfab model https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/morganucodon-oehleri-e0e360be45204c8db27acae3a7740ff6 that was created for a scientific paper https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12314 Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why is the mandible shaded pink? Any reason other than differentiation? Anatomically speaking, some sutures appear to be missing (e.g., the nasomaxillary suture), and the ones that aren't appear to be different from this diagram: [22] (although it's not clear which species this one depicts). Also, in dorsal view, the two halves of the mandible appear to adhere more closely to the surface of the petrosals than in the 3D model. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, overall I would recommend against using models to reconstruct skull anatomy, since most are simplified even in scientific papers. Most are constructed by freelance artists to test general biomechanical hypotheses, and may not be accurate to minor details of the fossils. The tooth structure in particular seems to be pixelated or hidden in the lateral view (you can see plenty of differences when the jaw is detached in figure 10), which is not ideal considering how important teeth are to mammaliaform systematics. There are good diagrams and overviews of Morganucodon watsoni skulls in Kermack et al. (1981) and most papers using data derived from it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I drew 2 male H. e. pekinensis beating each other up with rocks as hypothesized here. The article says males averaged 162 cm (5 ft 4 in) and like 54 kg (119 lb), which is pretty lean (especially when you consider the H. erectus skeleton is a lot heavier than ours), and I modeled the bodies with featherweight fighters. I'll add hair and probably a background once we all agree the anatomy is sound. I couldn't scan it in so I had to take a picture with my iPad and looks pretty grainy; I'll have to fix that somehow User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's just me but the hands look too small. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah now that you point it out, the left one's right hand is weirdly small, but are the other hands the right size or do they all need to be bigger? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think both of the hands on the left individual are kind of wonky. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- better now? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not totally convinced but I'll let others weigh in on this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- better now? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think both of the hands on the left individual are kind of wonky. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah now that you point it out, the left one's right hand is weirdly small, but are the other hands the right size or do they all need to be bigger? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Segments of Adelophthalmus
This reconstruction of Adelophthalmus lacks one segment on opisthosoma. This seems to be a misunderstanding caused by the preservation of fossils. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where should it be? FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since a 7-segmented preabdomen and a slightly elongated pretelson (segment 12) is represent in the artwork, maybe one more ring-like segment (segment 8-11) between them. The segment 9 and 10 is slightly compressed in the referred material of A. mansfieldi, giving it a single-segment like appearance. --Junnn11 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- So I assume this is by the root of the tail? Should the extra segment be added within the current overall proportions of the animal, or should it lengthen it, if you know what I mean? I'm certainly no expert on these things, but should be easy to fix, if I can even understand the anatomy haha... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since a 7-segmented preabdomen and a slightly elongated pretelson (segment 12) is represent in the artwork, maybe one more ring-like segment (segment 8-11) between them. The segment 9 and 10 is slightly compressed in the referred material of A. mansfieldi, giving it a single-segment like appearance. --Junnn11 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kunpengopterus antipollicatus
I have created a reconstruction of the new species Kunpengopterus antipollicatus and put it on the genus page. This is my first time seriously attempting to draw a pterosaur, so please let me know if I need to fix anything! Luxquine (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why it doesn't have a crest? Wukongopterids had at least soft tissue, if not also bony, crests. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't that only the males? FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I thought this was controversial: [23] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, hadn't seen that, what's the explanation for crestless specimens then? FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also is this supposed to be an albino? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn’t aware that all Wukongopterids had crests; the fossil of both members of the genus didn’t seem to have any indication of possessing one based on the fossilized elements so I didn’t include one. Could someone provide me a source arguing against crestless reconstructions so that I can learn more about it? And yes, I chose to make the colouration albino. Luxquine (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it has been argued none of them lacked crests, but Kunpengopterus did have a crest, according to its article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I must have incorrectly conveyed what I was trying to say. According to the article that describes K. antipollicatus, the specimen referred to as “Kunpengopterus sp.” in this cited study[1] is in fact a specimen of the newly described species K. antipollicatus. I looked through this article to attempt to piece together a bit more information on the species when I was creating the reconstruction, as I am not as familiar with pterosaurs as I am with paraves, and it does mention that there was no crest in that specimen. The question I was specifically meaning to ask is are there any sources that directly refute this evidence for a lack of a crest (at least in the females of the species), or am I good with it being crestless? Luxquine (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- The terminology around wukongopterid crests is admittedly rather confusing in the papers. Previous specimens of K. sinensis, and indeed both of K. antipollicatus, lack a bony crest on their premaxilla (simply called the "premaxillary crest" in papers), inferred to be part of a larger soft-tissue crest in other wukongopterids. The crest on K. sinensis FunkMonk and the article mentions is a patch of dark soft-tissue over the eyes (and potentially the discoloured matrix above that) mentioned in the original description of K. sinensis[24] which the authors interpreted as "the remains of a soft cranial crest".
- I haven't found anything else following up on this, but if they're correct it implies that even the specimens completely lacking a bony crest still had a wholly soft-tissue crest regardless. However, the same paper describing K. antipollicatus refers a previously indeterminate wukongopterid specimen to K. sinensis (IVPP V 17957, briefly described here [25]), and this specimen does have a bony premaxillary crest. Notably the bony crest of this specimen is smooth, not striated like in other wukongopterids, but I've not found any comments on what that implies for the soft-tissue. Zhou et al. (2021) considered the development of the bony crest as potentially being ontogenetic or sexually dimorphic, perhaps only ossifying from the soft-tissue close to maturity.
- The possibility that females still lack crests remains open, but now there's little supporting evidence. The study linked by Lythronaxargestes refutes a clear link between crestless specimens and wide pelves, and while the only confirmed female K. antipollicatus ("Mrs T.") lacks a bony crest, K. sinensis indicates that the absence of a bony crest does not mean there is no soft-tissue crest. So while there's no direct contradiction of crestless females, it's not supported either.
- (The "crestless" specimens of K. sinensis are also noted to have a "low bony ridge" on top of the premaxilla, which aren't described as being part of a crest, though I can't help but wonder if it's the same sort of thing that's going on in Pterodactylus, but that's moving into OR.) DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 14:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. I had mixed up the status quo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I must have incorrectly conveyed what I was trying to say. According to the article that describes K. antipollicatus, the specimen referred to as “Kunpengopterus sp.” in this cited study[1] is in fact a specimen of the newly described species K. antipollicatus. I looked through this article to attempt to piece together a bit more information on the species when I was creating the reconstruction, as I am not as familiar with pterosaurs as I am with paraves, and it does mention that there was no crest in that specimen. The question I was specifically meaning to ask is are there any sources that directly refute this evidence for a lack of a crest (at least in the females of the species), or am I good with it being crestless? Luxquine (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it has been argued none of them lacked crests, but Kunpengopterus did have a crest, according to its article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn’t aware that all Wukongopterids had crests; the fossil of both members of the genus didn’t seem to have any indication of possessing one based on the fossilized elements so I didn’t include one. Could someone provide me a source arguing against crestless reconstructions so that I can learn more about it? And yes, I chose to make the colouration albino. Luxquine (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also is this supposed to be an albino? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, hadn't seen that, what's the explanation for crestless specimens then? FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I thought this was controversial: [23] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't that only the males? FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know an awful lot about pterosaurs, so I can't really comment on the anatomy. Aren't we discouraged from drawing individuals with color mutations though? I seem to remember this coming up at WP:DINOART before, with Enigmosaurus if I remember correctly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- We certainly don't have to make a point about such features if they aren't supported by specific evidence. But in this case, I don't think it's obvious unless you read the description on Commons. But the crest issue certainly needs resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- If there is no real evidence either way for the existence of a crest, then, wouldn’t it be a matter of what is common for relatives? I did a very basic search on the family and it seems like they have differing crest shapes. What shape would work well for this species, assuming they do have a crest? Luxquine (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd probably base it on what the "official" restoration shows:[26] The thing with these pterosaurs with crest "bases" is that they supported larger keratin crests of unknown shape. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- You could probably base its position off of K. sinensis using IVPP V 17597 (labelled 'c' in this diagram [27]) and the soft-tissue on the holotype [28] to roughly bound the front and the back of the base of the crest (which the "official" restoration looks to match, too). DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd probably base it on what the "official" restoration shows:[26] The thing with these pterosaurs with crest "bases" is that they supported larger keratin crests of unknown shape. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- If there is no real evidence either way for the existence of a crest, then, wouldn’t it be a matter of what is common for relatives? I did a very basic search on the family and it seems like they have differing crest shapes. What shape would work well for this species, assuming they do have a crest? Luxquine (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- We certainly don't have to make a point about such features if they aren't supported by specific evidence. But in this case, I don't think it's obvious unless you read the description on Commons. But the crest issue certainly needs resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Quite relevant - a new paper on a juvenile K. sinensis which supports the notion of "no bony crest, but a soft tissue crest" in the species' diagnosis: [29] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- So what should we do here? Should Luxquine add a crest? FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Helicoprion and Edestus
Overall, I like these recent restorations by @Entelognathus:. However, these restorations include secondary dorsal as well as anal and pelvic fins, which other members of Eugeneodontida are known to lack. Pinging {@Fanboyphilosopher:, who has done some recent work on eugeneodonts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also I note that in recent reconstructions of Edestus, such as the one in Tapanila and Pruitt, 2019 the upper jaw is continuous with the snout. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that Entelognathus's work is greatly appreciated and stunning to look at, we are always in need of more fish paleoart. However, as Hemiauchenia mentioned, there is no evidence for anal, pelvic, and secondary dorsal fins in eugeneodonts. The best-preserved eugeneodont postcrania comes from Caseodus and Fadenia, so those are good inspiration for postcranial reconstructions in edestoids. They had only a single large triangular dorsal fin without a spine, a tall homocercal tail fin,[30] and five well-exposed gill slits[31] as well as the lack of fins already mentioned. At least in Helicoprion, the tooth whorl would have been less well-exposed, since there is plenty of evidence for large jaw muscles and encasing cartilage supporting the whorl from most angles. Figures 2 and 3 in Ramsay et al. (2014)[32] do a good job at contextualizing the head structure, as does most recent art by Ray Troll. The Edestus restoration seems to mistake the nasal capsule for the eye socket, which is understandable considering how the skull looks. I personally doubt that the snout had a large notch above the upper tooth blade; the skull is only a general reconstruction and most chondrichthyan heads are far more muscular than the underlying chondrocranium indicates. Compare the skeleton of a porbeagle shark[33] to the animal in the flesh[34]. It may be tempting to compare it to a goblin shark, but those have an extreme form of jaw suspension which is not very similar to eugeneodonts and other stem-chimaeras. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that this lack of fins is not mentioned in any Wikipedia page in the first place. Lebedev, O.A. (2009) has a description of it, but it can be difficult to find, and there is concern that the misunderstanding of adding these fins to eugeneodonts will continue. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some recent reconstructions of Edestus minor[35] and Helicoprion bessonowi[36] that I would recommend using for reference. Carnoferox (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that this lack of fins is not mentioned in any Wikipedia page in the first place. Lebedev, O.A. (2009) has a description of it, but it can be difficult to find, and there is concern that the misunderstanding of adding these fins to eugeneodonts will continue. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that Entelognathus's work is greatly appreciated and stunning to look at, we are always in need of more fish paleoart. However, as Hemiauchenia mentioned, there is no evidence for anal, pelvic, and secondary dorsal fins in eugeneodonts. The best-preserved eugeneodont postcrania comes from Caseodus and Fadenia, so those are good inspiration for postcranial reconstructions in edestoids. They had only a single large triangular dorsal fin without a spine, a tall homocercal tail fin,[30] and five well-exposed gill slits[31] as well as the lack of fins already mentioned. At least in Helicoprion, the tooth whorl would have been less well-exposed, since there is plenty of evidence for large jaw muscles and encasing cartilage supporting the whorl from most angles. Figures 2 and 3 in Ramsay et al. (2014)[32] do a good job at contextualizing the head structure, as does most recent art by Ray Troll. The Edestus restoration seems to mistake the nasal capsule for the eye socket, which is understandable considering how the skull looks. I personally doubt that the snout had a large notch above the upper tooth blade; the skull is only a general reconstruction and most chondrichthyan heads are far more muscular than the underlying chondrocranium indicates. Compare the skeleton of a porbeagle shark[33] to the animal in the flesh[34]. It may be tempting to compare it to a goblin shark, but those have an extreme form of jaw suspension which is not very similar to eugeneodonts and other stem-chimaeras. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi all! (Hi especially to @Carnoferox:—I've missed you!) Thank you sincerely for your kind words and suggestions. Here's an updated version of my Edestus reconstruction; I'll get to Helicoprion tomorrow. Please let me know if there's anything else that warrants being changed! Entelognathus (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Updated Edestus
- As much as I appreciate most of the changes, the eye looks uncomfortably far back on the skull relative to extant sharks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought it looked a little strange too. I was working off Carnoferox’s reconstruction but I might have misinterpreted it. Do you have a reference that shows where its eyes should be properly placed? Entelognathus (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Entelognathus: The Ray Troll reconstruction in Tapanila et al 2020 has an eye which is much further forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- No changes to the eye placement are necessary, this is really how far back the orbit and eye would be. I think this reconstruction looks great and the only thing I'd change is to move the gills a little bit forward and further down in between the pectoral and back of the jaws. I'm glad to see you're doing artwork again! Carnoferox (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Edestus was an enormous macropredatory shark the size of a great white, and all extant macropredatory sharks have eyes which are much further foward. What exactly is "this is really how far back the orbit and eye would be" based on? After Troll's reconstruction, the eye socket shouldn't be forward of the jaw hinge, but it would look better if the eye was moved maybe half its length forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is based on the skull reconstruction of E. heinrichi in Tapanila et al. (2020)[37], which I used as the basis for my reconstruction of E. minor [38]. Troll's artwork is not accurate to their skull reconstruction. Also keep in mind that eugeneodonts are not closely related to extant sharks. Carnoferox (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The new reconstruction is pretty gnarly, in a good way. I agree with basically everything that Carnoferox is saying. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is based on the skull reconstruction of E. heinrichi in Tapanila et al. (2020)[37], which I used as the basis for my reconstruction of E. minor [38]. Troll's artwork is not accurate to their skull reconstruction. Also keep in mind that eugeneodonts are not closely related to extant sharks. Carnoferox (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Edestus was an enormous macropredatory shark the size of a great white, and all extant macropredatory sharks have eyes which are much further foward. What exactly is "this is really how far back the orbit and eye would be" based on? After Troll's reconstruction, the eye socket shouldn't be forward of the jaw hinge, but it would look better if the eye was moved maybe half its length forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- No changes to the eye placement are necessary, this is really how far back the orbit and eye would be. I think this reconstruction looks great and the only thing I'd change is to move the gills a little bit forward and further down in between the pectoral and back of the jaws. I'm glad to see you're doing artwork again! Carnoferox (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Entelognathus: The Ray Troll reconstruction in Tapanila et al 2020 has an eye which is much further forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought it looked a little strange too. I was working off Carnoferox’s reconstruction but I might have misinterpreted it. Do you have a reference that shows where its eyes should be properly placed? Entelognathus (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, the files for both Helicoprion and Edestus have been updated with more accurate reconstructions. Thanks again for your input! Let me know if anything else warrants a change. Entelognathus (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Edestus looks ready to go to me. The Helicoprion should have less of the teeth visible since the whorl was mostly covered by encasing cartilage. This is not often depicted, but it can be seen in figure 2 of Ramsay et al. (2015)[39]. Carnoferox (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- As much as I appreciate most of the changes, the eye looks uncomfortably far back on the skull relative to extant sharks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Elasmotherium skeletal
Added by Iofry without review. On a cursory glance I don't see any major inaccuracies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's one hell of a horn inferred there! I wonder if it has enough teeth? Seems various skull photos show more teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah the horn is somewhat large in my view, but the size of the horn is total conjecture. It's much less absured than this restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Request: Cimoliopterus size diagram
This is going to be a bit tricky. I and JurassicClassic767 are working on expanding the Cimoliopterus article, which is about two species only known form snout tips. Though there have been various historical wing-span estimates, the most recent estimate for C. cuvieri is about 3.5 metres (11 ft), and about 1.8 metres (6 ft) for C. dunni (though the latter length was only mentioned in a press release). Some historical estmates include up to 5-6 metres, but we should probably ignore those, but you can find other diagrams based on them online, such as here:[40] The best looking diagram I could find online is here[41], but it gives the same size for both species. So it is difficult to figure out exactly what to do, but it could of course be discussed first. I think the safest thing is just to give a top view of both next to a human, with the most recent estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I might give it a go if no one else volunteers, but will also try to do a restoration of C. dunni. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did this rough size comparison featuring only C. cuvieri, since the size estimates of C. dunni are informal and contradictory. Feel free to improve. FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not bad, the head seems quite accurate and it's on top view so the position of the crest doesn't really matter much. There's not really much more to say since only part of the skull is known. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cool, I think the tip of the snout may be too wide, but will try to tweak it later... FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not bad, the head seems quite accurate and it's on top view so the position of the crest doesn't really matter much. There's not really much more to say since only part of the skull is known. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Began a sketch[42] of C. dunni in terrestrial posture. Not sure if it should have a lower crest or not, JurassicClassic767? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hm, the crest seems to start from the fourth tooth socket, so that's quite alright, though maybe you could move it just slightly more backward to make it look more prominent? The rest looks good, assuming it has a pteranodontoid body. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it is extremely rough now, so such details will hopefully be clearer when more work is done. Any view on whether there should be a lower jaw crest? FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Huh, didn't notice you already nominated the article for GA, I should probably add myself as nominator too. I think it's a good idea to add a lower jaw crest since most of its crested relatives (e.g. Tropeognathus and Ferrodraco) have it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it is extremely rough now, so such details will hopefully be clearer when more work is done. Any view on whether there should be a lower jaw crest? FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hm, the crest seems to start from the fourth tooth socket, so that's quite alright, though maybe you could move it just slightly more backward to make it look more prominent? The rest looks good, assuming it has a pteranodontoid body. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I think you should be able to just copy your name in. As for the crest, I left the lower crest out because the newer papers imply that its crest evolved independently from those of anhaguerians, so we don't know if they would have the same structure, and more closely related species only known from lower jaws don't have crests at all... But I'll add a lower crest anyway, since that's what has been most frequently drawn, though based in it being an Ornithocheirid (whatever that is now)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, most recent studies consider it a targaryendraconian, almost forgot about that, hehe. I guess we'll never know until a lower jaw is actually discovered... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here's a more detailed version[43], any comments before I colour it, and any suggestions for colour? Maybe frigate bird-like? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't other targaryendraconians lack lower crests (i.e. Targaryendraco, Aussiedraco, Aetodactylus, and Barbosania)? Granted, Barbosania doesn't have an upper crest, either, and the others are missing their upper jaws (as far as I know), so they're not directly comparable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's the weird thing, yeah. But the papers don't make any inferences for what it means for the lower jaw of Cimoliopterus, so I'm not sure we can make our own conclusions in this regard, though it's tempting. Now we do have pterosaurs with only lower crests, even... But it should be easy to remove if it ever gets suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Barbosania isn't the only targaryendraconian with a discovered upper jaw without an upper crest, Camposipterus is also another example, and it's supposedly a closer relative of Cimoliopterus based on phylogenetic analyses. There's also a possibility it could be an ornithocheirid, so maybe drawing a crest can still work... But then again, the crest could also have evolved differently, ugh, what a mess, hehe... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if Camposipterus could be the crestless female form of Cimoliopterus... Unwin did suggest synonymies across formations in 2001... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That kinda makes sense, but Camposipterus does have that front expansion of the snout that Cimoliopterus doesn't have, hence it was once classified within the Anhangueria by Kellner, but still, yeah, the synonymy might still be a possibility... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if Camposipterus could be the crestless female form of Cimoliopterus... Unwin did suggest synonymies across formations in 2001... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Barbosania isn't the only targaryendraconian with a discovered upper jaw without an upper crest, Camposipterus is also another example, and it's supposedly a closer relative of Cimoliopterus based on phylogenetic analyses. There's also a possibility it could be an ornithocheirid, so maybe drawing a crest can still work... But then again, the crest could also have evolved differently, ugh, what a mess, hehe... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's the weird thing, yeah. But the papers don't make any inferences for what it means for the lower jaw of Cimoliopterus, so I'm not sure we can make our own conclusions in this regard, though it's tempting. Now we do have pterosaurs with only lower crests, even... But it should be easy to remove if it ever gets suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really have any recomendations on the color, restorations of its close relatives have all sorts of colors. But yeah, perhaps frigate bird-like is a good idea. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't other targaryendraconians lack lower crests (i.e. Targaryendraco, Aussiedraco, Aetodactylus, and Barbosania)? Granted, Barbosania doesn't have an upper crest, either, and the others are missing their upper jaws (as far as I know), so they're not directly comparable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here's a more detailed version[43], any comments before I colour it, and any suggestions for colour? Maybe frigate bird-like? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, most recent studies consider it a targaryendraconian, almost forgot about that, hehe. I guess we'll never know until a lower jaw is actually discovered... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I think you should be able to just copy your name in. As for the crest, I left the lower crest out because the newer papers imply that its crest evolved independently from those of anhaguerians, so we don't know if they would have the same structure, and more closely related species only known from lower jaws don't have crests at all... But I'll add a lower crest anyway, since that's what has been most frequently drawn, though based in it being an Ornithocheirid (whatever that is now)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, I've also heavily modified the head of DB's old C. cuvieri restoration so it fits better with the proportions of the holotype, and doesn't have too visible fenestrae and large eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added C. dunni with colours above and to the article. The colours are after a juvenile frigate bird... The crest could have been more colourful, but hey, maybe it would only be so in the breeding season... The teeth may be a bit too big? FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- No teeth of C. dunni have been found yet, so we could probably base it on C. cuvieri's lost teeth, which were up to 3 cm. Considering the partial holotype of C. dunni is 18.5 cm long, you could indeed slightly adjust the teeth, at least the front ones, to a somewhat smaller size? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've made the two front teeth a bit smaller now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks nicer! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've made the two front teeth a bit smaller now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- No teeth of C. dunni have been found yet, so we could probably base it on C. cuvieri's lost teeth, which were up to 3 cm. Considering the partial holotype of C. dunni is 18.5 cm long, you could indeed slightly adjust the teeth, at least the front ones, to a somewhat smaller size? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added C. dunni with colours above and to the article. The colours are after a juvenile frigate bird... The crest could have been more colourful, but hey, maybe it would only be so in the breeding season... The teeth may be a bit too big? FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, I've also heavily modified the head of DB's old C. cuvieri restoration so it fits better with the proportions of the holotype, and doesn't have too visible fenestrae and large eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
"New look" for ammonites?
A new reconstruction of the brachial crown of the ammonite Rhaeboceras has been published, based on the presence and arrangement of hooks in well-preserved specimens: [44] The reconstruction includes a pair of long, hooked tentacles, and a series of shorter tentacles connected by webbing.
It seems that these features are common among the Scaphitidae. We do not have any life restorations for these ammonites so we get a pass here. What's not obviously stated is the implications of this for non-scaphitid ammonites. Do they have similar arrangements, just without hooks? Do many of them have hooks that just haven't been preserved? Do we need to change our ammonite restorations? Curious to hear what others think of this (particularly Carnoferox). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that they had only been specifically noted in Scaphitidae implies that mineralised hooks are probably an apomorphy of the group specifically and are not present in other ammonites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also, interesting paper on internal ammonite soft anatomy recently diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The arm hooks and tentacles seem to be a specialized feature of the Scaphitidae and have not been found in any other ammonoids yet. These were likely evolved independently of similar hooks and tentacles seen in extant decabrachians like squids. At the moment, there is no evidence that other ammonoids had them and reconstructions should not be updated to depict them. Carnoferox (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That being said, it would be good to review any reconstructions of ammonoids currently on Wikipedia to ensure they meet accuracy standards. I wouldn't be surprised to find ones with nautiloid features like opercula, pinhole eyes, and >10 arms. Carnoferox (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I count 14 arms on the first one below, and 12 on the latter two. And nearly all of the images under c:Category:Ammonoidea life restorations have opercula. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes, it looks like they all need an overhaul. If they can't be edited enough to be accurate, we'll need to find some other art if there is any available. Carnoferox (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think this restoration by sethd2725 is very good, albeit speculative, and unfortunately not CC licensed, but it is a good idea of what a proper ammonite restoration should look like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some of it seems too speculative for our purposes, though, like the filter feeding adaptations. Stuff like that would have to have been proposed in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- That is not a plausible reconstruction in the slightest. It is completely ignorant of both preserved soft tissues from ammonoids and the soft tissues of living cephalopods. Carnoferox (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I know fuck all about ammonoids and cephalopod anatomy generally, but it's difficult to know what a good ammonite reconstruction would even look like given that they are all so bad to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's three characteristics that they should all have: 1. 10 arms, all roughly equal in length (non-scaphitids) or with one pair modified into tentacles with hooks (scaphitids). 2. Camera-type eyes with lenses, like squids and octopuses. 3. No operculum. These are all pretty basic, but the majority of ammonoid reconstructions mess up at least one of them. Carnoferox (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I know fuck all about ammonoids and cephalopod anatomy generally, but it's difficult to know what a good ammonite reconstruction would even look like given that they are all so bad to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- That is not a plausible reconstruction in the slightest. It is completely ignorant of both preserved soft tissues from ammonoids and the soft tissues of living cephalopods. Carnoferox (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some of it seems too speculative for our purposes, though, like the filter feeding adaptations. Stuff like that would have to have been proposed in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think this restoration by sethd2725 is very good, albeit speculative, and unfortunately not CC licensed, but it is a good idea of what a proper ammonite restoration should look like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes, it looks like they all need an overhaul. If they can't be edited enough to be accurate, we'll need to find some other art if there is any available. Carnoferox (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I count 14 arms on the first one below, and 12 on the latter two. And nearly all of the images under c:Category:Ammonoidea life restorations have opercula. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That being said, it would be good to review any reconstructions of ammonoids currently on Wikipedia to ensure they meet accuracy standards. I wouldn't be surprised to find ones with nautiloid features like opercula, pinhole eyes, and >10 arms. Carnoferox (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The arm hooks and tentacles seem to be a specialized feature of the Scaphitidae and have not been found in any other ammonoids yet. These were likely evolved independently of similar hooks and tentacles seen in extant decabrachians like squids. At the moment, there is no evidence that other ammonoids had them and reconstructions should not be updated to depict them. Carnoferox (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also, interesting paper on internal ammonite soft anatomy recently diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
While we are at it for poor reconstructions, this image used on Aptychus has multiple issues with the ammonite reconstruction. (it looks like paired tentacle fronds with the amazing shrinking Aptychi).--Kevmin § 01:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly that whole page needs reworking, it's a mess of outdated information. Carnoferox (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
used on Aptychus
Request: Muensterella Life Reconstruction
A while ago, I completely overhauled the article for the Muensterelloidea. Looking back at it now, I'm wondering if a life reconstruction might be needed. There's a photo of Muensterella in the article, but I'm wondering if that's even enough for a life reconstruction. If it helps, there are a few other photographs of fossils scattered around the internet. Borophagus (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current photo might even be a copyright violation, and should be cropped so that only the fossil is showing... FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I don't quite know the nuances of Commons yet, so I can't do it right now, but it should probably be done at some point. Borophagus (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just did it with the croptool. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, brilliant. Thank you! Borophagus (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just did it with the croptool. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I don't quite know the nuances of Commons yet, so I can't do it right now, but it should probably be done at some point. Borophagus (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Bad Ambondro restoration
Between the blue fur and the weirdly cartoonish eyes and expression, I'd say this reconstruction of Ambondro either needs to be heavily edited or removed entirely. It's currently being used on 3 English Wikipedia pages: Ambondro, Henosferidae, and Yinotheria. Carnoferox (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear, hehe, but all Alannis's artwork here is like that. It needs to be tagged as inaccurate at the very least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's just straight up Sonic... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, I like this design better than the original movie design... FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was only added on the 6th of June, so few people will have seen it thankfully. Having looked through Alannis's artwork I can say that it's by far the worst piece there, the other stuff is just kind of okay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of Alannis's art seems to be okay - I like the Machaeroides, in particular! I daresay this doesn't look like Sonic the Hedgehog, but a distant ancestor of Sonic the Hedgehog! Not exactly what we want on an article discussing a fragmentary australosphenidan! Borophagus (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This reconstruction of Gigantophis is used in many pages of it in other languages, but it looks too rough and probably inaccurate considering the ratio of body. It may needed to have a better picture of this or delete the images from pages. However, it is also true that it is the best image of this author... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Erm, yes, you could certainly say that it's the author's best image. I don't want to seem rude if they see this or anything, but this doesn't seem remotely professional - actually, it looks more like a green amphisbaenian or caecilian than a Palaeophis. Borophagus (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- This image looks OK at thumb size but it doesn't hold up at full resolution. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks okay, if a little cartoonish, at thumb size. Definitely doesn't hold up once you click on it, though. Borophagus (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- This image looks OK at thumb size but it doesn't hold up at full resolution. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I was looking on the Phorusrhacidae page and noticed this reconstruction by Alexoatss (talk · contribs), which was presumably uploaded without review. It looks to have been closely based on the mount in the infobox, but there are some differences. Borophagus (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- It seems the toes on the raised foot may be too long, and the metatarsals too short? FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- The skull shape looks to be slightly off, and I definitely agree with the comments on the metatarsal and toe lengths. Still, could be worse. It could have had hand claws! Borophagus (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Homo longi skull
Thought I would do a quick and dirty sketch of the skull. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a line should be added between the eye sockets to indicate the lower part of the brow, as indicated in the photographs? That seems to be missing. And it would be a good idea to give the length of the scale bar, either on the image or in the description. Other than that, I don't see any other issues. SlvrHwk (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Request for tail edit of Mosasaurus missouriensis restoration
-
Current restoration -
Tail A, based on Lindgren et al. (2010) -
Tail B, based on Prognathodon
![[1]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_e2kDfTHT2s/YE1HG0vFRZI/AAAAAAAAA5M/kiGLHB7xNhIxhuRw_jXGtoaYU-ZLXX6OACLcBGAsYHQ/s1000/MosaWIP1.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://pasteboard.co/JSuM7ZP.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://pasteboard.co/JSuOEms.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YV_TWNnGwTk/YE6eu98H6TI/AAAAAAAAA5U/keSO3c1ioxAsbAW3P0Q5KjtBCiyfVTzaQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1000/MosaWIP2.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qi500h7ZO_8/YFFFPIcmYzI/AAAAAAAAA5g/nr661-yB1xY4MtKCJGPfIOoQ7gqnyPgdQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1052/MosaWIP3.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--37WuARHPjE/YFYFXSMXjEI/AAAAAAAAA5s/AwfFNh-nN3kfnAeoj02JVO0Litx8bolDACLcBGAsYHQ/s1380/Mosa-hoff-V2.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-chpCO70RB0s/YFZzry6cloI/AAAAAAAAA58/pMWmTx6b96AO-8Sd5CuIrOSMSh10qaWRACLcBGAsYHQ/s1500/MosaScaleV2.png){kind=link}
![[13]](https://i.imgur.com/SDOnUbE.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://i.imgur.com/FIy1QcB.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://i.imgur.com/LGMFYln.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-910DLCzOhsw/YGcfPAFVCcI/AAAAAAAAA6M/AC38we85amUiPh2l87DDkfRlK1XYXxplQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1226/Qianichthyosaurus%2BSW%2BWIP.png){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monjurosuchus.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lmIA4Okk74Q/YJCS3aIo1bI/AAAAAAAAA6o/6ZLxkmmES-42lhpINB7qtmx2ALTz-ueYwCLcBGAsYHQ/s300/Sclerocephalus%2BSkull%2BSize.png){kind=link}
![[27]](https://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/aabc/v89n1//0001-3765-aabc-201720160742-gf2.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/aabc/v82n4/24f07.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://oceana.org/sites/default/files/styles/ntsc/public/porbeagle.jpg?itok=4oaByzia){kind=link}
![[42]](https://i.imgur.com/eaH6VNg.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://i.imgur.com/5NJw5Hz.jpg){kind=link}
Per a comment from the Mosasaurus FAC, the tail for the M. missouriensis restoration seems a bit inaccurate with the available research. The tail in Mosasaurus should have a smaller bend and a more Prognathodon-like shape (Either based on Lindgren et al. (2010)'s design or the Prognathodon tail itself), but it currently looks more like a Platecarpus-like tail. It would be awesome if someone can fix the tail to something more based on either of the two more scientifically-accurate tail designs. Macrophyseter | talk 00:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Macrophyseter | talk 00:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll try to have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does this shape look[45], before I integrate the new parts better? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Shape looks great! A bit curious, though, about how it would look if the fin is a little bigger. Macrophyseter | talk 19:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The entire fin, or one lobe? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Entire maybe? Macrophyseter | talk 02:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- More like this?[46] FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went ahead and updated the image. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me but I'll let Macrophyseter weigh in on this one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Shape looks good to me. Macrophyseter | talk 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me but I'll let Macrophyseter weigh in on this one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went ahead and updated the image. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- More like this?[46] FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Entire maybe? Macrophyseter | talk 02:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- The entire fin, or one lobe? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Shape looks great! A bit curious, though, about how it would look if the fin is a little bigger. Macrophyseter | talk 19:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does this shape look[45], before I integrate the new parts better? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll try to have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Macrophyseter | talk 00:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![[46]](https://i.imgur.com/scauDdl.jpg){kind=link}
Eretmorhipis Size Comparison
It's been too long since I've last created an entirely new size comparison (redoing hadrosaurids takes up far too much time, apparently), so here's an older size comparison I dug up depicting the weird Triassic reptile Eretmorhipis, a odd member of an already odd group (Huphesuchia). Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, I always thought it was larger than that. Looks fine to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)