Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Paraeurypterus

A life reconstruction of the Ordovician eurypterid Paraeurypterus anatoliensis, consuming a Didymograptus graptolite.

I have recently uploaded this image into the Paraeurypterus article, but was then removed due to issues regarding its acccuracy and quality. I was recommended to take it here for review if possible, and be clarified on what exact issues it has, to see if they can be changed. I based this reconstruction on pictures of the fossil itself, but given my lack of practice in reconstructing eurypterids it is feasible that I missed something important, so I would be glad if I could potentially accomodate any inputs to guarantee a more accurate approach.

Thank you, in advance.

Actually there are 13 tergites, that should be 12... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The body segments are too irregular, and most importantly, the lacking of large scales across the posterior region of tergites, which is a defining characters of this genus (seperated it from Eurypterus). In my opinion, this genus is too incomplete to be reconstructed, but still Eurypterus could be use as reference since they're considered very similar [6].--Junnn11 (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, right, thanks for the replies. Yes I should probably use other more complete eurypterids as a reference, the incompleteness of the fossil was probably an issue in interpreting the animal. Don't know how I added an extra tergite in there, though.
I think we should see other unreviewed (and added in pages) works by @YellowPanda2001: as well. I like works by that user, but some of them may contain anatomycal issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The Spinophorosaurus seems to have too skinny limbs? FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Himalayasaurus is incredibly poorly known, but everything that we have suggests an animal very similar to Shonisaurus. The life restoration should probably resemble this better-preserved ichthyosaur more. A dorsal fin might also be nice, given that it falls in the Mixosaurus + Stenopterygius bracket. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I moved dinosaur images for review of dinos.aur images now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Added Harpactognathus. I think this pterosaur is partially known? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Works by User:Dotname2469

These images are not yet reviewed, but used in several pages in both English and other languages of Wikipedia. Megalodon looks outdated, and Metoposaurus looks inaccurate as well. Shouldn't Metoposaurus have flatter body and head? And I am not sure about length of Metoposaurus, as reference used for 3 m-long Metoposaurus is from childish book (Gaines, Richard M. (2001). Coelophysis. ABDO Publishing Company. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-57765-488-9.), which is used as reference for several articles, like I already deleted but in Placerias it is used for reference of length with 3.5 m which is oversized considering skull length and proportion, I think that is another problem by the way... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Metoposaurus is definitely inaccurate in terms of its head height, and the short tail and big hoof-like claws are also suspect. That poor Megalodon looks to be in great pain, and Carnoferox will definitely have more to say on it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain that the Metoposaurus is a work by Peter Minister for one of the newer DK dinosaur books, as with the Monolophosaurus at Dinosaur Zoo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
And, in fact, Dinosaur Zoo is published by Dotname Studios, making this user a potential violation of WP:ORGNAME. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like so, and for dinosaur ones I posted ones in Dinosaur image review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The head of that megalodon is pretty wonky and the proportions of the body and fins are a bit off. We already have Oliver Demuth's excellent reconstruction,[7][8] so this one can be safely removed from any pages it's on and replaced. Carnoferox (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we have so many restorations of these taxa that we don't really need to save these if they're inaccurate, just give them the tags? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ptychodus

  • Previous reconstruction
    Previous reconstruction

Well, I thought that one day reconstruction of Ptychodus should be changed, because previous reconstruction looked like benthic, unlike estimated pelagic life. Then what added to the page without review is this. (made by @Gojira Moment:) I think head looks a bit off? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the background? We could just remove the seafloor from that image. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No, more like, fin and body shapes. Still it is possible way to remove background and edit fin shapes, though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Got something to base it on? Easiest would of course just to make a new version with the sharks isolated from the background. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This thesis[9] have really rough but probably useable body shape reconstruction. Also this monograph[10] have too. Maybe you can help about this shark, @Carnoferox:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This artwork has its fair share of problems, like the caudal fin being way too large and the head being all kinds of wrong. The reconstruction in Hamm's work is frankly terrible, it's just a bad tracing of Shimada's reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina[11] and it doesn't reflect the true anatomy of Ptychodus. The only specimen showing the whole body of Ptychodus is an undescribed one at the Texas Through Time museum.[12] However, its cranium is poorly-preserved and it comes from a smaller species, so its bauplan shouldn't necessarily be applied to larger species. I think it's best to hold off on reconstructing Ptychodus for now given the lack of suitable reference material. Carnoferox (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Which one of the two is better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
As much as I don’t like the nurse shark-like aspects of the old one, it probably is the more accurate of the two. Carnoferox (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I see. Currently, I changed main image to fossil drawing. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

oh wow- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojira Moment (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 May 2022‎ (UTC)

Panarthropod reconstructions by Qohelet12

Facivermis: more body hooks
Primicaris: morphology and legs
Cordaticaris: body of Cambroraster, although perhaps it should be shorter.
Orstenotubulus: Legs with claws and specialized neck lobopods

In addition to Odontogriphus... These are very nice and high quality images, and seem to be suitable for use on other languages of Wikipedia as well. Though, the problems are as follows:

  • Body of Caryosyntrips and Cordaticaris are based on Anomalocaris and Hurdia, so possibly confuses if actual body fossils are found. Caryosyntrips in particular is basal radiodont, so their body shapes can be quite different from Anomalocaris.
  • The biramous appendages 2 on the back side of Cambropachycope look different from the front side. I think it's probably an angle issue.
  • Body hooks of Facivermis looks fewer than actually has.

@Junnn11: and @PaleoEquii:, other than that, are there any problems on these reconstructions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Its also worth to note that Cordaticaris is closer to Cambroraster and Titanokorys in recent analysis [13][14]. For Caryosyntrips, since a body length estimation based on the ratio of Anomalocaris was made by Lerosey-Aubril & Pates 2018, I wouldn't argue against the Anomalocaris-based reconstruction. I'm more concern on the wide annulation of Facivermis and non-overlapping flaps of Opabinia.--Junnn11 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jun in their concern over the wide annulations of Facivermis. If we are in need of a life reconstruction, I would be willing to make and provide one. The Orsten animals all look great based on available published material, though considering Orstenotubulus is a hallucigeniid closely related to the onychophorans, it may be wise to give it paired claws and a head more similar to Hallucigenia. For Cordaticaris, I would shrink and shorten the body somewhat, yes. As for Caryosyntrips, I'm afraid it is likely not a radiodont at all. Of course we do not yet have any reasonably complete body fossils, but phylogenetic analysis typically brackets Caryonstrips as basal to the euarthropod/radiodont split, placing it closer to the gilled lobopodians like Opabinia than to Anomalocaris - it is only recovered as a radiodont when euarthropods are excluded. The limbs on Primicaris do not so closely appear to follow published material, the inner branch should be more slender, elongate, and end in a sort of "clawed" foot. I recommend seeing this paper [15] for reference. Lastly, I'm afraid the Opabinia is wholly unsuitable. PaleoEquii (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Now I'm just realized the trunk of Opabinia was quite out of proportion... The reconstruction of Orstenotubulus apparently based on [16], but I agree with PaleoEquii that it most likely resemble a hallucigenid based on its phylogenetic position between Hallucigenia and onychophoran, with addition of specialized neck lobopods and reduced tail (it's also worth to note that such long tail is an uncommon trait amongst lobopodians, and only unambiguously evident in some distantly-related species).--Junnn11 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you point to a source that finds Caryosyntrips to be outside the radiodont-euarthropod split? As far as I am aware, it is consistently recovered in a polytomy with Radiodonta and Deuteropoda, which means that its position as a basal radiodont is neither certain nor rejected (e.g. Vinther et al. 2014, Moysiuk & Caron 2021). Non-phylogenetic studies typically assign it to Radiodonta (e.g. Pates & Daley 2017). Ornithopsis (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this point on wikipedia paleoart review. PaleoEquii (talk) 1:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If you won't provide a source for your claim, I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for reviewing my reconstructions, I tried to fix them. Except Opabinia, which I will draw again completely. Qohelet12 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
As Jun said, annulation of Facivermis should be narrower? Other than that, your fixed works looks fine to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, how about now? Qohelet12 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me! Excellent reconstructions, I particularly like the Facivermis reconstruction. The papillae on it look especially nice. And I see the updated Orstenotubulus, that looks ready to go to me, for whenever a page on the taxon is made. Thanks for your hard work. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Qohelet12 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Facivermis could still use some work, the annulations would be similar to a modern velvet worm, also including small dermal papillae covering the body. My offer to provide a reconstruction stands. The Orstentubulus looks good, though I would remove that terminal butt and have it replaced with just the legs - there should be nothing past the terminal leg pair, with the anus between them. If possible, you may consider placing only a single anchoring claw on the last one or two leg pairs as well. PaleoEquii (talk) 1:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Rostral denticle comparison

An important detail was missed in the original review: the rostral denticle labelled "Libanopristis" is not actually Libanopristis. I don't know what image the artist used, but it's definitely a rostral denticle from Onchopristis. Rostral denticles of Libanopristis are unbarbed and shaped like a kukri knife.[17] This one needs to be redrawn and the sources for all of them should be credited. Additionally, this file needs to be renamed. 4 of the 5 species depicted are not sawfishes and none of them are represented by oral teeth, but instead rostral denticles. Carnoferox (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

After my initial post, I realized that the rostral denticle labelled "Onchopristis dunklei" is not actually Onchopristis dunklei either! It is instead Australopristis (Fig. 7D of Martill & Ibrahim, 2012)[18] and needs to be relabelled. Carnoferox (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Tagging @PaleoGeekSquared:. Carnoferox (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Discokeryx xiezhi skeletal diagram

I made this skeletal diagram of the newly discovered Discokeryx, and I would appreciate knowing if the proportions seem accurate. The skeletal material is based on the paper (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl8316) and the body silhouette is based on that of an Okapi. I included the keratinous dome on the top of the head in the silhouette. Feedback is appreciated, thanks. If it looks usable for the article, let me know please. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So this is a pretty blatant edit of the Dinosaur Planet Prenocephale, surely this is grounds for swift deletion on account of being most certainly violating copyright correct? Armin Reindl (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. Patachonica (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Request: Protorosaurus skull diagram

Protorosaurus skull diagram

There is a nice skull diagram of Protorosaurus in the 2008 redescription (p. 140). It'd be nice to see it adapted and color coded to put in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely do this, especially since the redescription and preservation are quite nice. Though there is technically a free copy of the skull diagram already available at figure 17A in Ezcurra 2016[19]. That said, it is covered with character state labels and I'm not sure if it's transformative enough to slip past copyright. It might still be worth a shot. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Should be easy enough to remove those characters from the diagram?[20] I'm more worried about the implications of "(A) Modified from Gottmann-Quesada & Sander (2009)". If it's redrawn, it may not be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's my take. Like the original diagram, it's mostly based on NMK S 180, though the scaling appears to be a bit different so I didn't specify that it was that specimen in particular. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Kelenken imagery and request for size diagram

Kelenken is currently at WP:GAN, and I will send it to WP:FAC afterwards, but the images could need a look through here first. I've modified my old restoration and one that showed up on Commons recently to match more closely how the skull would have looked in an uncrushed state. The other images are heret for good measure, and while one editor has stated they will provide a better size diagram, this hasn't happened yet, so I might have to request another one here, if anyone's up for it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  • My old restoration revised
    My old restoration revised
  • Restoration of a group I modified from the right
    Restoration of a group I modified from the right
  • Original of left
    Original of left
  • Rough drawing of occiput
    Rough drawing of occiput
  • Reconstructed skeleton in Japan I can't find trace of anywhere else on the web
    Reconstructed skeleton in Japan I can't find trace of anywhere else on the web
  • Oversized silhouette
    Oversized silhouette
  • New diagram
    New diagram
  • Is it just me, or does the group scene seem to depict an altricial juvenile? I don't know much about terror birds but that doesn't seem very probable for a flightless cursorial species, especially given how large the depicted juvenile is. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Had some discussion of this on the Discord server, and I expressed something similar, but the maker of the WIP size diagram said they were most likely altricial, though I don't know what that's based on. I guess based on modern seriemas and birds of prey. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
No direct evidence has been found either way, but yes, phylogenetic bracketing would predict altricial juveniles in phorusrhacids. Albertonykus (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Maiaspondylus

Life restoration of an ophthalmosaurid ichthyosaur Maiaspondylus lindoei giving birth. Is this good for the article? (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov). HFoxii (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Those foreflippers are very huge, was that the case in Maiaspondylus (I don't know very much about M. lindoei in particular)? The general anatomy looks pretty good, although it seems to be missing a caudal keel. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: Model proportions are based on N. G. Zverkov's skeletal. In fact, there is a tail keel here, but perhaps it make sense to make it more pronounced? HFoxii (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably would make sense for it to be more pronounced, it's pretty distinct in the porbeagle, which has a similarly short body and tail stock. It also would probably be good to mention what the proportions of the model are based on in the file description, too. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: It's better now, isn't it? HFoxii (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks good! The only remaining point I have is that based on closer comparison with the skeletal, the forelimbs may be a little too long (although I don't think the forelimbs of Maiaspondylus are complete, so that should allow for a little leeway). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: Skeletal and model match when superimposed (see [21]). HFoxii (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, it looks like the perspective confused me. It looks good to me. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Haplophrentis

Only reconstruction of Haplophrentis in commons looks like outdated. This study[22] shows its soft tissue and different direction of "horns", although description of that paper is on article of Haplophrentis but reconstruction is not updated. Also we should consider about this study[23] about reconstruction of hyoliths as well. @Qohelet12: and @PaleoEquii:, I wonder if you can help about reconstruction of this animal? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried, is it ok? Qohelet12 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It looks so nice to me! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Then it's okay 👍 Qohelet12 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Kinyang skull recon

Skull of Kinyang mabokoensi

A quick skull reconstruction of Kinyang mabokoensi based on the type material and articulated. Also have a version with a soft tissue silhouette however not uploaded since I'm not sure if its going to be needed (especially given the poorly preserved lower jaw). Armin Reindl (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is a version possible with just the known material? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
this is just the known material Armin Reindl (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Reconstruction for some of Riachuelo Formation's fauna

Riachuelo_Formation

Reconstruction of some of the Fauna of the Riachuelo formation i did for the wiki article, any critiques? Paleo Miguel (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Restorations by Marcio L. Castro

Came across this while looking for cynodont restorations. Only the Siriusgnathus one is currently in use on the English Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The rhynchosaurs have cartoonishly large eyes and I'm not sure the premaxillae should be covered in keratin. But no major quibbles otherwise, I think? I should also add that these appear to be (at least only slightly modified versions of) press release images, so I wouldn't expect major flaws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Straight tusked elephant

Restoration by DFoidl
Size estimation of P. falconeri and Cygnus falconeri

Lacks the crest at the top of the skull that is seen in more accurate reconstructions, like the one in this 2020 press release [24]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

How are the other ones we have?[25][26] FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The first one is from 1916 and doesn't see that accurate , the second one doesn't really reflect the large splenius musculature that is inferred from the size of the crest, see this figure for illustration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly, the old one seems to show the neck more accurately then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Request: Palaeoloxodon falconeri size comparison

P. falconeri size comparison

Would it be possible to make a size comparison compared to a human for Palaeoloxodon falconeri? There's some good size references with scale bars in [27] (open access, but not under CC-BY) and [28]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: what individuals do you want in the chart? Adult male, adult female, and calf? I don't know much about elephant anatomy, but I think I could probably figure it out with the skeletals. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
All three preferably. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
What about this image, though it is mainly for C. falconeri? Author of this image is same as this Thylacoleo[29] that failed review, so I am really not sure that image is accurate as well, even though that it was added in the page without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Its not exactly clear what the scale is supposed to be. The comparison is also in a nonstandard front view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's the size comparison (sorry about the wait). Hopefully I haven't made any egregious errors. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Really good, thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Kaikaifilu life restoration

Kaikaifilu

I've done this life restoration of the tylosaur Kaikaifilu hervei to replace the one currently used on the page, which seems to have a number of anatomical problems. While this is a highly fragmentary taxon, I've tried to keep it in line with generalized tylosaurine proportions, and have given it a layer of blubber based on the cold water temperatures of the Lopez de Bertodano Formation. Are there any issues with using this reconstruction in the article? Gasmasque (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me. By the way that is not directly related to that, but I think 12 m-long estimation of Moanasaurus is really outdated? I don't know what that position in phylogeny is, but it is even not suitable if with proportion of Plotosaurus, 78 cm skull with total length 12 m is like head:total length ratio around 1:15, almost twice of Mosasaurus... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually there is, since some researchers argued that this species is not really a tylosaurine due to its fragmentary nature with no exclusive tylosaurine traits (some even contradictory). Junsik1223 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
What traits would imply that the animal is not a tylosaurine? I know this taxon is extremely fragmentary, so could this reconstruction still work even if the animal wasn't definitively a tylosaurine, and if not what would need changing? Gasmasque (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think Kaikaifilu should just be reconstructed as a generic mosasaurid until taxonomic revisions are made (though to be fair I think it still works with this). What Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell (2019) said was, "due to the extremely fragmentary nature of the material (most of the specimen is fragments of rock preserving natural molds and shards of bone), and the likelihood based on preserved dental characters (no complete teeth, but rather most teeth are internal casts of the pulp cavity) that it is not a tylosaurine mosasaur (PJ-H and MC pers. observ.), it will not be included in this analysis." Junsik1223 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Stanleycaris

Hello, I drew a group of Stanleycaris, taking into account that the body was found recently. Is it correct? Qohelet12 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't see anything that's really different from the press release reconstructions, so I say that it's probably good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
As I see it looks nice and accurate enough, what do you think @Junnn11:? (I think it is fine to make your one for showing one specimen, and using this art for ecological life reconstruction will be really nice.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Beside the number of flap-bearing body segments (17 instead of 18 in the recent description), I think it is accurate in both morphology and ecology. It might takes some time, but recently I've planned to make a reconstruction of Stanleycaris as you noted, as well as neuroanatomical diagrams each based on the earlier and recent discovery.--Junnn11 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict you, but there's actually 18 flap-bearing body segments in this picture on each specimen. Larrayal (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Opps, I'm sorry for my typo, I mean "18 instead of 17 in the recent description", the correct segment number should be 17. Junnn11 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The external segmentation of the body should not go all the way to the fins - around halfway, it should slowly transition to a smooth, uninterrupted body like other radiodonts - making it clear that these are not true "arthropod" segments. Its a similar condition to Opabinia, where the leathery cuticle becomes rigid and compact to form ridges along the back (dont know how well I phrased any of that, check the published Stanleycaris reconstruction and diagram to see what I mean). No comment on the position of the setal blades, I'm undecided about them. Best to follow the description for now. Good work as always. PaleoEquii (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed about non-clear segmentation for life reconstruction, though clear segmentation is good for reconstruction that shows anatomy? I really don't know which is better for this art. Anyway number of segment looks like fixed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Especially for an ecological reconstruction, it would be best to accurately depict the anatomy - as is, in the drawing, the segmental boundaries reach all the way to the flaps, diving the body entirely; very arthropod-like. This isn't what we see in the fossils. The visible segmental boundary only extends about halfway down the body, smoothing out before getting close to the flaps [30]. Additionally, to this point, the body should probably be made slightly wider in the middle. PaleoEquii (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for your reviews, how is it now? Qohelet12 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it looks fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. Appreciate your hard work. PaleoEquii (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Roman Uchytel's works

As Inostrancevia size chart that reviewed before (and looks like removed now), User:Alex Uchytel uploaded these reconstructions by Ukrainian paleoartist Roman Uchytel's works, who worked the study of the horn of Elasmotherium[31]. Still I am not sure that Alex Uchtel is really Roman himself, and this user looks like just working for posting Uchytel's works, saying like other person. (Here is contribution by them) As I see these edits I wonder if these are copyvio. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah I noticed that @HFoxii: contacted Roman and considered he is Alex at here. Still I am not sure that Inostrancevia accurate? And it have Carnivora on its category... (Anyway categories of these files looks a bit messy) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
If that is indeed him, it should somehow be clarified in the image descriptions, because some of them were nominated for deletion before due to the confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, it's a bit puzzling that this user just seems to be posting and promoting a link to Uchytel's website. I wonder if it's related to the anti-war activity on his website,[32] then we might be convinced. But still why did they add images of lesser-known animals (except Inostrancevia) than the more well-known animals like mammoths and Smilodon? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys! My name is Alexandra (Alex) Uchytel. I am co-founder of Prehistoric Fauna project, and Roman Uchytel is my husband.
We decided to put our reconstructions of extinct animals on Wikipedia for several reasons:
1) educational reason, because we are addressed by many teachers and professors
2) anti-war campaign, as you mentioned above
We just started looking into how to upload images and information on Wikipedia, so we might be wrong about some of the technical details. We would be very grateful if you could help us with this. Thanks in advance Alex Uchytel (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice initiative, and good to know it is "official". I think it would be good to clarify in the image source descriptions that Roman has consented to these being uploaded, because now they are credited to you (Alex), which has caused some confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please give me a link to how this is done? Thanks in advance Alex Uchytel (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the author field of one of the images, you can see it currently says "Author Alex Uchytel". It could perhaps be changed to Roman instead (or to Roman and you), and perhaps it could state on your Commons userpage here[33] that it is an account shared between you and Roman, and perhaps state what your goal is? FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Alex Uchytel (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the commentary. If anything, I think the website link should be in the Commons description instead of article itself. (Probably one in "external link" may good though) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
After problem is solved, I think we need an image showing the shape of the Elasmotherium horns in a new study for comparison. Is it possible to upload it? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You want this to be on the Elasmotherium main page? Alex Uchytel (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it will be for comparison with the existing long-horned reconstruction, so probably that should be on around middle of the page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
ok thanks, we’ll think of the best way to realise it Alex Uchytel (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way is for you to upload the image first, post it on this page, check it, and then edit it or let someone else edit it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. How can I find the Commons description? Thanks in advance Alex Uchytel (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
One on "Summary" of commons file page. Basically, I don't think it's that good to have a link to an external website in the middle of the page, so it is better to be in file description. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
ok, thanks Alex Uchytel (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@HFoxii:, as original image of Inostrancevia was deleted, I think you need to change credit of this image? (This image is added on the page of Synapsida by Fossilader, because previous image with human example is controversial.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I did it right now. HFoxii (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Nice. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chacaicosaurus

Forefin
Life restoration

Here's a drawing of the partial forefin of Chacaicosaurus, based mainly on the photograph in Fernández (1994) (which is admittedly not the greatest photo quality). The anatomy of the limb seems to differ notably from Fernández's own diagram of it, which is definitely interesting. How does this diagram look? I may also attempt to make a life restoration for this guy, I'm not sure if the one we currently have is all that accurate. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The restoration looks fine, but the shading on the caudal keel is a little weird. The forelimb looks good but I must admit I don't see how the photograph and diagram differ. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I would expect the transition from the two lobes of the tail to be smoother, now it looks like the middle part is very distinct, like it is much broader there? I even think the shading should maybe just continue along the lower margin of the lower lobe, not continue across the middle. Like it is now, it doesn't look like the lower lobe consists of the actual tail bones, as would be the case, it looks like that middle bulge is the tail bone, more like a fish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I toned down the caudal keel and made it resemble that of Esben Horn's model in Eriksson et al. (2022), which looks like what FunkMonk described (the paper's CC BY 4.0, I might have to upload some of those figures sometime...). As for the forelimb the published diagram (Fig. 4 in description paper) shows many elements as more anteroposteriorly elongate than they look in the photo, there is not overlap between elements as present in some places in the photo, the elements are less tightly packed, and some of the phalanges seem to be smaller. I've gone ahead and added my diagram to the article as it became devoid of images of the genus save for the photo of the interclavicle, which somehow didn't seem adequate for the taxobox. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks much better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I've colored the life restoration; how does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Very nice! Makes it really clear that the lower lobe is actually the tail. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm particularly happy with how this one turned out. Unless anyone else objects, I'll probably add the restoration to the article soon (which should be about ready for GAN...). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Very nice indeed. I would go ahead. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Added. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Kwanyinaspis

Crude drawing of the carapace of Kwanyinaspis, after the part of the holotype

Somewhat crude drawing of of the artiopod Kwanyinaspis from the Cambrian of China that I intend to create an article about. Drawn after the part type of the holotype and the diagram of such in the initial description paper available on researchgate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the description, the tear-drop shaped structures are ventral eyes, with the only indication dorsally being a slight, smooth bump. Thinking it would be better to remove them from the drawing, or to only draw a slight curved edge to indicate the bumps. It also seems you've drawn the tail bit as a single structure, while judging by the pleural spines it should be made of 3 small tergites and a tail spine. PaleoEquii (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I've made the recommended changes, at least as far as the original diagram in the 2005 paper goes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Abyssal's size charts in use

Why these charts haven't reviewed yet? These are Abyssal's charts that is still in use for articles, excluding ones that are already replaced. These charts would have been quite helpful in the early days, and even now they are easy to understand at first glance. The problem, however, is that these figures are not based on actual skeletal elements, they just fit Nobu Tamura's illustrations to the scales described in the page. Now I don't even know if those sizes are actually correct. Some of Nobu Tamura's work may have problems with proportions, which is not as good as a diagram based on skeletal elements. Cotylorhynchus, for example, looks much taller than that really is, because the proportion of tail length is much shorter than it actually is. Also although not in use, but new size chart of Cymbospondylus may useful, as some non-English Wiki uses this[34] inaccurate chart. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

They could be replaced, yes, someone just needs to make replacements... For now, we can just tag and remove those that are clearly inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I've listed some comments below. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see Nobu Tamura credited in any of these charts, despite all of the silhouettes being direct traces over his illustrations. This is especially egregious given that Steveoc is credited for the grid, key, and PD Pioneer man, none of which are even copyrightable!
  • Excalibosaurus, Trinacromerum, and Baptanodon are all shown in perspective, which is very problematic for diagrams like these
  • As a parvipelvian, Excalibosaurus should not have a markedly heterocercal caudal fin.
  • Somehow I only just noticed this but NT's Steno has fore- and hindlimbs of subequal lengths (whereas the hindlimb should be markedly smaller, see Maisch (2008) for many examples). I haven't done a detailed check of proportions, but the rear margin of the caudal fin should probably be more smoothly rounded. There is a high-quality CC BY 4.0 restoration here, so we could replace NT's with this one in the article.
  • Temnodontosaurus looks too thin-snouted (i.e. [35]), its hindfins are too short, the limbs seem to narrow, and it seems to have a bit of a "neck"
  • Trinacromerum has too thin a neck, the foreflippers don't really have much in the way of trailing edges here, that hindflipper kind of looks like it's on backwards, and it may need a caudal fin.
  • I dislike the gill-like line on the Ophthalmosaurus. Additionally, O. discus is actually a jr. syn. of Baptanodon natans (as to whether Baptanodon is just another species of Ophthalmosaurus...)
  • The skull of Muraenosaurus is too demarcated from the neck, the hindflippers are intensely lacking in flesh, and the tail needs a caudal fin. The hump back is also suspicious.
  • Dolichorhynchops has too thin a neck.

Ancestors.gif

This file looks like really inaccurate and confusing. Although it seems to be phylogenetically compatible to some extent, the selection of species is inconsistent, and there is no uniformity in the species used, such as current and fossil species, and it is simply confusing. This image is used in page Evolution of fish which page itself needs huge update, and I deleted that image, however @Epipelagic: added this again. The caption does indicate that it is "obsolete," but no clear source is given that it was once shown that sponges evolved into sea anemones, and sea anemones evolved into Kinorhyncha. To be honest, I don't see any merit in keeping this image that way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk • contribs) 2:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Til humans are descended from Kinorhynchs and are therefore protostomes. Thanks Obama. Update: I've gone ahead and removed the gif. It was irredeemably bad 2000's Wikipedia trash. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a poor-quality and entirely unnecessary image. We don't need Walking with Monsters-style animations that depict evolution as a linear process. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ectenosaurus reconstruction

Ectenosaurus

I'm still really not all that knowledgeable about mosasaurs, but hopefully this recon is fine to use in the article. Is there anything I should change about it? Gasmasque (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't see any issues with this restoration, and I like how you represented the genus' long thin skull nicely. Good job! Macrophyseter | talk 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Proterochampsa

This reconstruction looks like really outdated. Compared to this skeletal reconstruction[36] (be careful, that figure looks like mistook scale bar, actually likely to be 5 cm), limbs are too short and too crocodile-like, also possibly tail is too long although not all is preserved. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be possible to fix. How do we feel about its downturned snout? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The snout shape doesn't look too off to me. Bigger issues I see include the multiple rows of osteoderms (when they appear to be absent in this species), the slightly too long temporal region (probably based on P. nodosa), and the croc-like hind feet. Other proterochampsians tend to have fairly long feet with a very thick second toe, a long third toe, and a very thin fourth toe which is nearly as long as the third. Based on its preserved metatarsals, Proterochampsa seems to be the same. Here are some good papers on the species:[37][38][39]. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Eardasaurus

Here is a life restoration of the recently described pliosaurid Eardasaurus powelli. Are there any problems? HFoxii (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe remove the text? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the text. On first glance it looks like it also may not have enough teeth. Eardasaurus had a ton of them. 5-6 in the premaxilla and 34-35 more in each maxilla. Add to that 38 teeth in each part of the mandible. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, text should be left for the captions and descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The foreflippers could be a bit broader and taper less quickly, they seem to only barely be wide enough to contain all the preserved phalanges, and those digits are incomplete and there would have been a trailing edge on the flipper. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pahvantia fossil interpretation

I made this image shows two different interpretation of Pahvantia from images in Commons, is that look accurate, @Junnn11: and @PaleoEquii:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the drawing accurately represent both interpretations. It's up to you, but I think it still can be improve by showing the original photographs alongside the drawing as well, since B (Caron & Moysiuk 2021) was technically based on two pieces: part with most of the supposed endites and gills (fig. 6a) and counterpart with most of the supposed podomeres (upper inset of fig. 6b). Junnn11 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see, thank you for advice! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Triassic Ichthyopterygians

It seems that huge swathes of our ichthyopterygian restorations haven't been reviewed, so I'm posting all of our in-use Triassic ones here yet to receive a review. I've already noted some issues in their captions; how do the others look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing go home
About the lack of lips, I don't think any of the other ones are restored with lips here either? Also, we don't know if it's even inaccurate. Also, look at those exposed chompers of the Ganges river dolphin, doesn't seem to be taken much into account in the "lips debate". FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The Besanosaurus could probably be easily fixed, but is it just me, or does it look like its rostrum is too short compared to the skull diagram in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the Besanosaurus does seem to have too short a snout. With regards to lips: yeah, a lot of them are missing lips, I just forgot to mention them (although quite a few do actually have lips). I never really though about the Ganges River dolphin before (many beaked whales also have exposed teeth too, but those seem to be specialized tusks); however, recent published reconstructions (i.e. Kyhytysuka, Stenopterygius) are shown with lips. Although lips apparently can be lost with relative ease, I'm not sure if that means not giving ichthyosaurs lips is a good idea; cetaceans have also lost their dorsal fins at least four separate times in species with radically different anatomies, sizes, and ecologies, but I'm somewhat doubtful that it would be a good idea to depict, say, Ichthyosaurus without a dorsal fin; it gives a somewhat misleading impression. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Not arguing against lips as such, just saying that I don't think we can say the lack of lips is inaccurate either, and tag images as inaccurate based on that. But I'll see if I can fix some of these... Seems I'm the only one left modifying inaccurate images? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
An any restoration I can base the Contectopalatus paddles on? FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Besanosaurus: I'd say definitely too much; in the original description Besanosaurus is said to lack a tail bend (I'm not sure whether this really is the case, given that it has the neural spine direction reversal, but it suggests that the bend would be pretty modest if it did exist, and therefore support a more modest fin). I'd personally use Mixosaurus for approximating the upper lobe's size ([41]) (or perhaps Scott Hartman's skeletal of Shonisaurus, though no soft tissue is known for this taxon), although as mixosaurids have markedly different caudal anatomy from merriamosaurs, I'm not terribly concerned about the shape.
Alright, do you think the current bend in the tail is too much also? FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Made the upper lobe a good deal smaller, how is this?[42] FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks better! With the bend in the tail, I'd always assumed it was just perspective, as if it were coming out of a sharp turn or something. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Could be, I'll update it now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and are its jaws too short, by the way? Look much longer in the skull diagram in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like that may be the case, though judging by the holotype, the entire head seems a little too big, and the jaws too deep. Comparison with the holotype skeleton also seems to favor slight elongation of limbs and tail (per the [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cristiano-Dal-Sasso/publication/259757398 description paper). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking again, the issues with postcranial proportions may just be due to perspective. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and shrank the head, made the jaws longer, and made the curve of the neck less extreme, to make it more in line with newer restorations like this.[43] FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks nice. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
A bit late, but it seems worth noting that a dorsal fin would be implied via phylogenetic bracketing. Not sure why I didn't think to say this before. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so a small one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, we can't really say; but I think the one you added to the Guanlingsaurus looks nice, may as well do something similar here. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Added dorsal fin. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Contectopalatus: This paper has some good photos and diagrams of the forefin ([44], Fig. 8; note that this paper treats Contectopalatus as a synonym of Phalarodon; mixosaurid nomenclature is still a bit of a mess). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Everything we know about Himalaysaurus (which admittedly isn't that much... [45]) suggests an animal extremely similar to (or potentially identical) to Shonisaurus, so it might not be bad to modify its proportions to be more in line with this genus (i.e. longer snout, deeper chest, longer flippers, shorter tail stock). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, after reading Fishboy's comments on Himalayasaurus and reviewing the literature, it seems like this genus did have a shorter snout than Shonisaurus (Fig. 15 of [46] contains a very small drawing of the known material). If anything, the jaws might not be deep enough here. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if a skeletal from 1972 can really be trusted? FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that the supposed coracoid turned out to be the radius; probably not! The little flippers definitely don't mesh well with our understanding of merriamosaur anatomy. Given the quality of the skull (see fig 4c in Motani's revision) I'm not sure how much we really can say about the length of its jaws, though it does look like the actual bony part would have been quite a good bit deeper than the crown height. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Mosasaur cranial kinesis

Diagram of of bone movements between joints in mosasaur skulls, specifically showing the differences between a typical mosasaur (Tylosaurus as random example) and the really evolved Plotosaurus. Looking to see if cranial movements are accurate. Sources are Russell (1967)[47] pg 60-65 and LeBlanc et al. (2013)[48] pg 195-244. Macrophyseter | talk 06:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Recumbirostran life restorations

Over the last decade, there has been a revolution in the systematics of "microsaurs", with most modern studies now considering microsaurs belonging to the clade Recumbirostra to now be early diverging sauropsid amniotes rather than reptiliomorphs, and to have had a burrowing (fossorial) lifestyle rather than being aquatic. That means that these images are now outdated. I think the skin covering is generally okay, as the visibility of scales is up to artistic license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Since these just show one hypothesis, I don't think modified versions should be uploaded over them, but as separate files. I think most of these could be saved by removing backgrounds and such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Removing the backgrounds would still leave most of them in an awkward floating aquatic pose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, if we imagine they were fossorial, they would work as underground digging poses too, no? And it only seems to be a real issue with the first Micraroter and the Lysorophus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed a cropped version of the Odonterpeton image was already uploaded, so I took the liberty and removed the single fish in it, added to gallery above, and will add to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Microsaurs are almost certainly a polyphyletic group, so this isn't suprising if true. this 2020 paper suggests that Microbrachis an other "microbrachomorphs" don't really fit into the modern framework of microsaur systematics and require further investigation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh about microsaur, should we mention about possible Triassic record that is reported in the original description of Beishanodon[50]? Though it looks like not described yet, and as I see what only found is this. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The microsaur page is currently a very, very bare stub. It needs way more work than that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I only just noticed this conversation. Personally I would not say that "most modern studies" consider recumbirostrans to be amniotes. That hypothesis was mainly supported by one paper which emphasized braincase characteristics. We could just as easily say that microsaurs are ancestral to lissamphibians, since that is also a non-consensus hypothesis which is still present in many published papers. The best option would be to discuss all of these hypotheses on the page itself. I agree that there's good evidence for most recumbirostrans having adaptations for subterranean life. That said, there is probably a lot of variation and plenty of taxa capable of both forms of foraging, like with moles, platypus, some caecilians, snakes, etc. From personal experience I know that lysorophian aestivation burrows akin to those of Diplocaulus and lungfish are common in floodplain deposits. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, even if we assume they were mainly fossorial, that hardly means they were unable to swim? So it would be mainly the one with the amphibian-like eggs that would be downright inaccurate? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Even the one with amphibian eggs is not downright inaccurate. As I said, recumbirostrans as amniotes is not a universal consensus position, and is mainly supported by iterations of a recent phylogenetic analysis (from Pardo et al. 2017's Lethiscus CT redescription ([51]). It's not necessarily wrong, but microsaurs have flip-flopped between amniotes and amphibians for more than a century and this is far from the final say on the matter. Marjanovic & Laurin 2019 is another well-cited paper with a big phylogenetic analysis and completely opposite position as stem-lissamphibians. In my opinion the best option would be to retain the illustration with a caption along the lines of "(interpreted as an amphibian)". The behavior is moderately speculative, as the description states it's inspired by amphiumas. Still, egg-guarding is widespread among vertebrates of all walks of life, especially amphibians, so I think it's fine. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Harpactognathus

This restoration is clearly traced from a Jurassic World Dimorphodon promotional image. The skull is also too short for a scaphognathine. Miracusaurs (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I didn't notice that... Yeah Yellowpanda uploaded some works without review, as I mentioned before. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Should be DR'ed then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Works by User:BTMTheMarshmallow

This user once reviewed reconstruction of Gemuendina and Liaoconodon, but after that they continue to add reconstruction without review. I deleted Nochelaspis, Clymenia, anaspidomorphs, as these look clearly inaccurate. Now this user added reconstruction of Galeaspida, what do you think of that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also as I see their contributions, this user looks like sometimes adding information without reference. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Also remember to add inaccurate tags (if you haven't already) so there is less chance they will be re-added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Request: Orovenator skull diagram

Orovenator skull diagram

Is it possible to create a skull diagram of Orovenator? There's a good reconstruction in Ford and Benson (2019) [52] (freely accessible through the Wikipedia Library). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to handle this. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's the diagram. I think the scaling is based on the juvenile holotype but none of the papers have provided a firm answer besides the scale bars provided in their skull diagrams. I'm not great at making my own scale bars off of photos, so I just used the pre-existing scales. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
One thing I just thought of, which may be retroactively applicable to other images, is to remove the bone labels from the file itself, and present them in the caption (as is done for the mosasaurs below). This makes the original image less likely to be copied into other files of other languages where the bone labels are the only difference, so that only one version needs to be maintained. Just a thought. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Moving the labels to the file description would make the image less legible at a glance, which I consider more important. If other users want to make derivative images changing the labels, to their own language, that's fine, but we shouldn't be compromising image legibility. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I put the labels in the file description on some of my earliest diagrams (Vancleavea, Qianosuchus, and Buriolestes), but like Hemiauchenia said, it removes a bit of its first-glance educational quality. A description-based legend looks fine when you're on the file page, but few people go that far when looking for an image, especially if it's republished on a Wikipedia clone or Google images. That's also why I've added taxon names, specimen designations (for diagrams based on single specimens), and scale bars in more recent diagrams. It maintains context which would certainly be lost if someone doesn't bother to track down the file description. The biggest factor in my earlier decision to move the legend into the image is that the description "preview" you get when clicking on an image messes with the formatting, since bullet points don't work in the preview. Languages are a fair point, but I've seen some of these files translated or re-used without translation on other wikis, and most of the bones have Latin roots and fairly consistent names in other languages. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatlus imagery

It just occurred to me that none of our Quetzalcoatlus images have been reviewed, so in light of the redescription, here they are (excluding obviously inaccurate ones). FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Mark Witton has himself pointed out[5] issues with this work, but are they enough to deem it inaccurate?
    Mark Witton has himself pointed out[5] issues with this work, but are they enough to deem it inaccurate?
  • The species is unidentified, but since we don't have good images of Q. lawsoni, and it's obviously based on it, perhaps worth labelling it as such?
    The species is unidentified, but since we don't have good images of Q. lawsoni, and it's obviously based on it, perhaps worth labelling it as such?
  • Mainly there for cultural significance, so not important how accurate it is, though as a Witton work, it probably is
    Mainly there for cultural significance, so not important how accurate it is, though as a Witton work, it probably is
  • Probably has issues in light of the redescription, at least with some of the posterior cervicals
    Probably has issues in light of the redescription, at least with some of the posterior cervicals
  • Beak too blunt, almost looks like it's based on Wellnhopterus? The type specimen was labelled as Q. sp. by Wellnhofer in 1991 after all
    Beak too blunt, almost looks like it's based on Wellnhopterus? The type specimen was labelled as Q. sp. by Wellnhofer in 1991 after all
  • Not too bad?
    Not too bad?
  • Too small head?
    Too small head?
  • Limb posture is odd, but is it inaccurate?
    Limb posture is odd, but is it inaccurate?
  • Angle maybe hides inaccuracies?
    Angle maybe hides inaccuracies?
  • Witton's skeletal
    Witton's skeletal

There is also this one[53] by NT which hasn't been uploaded yet, worth it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I must say that I'm not a huge fan of Headden's bipedally running pterosaurs; this is not a very lifelike posture. Perhaps the lifted leg could be removed, making it look more like it just touched down? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't it look like a landing even if both legs were retained? In any case, we also have Witton's older skeletal (added above), which despite of course having some issues now, shows a quad launch FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Priapulid worms of the Chengjiang

Hello. Here are some reconstructions of almost all known priapulids from the Chengjiang, excluding Selkirkia. I made them quickly so if there are any errors, feel free to discard them. PaleoEquii (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Bisticeratops Life Reconstruction

Hello, I've illustrated a life reconstruction of Bisticeratops, is this suitable for the article? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the large spikes all over the body. Epijugal would be angled slightly more towards the frill, but otherwise looks good to me. P2N2222A (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you should crop out the blank space on the left. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
not really blank space though, there's the shadow P2N2222A (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Gyrosteus by Nobu Tamura

I'm not sure how much is known of Gyrosteus, as I can't find an open access copy of Woodward's 1889 description [55], but based on skeletons of other members of Chondrosteidae I've seen, the appearance looks too sturgeon-like. In particular, the flank scutes seem to a unique feature to sturgeons and not shared with other Acipenseriformes, and their position on the body looks like they may have been a misinterpretation of the spinal column. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, there are probably too many barbels, while the presence of barbels is probable for all Acipenseriformes, living sturgeons only have four, while paddlefish have two, see An overview of Acipenseriforms page 49, which are more likely to be the plesiomorphic number. There's definitely more than four barbels visible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, once this image was replaced with a better reconstruction. Despite having permission to post the image, it was removed and then NT's one was re-added by a user unaware of the inaccuracy of that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, there are no life restorations of chondrosteids made by scientific publications, other than perhaps fishboy's one that you mention. A great shame that it got deleted, but given Yewtharaptor's penchant for copyright infringement, that was understandable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a life restoration of a chondrosteid in a scientific publication. It’s even Gyrosteus specifically. It’s in “Gyrosteus mirabilis - ein großer Störverwandter aus einem Ahrensburger Lias-Geschiebe” (Hornung & Sachs, 2022). Fishboy86164577 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I already mentioned it above other than perhaps fishboy's one that you mention because you mentioned it in your tweet https://twitter.com/fishboy86164577/status/1550786664280125440 that it's for that publication. Also, given the mouth posture in your restoration, are chondrosteids thought to have been suspension feeders or macropredators? I can't find any comments on their ecology in the literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Request: Tyrannasorus rex (beetle)

I'm requesting an image to go on the page Tyrannasorus rex. Photographs as well as illustrations of the holotype specimen can be found in this paper for reference. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologypapers/46/ Di (they-them) (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I previously worked on illustration once[56], though I know it is rough so maybe I can recreate as diagram, though not sure. If others can do that I'll let them to do. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Early Jurassic Ichthyosaurs

Hauffiopteryx
Excalibosaurus

In the theme of our Early Jurassic edit-a-thon, here are a couple more ichthyosaurs. I've updated the Hauffiopteryx from the original version, and am planning on coloring it soon; additionally, I've finally finished and uploaded the WIP of Excalibosaurus I'd been alluding to on the Discord server. Thoughts on these two? I may also try to fix the teeth on my Eurhinosaurus and upload that (or maybe (finally) color my Cymbospondylus... or just totally fail to do either in my currently limited time frame.) --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What was its ecology? Feels a bit pale. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be uncertain, though it may have been fairly similar to Stenopterygius (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirley-Cortes/publication/342461664]). I'll look in to darkening it a bit more, I really need to turn my screen brightness further up when coloring... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
That does look better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Gigantopithecus scale image stance correction (file:Gigantopithecus v human v1.svg)

Hi! A discussion started on the WP:Discord Wikimedia Commons channel and it was recommended to move it here. user:Magnatyrannus and user:Larrayal pointed out that sources indicate that the bipedal posture is unrepresentative, so I used file:Gigantopithecus.png to swap in a quadrupedal stance instead. The results can be seen here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/222346047547113474/1010283591521022012/Gigantopithecus_v_human_v1.svg As this would be my first paleoart edit, I am eager to hear if I have stepped in any of the usual pitfalls or made other errors. Thank you. Arlo James Barnes 20:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

the link seems to be download only Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realise, I use a browser extension (Imagus) that loads it on hover. Here's a PNG preview, hopefully it fares better: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/222346047547113474/1010279287133311016/unknown.png Arlo James Barnes 21:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the original is pretty bad (and slightly terrifying), even ignoring the bipedal stance. I have a couple comments about your update:
  • The whole image looks very cluttered and difficult to read, mostly due to how large all of the text is. You should make all of it much smaller, or, preferably,
  • Make a legend for all of the names/labels at one side, as is traditional for Wiki size charts.
  • The text shouldn't overlap the subjects (like how "Gigantopithecus giganteus" obscures the top of the male figure), and the subjects shouldn't overlap each other (like how G. blacki overlaps the female figure).
  • "Meters" could be abbreviated as "m".
  • Having both female and male figures is unnecessary, but not a huge problem.
Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that does help. I decided it was time to overwrite, let me know what you think. I kept both human figures because there was horizontal room from the labels, and since Gigantopithecus is said to have dimorphism I thought it appropriate to use human dimorphism (which is admittedly less prominent) in the comparison. I didn't see an estimate for the female shoulder height for either G. blacki or G. giganticus, but if/when one is sourced other silhouettes could be added. Arlo James Barnes 04:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's better than the last version but the red horizontal lines feel a little distracting and unnecessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I can remove those. Magnatyrannus further pointed out that G. giganteus has been moved to Indopithecus and so should probably also be removed from the comparison. Arlo James Barnes 20:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
If people here give me an updated height estimate I can scale it (or someone else can too, I don't own the file after all). Arlo James Barnes 20:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I assume you got the height estimate from the tallest gorilla on record. I haven't seen an actual height estimate for Gigantopithecus. The most recent attempt I guess that I've seen is https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(79)90111-8 where he concludes Gigantopithecus's limbs were 20 to 25% longer than a gorilla's based on average gorilla body proportions between the molars and the long bones Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Request: Mymoorapelta size chart

Diagram illustrating the size of Mymoorapelta.

Is it possible to create a size chart for the Jurassic nodosaurid Mymoorapelta? I'm trying to get its page updated and expanded, but it lacks a good size chart. Most of the material has not been fully described but there is a skeletal by Henry Sharpe that was posted on Twitter. The anatomy of the animal is very similar to that of Gargoyleosaurus, which already has a size chart. Augustios_Paleo (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (EDT)

For the record, it has been made, added it above for review (remember to do this). FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

While checking some stuff in preparation for a larger edit to the Dow's Puffin page, I noticed that the copyright information on this piece is less than reassuring. The artist is only credited as "unknown" while giving the vague "internet" as the sole source. After a little digging and matching the signature, it seems the image was taken from the website Ornitofrenia by Polish artist Piotr Gryz. According to the website all rights are reserved and with the incredibly vague copyright info on the upload I am surprised this wasn't caught earlier (unless of course i'm missing something here). This is ESPECIALLY concerning given the fact that the image is used across multiple pages not just on English Wikipedia but also on Wikidata and foreign language wikipedia pages. Still, as I am not exactly experienced with the matter and execution (nor do I want to rush too quickly to deletion in case I am missing something someone else might now) I thought I should first bring it up here and leave deletion notices to someone else. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering the uploader's other images are screenshots of websites, the case seems pretty clear. It should all be DRed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_19&oldid=1242175597"