Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

User:PlacodermReconstructions's Placoderm reconstructions

Gorgonichthys
Coccosteus
Titanichthys
Dunkleosteus terrelli
D. marsaisi

These 3d renders of various Placoderm fish have all been added to their respective pages without review. There seem to be minor anatomical issues with them, such as potentially the size of the eyes, and the large pelagic Arthrodiran fish differ significantly from the proportions expected based on Amazichthys. A couple of these pages already have perfectly serviceable-looking life restorations as well. I thought it would be worth having y'all look over these to double check, since I'm not too well versed in Placoderms myself. Gasmasque (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism of my reconstructions! After all, criticism is key for improvement. I should take these anatomical issues into account. As I'm typing this, I'm actually rendering a new Gorgonichthys clarki recon, with a noticeable change in patterns of its skin color. Maybe I can change the fin shape? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the feedback into account. Since most of these aren't known from postcrania I don't think the body reconstructions you've done are inaccurate necessarily, and I don't think those need to be changed. My main criticism is that on some of these the portion of the eye containing the sclerotic ring/capsule seems to be fully embedded into the tissue of the face, while it is externally visible in living fish. This is a common mistake among artists who are used to working with birds or reptiles, but I was wondering if there was a specific reason for this design choice since, again, I'm not too knowledgable on placoderms specifically. Also, since there are already two reconstructions of D. terrelli featured on the Dunkleosteus page I don't know if it would be unreasonable to ask if yours could be slightly modified to represent one of the other members of the genus, since I'm not aware of any life reconstructions of D. raveri or D. marsaisi on Commons. It's great to see someone stepping up to the plate to do Placoderm reconstructions for the site, as many of the ones used currently are a little on the outdated side, and I definitely appreciate your efforts so far. Gasmasque (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget Dunkleosteus amblyodoratus. Also, i think I have a plan for including the thicc sclerotic rings into the eyes: Make the eye texture slightly transparent on Blender, then make a model of the sclerotic rings, insert it into the model's eyes. What do you think? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As I see the problem is you forgot anal fin of Coccosteus. Not sure that Amazichthys had one, but seeing fossil preservation it may be just not preserved even through existed. Though since it is omitted in reconstruction in paper[1] (which is CC-by so useable) so safe to leave it no anal fin though, it is up to you. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Did that plate behind Coccosteus's pelvic girdle, support basals for an anal fin like the anal fins in other fish? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Or fin radials? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

While I am not especially good at placoderm, I think @Carnoferox: well knows about that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is currently no evidence of radials attached to the anal plate in Coccosteus. It's possible they were reduced in size and number and unlikely to preserve, with the ceratotrichia making up the majority of the fin. It's also possible they were absent and the ceratotrichia made up the whole fin. In any case, I do think the anal plate was the base for a fin. Carnoferox (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so basically the plate was a primitive version of the structure of a shark's anal fin? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh by the way @PlacodermReconstructions, do you want to make reconstructions of newly described placoderms and early fish, especially Xiushanosteus and Shenacanthus,[2] as well as galeaspid Tujiaaspis?[3] Paper and video[4] shows excellent reconstructions that you can use as base. Although researcher @Plamsome who contributed studies of Fanjingshania and Qianodus added information of these two taxa on Wikipedia, but did not do that for other three and said that "my colleagues will provide information to Wikipedia" on their talk page. But it looks like not contributed yet and Plamsome themselves looks like not active now. Since these are quite important study about early vertebrates, so I hope you can work on these. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry now I noticed that you said PC is not working... Still art (Bungartius, I added to gallery) looks fine other than being dark which someone can fix. Opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@PlacodermReconstructions:, well I appreciate to your contributions of nice reconstructions, but I think probably some needs review, especially Tityosteus. Also images look currently too dark. Want to hear opinions by others, as I see Bungartius and Onychodus are fine but not sure since I am not fish specialist. Though replacing main image on page may problem, probably it will be better to replace fossil image from this CC-licenced paper (prob I will upload images).[5] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Carolowilhelmina
Bothriolepis

Again @PlacodermReconstructions:, you SHOULD NOT do drive-by replacing existing restoration without review, aside from that reconstruction is clearly wrong or your reconstruction is well referred according to study. I agree swordfish-like morphology works considering ecology, head shape looks bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, don't add stuff before it has been reviewed. Also, seems the Dunkleosteus was made shorter after that new paper, does that look right? I think we should keep restorations to a minimum in that article. Four smilar restorations in one article, and very speculative at that, is kind of ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Moropus Restorations

NT's M. elatus
NT's Moropus edited by me
Alannis' M. elatus
DerpyDuckAnimation's M. elatus bust
Robert Bruce Horsfall's M. elatus
Roger Witter's M. oregonensis

I recently realised that Nobu Tamura's Moropus is depicted erroneously as a knuckle walker like Anisodon. I did a quick basic edit of it & I'm in need of some thoughts & critiques. Might as well bring up the restorations of Moropus up for review. Monsieur X (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yours look better, but the new claws look quite unsharp? I think most of Alannis' restorations are unfortunately a bit too cartoonish to use. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a quick & dirty edit. I've made the claws longer & sharper. Any thoughts?

Looks nice, only thing is that now the claws on the lifted hand look short in comparison? FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Edited the lifted claws. How's it now? Monsieur X (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks more natural, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus size

As suggested by Hemiauchenia, I made a diagram featuring several length estimates for Dunkleosteus terrelli. This was a particularly puzzling diagram because two recent authors use rather different morphologies for their Dunkleosteus. Given that the first authors didn't include reconstructions for this animal in their articles, I went for the outdated Coccosteus-like body, which was very common ([6] [7] [8]) before Ferrón et al. 2017. I have my personal comments on all this mess, but I'd like others to weigh in. In the meantime I'll be adding cites/references to the file description. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Maybe the figure text would be better placed at the bottom of the image, as it does look a bit awkwardly placed at the moment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Should older reconstruction need advanced dorsal fin? Since it was already known from Coccosteus although only shown in one study. Probably good to hear opinion from @Carnoferox. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The outdated reconstructions don't need a larger dorsal fin, as it was not restored correctly back then. Carnoferox (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the skull be of the same scale in all, as this is the only part that was known to all authors who've made estimates? FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Strangely enough, even the Engelman 2023 figures have different head sizes... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
That is one of the biggest issues. Anderson & Westneat 2007 vs Engelman 2023 estimates have the most regular-sized skulls, which is totally the opposite for the remaining authors. For example, downsizing the skull and thoracic armor of Ferrón et al. 2017 estimate would require a body so l o n g that the animal would look like some kind of eel. Why authors didn't question such extreme body sizes despite the known skull sizes baffles me. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Fishboy has brought up on discord that the top two restorations appear to be traced from a skeletal by Scott Hartman [9]. This seems to be copyvio, and I don't understand why this was done when we have freely licensed alternatives that could have been used instead [10]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the same subject, the lower two silhouettes also seem to be more or less direct traces, which is okay as both are under attribution licenses, but more explicit credit (including the artists and licenses of the originals) needs to be added. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That is rather unfortunate, when writing the file description it slipped my mind to give Hartman credit. Ignoring his work as never the idea 🤨. I thought Hartman made it clear that his skeletals could be used as long as credit is given. I would like to add that the ends of the fins are not the same, nor are the pectoral fins. Thoracic armor and jaw tissue also differ in thickness. However, if this is not enough I can always redo the silhouettes. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

His website license disclaimer, while quite reasonable, isn't a carte blanche to release derivative works of his under a CC-BY license (at least as far as I can tell). To quote: That said, the images themselves are copyrighted - you can't decide to put one in a book, museum display, etc. without licensing them. And while the pose itself can be copied (in fact, please do) the outline of the image cannot be - i.e. if you make your own skeletals please adopt the pose, but you can't cut and paste the outline onto a children's toy without permission. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh but also there is work uploaded in phylopic,[11] which is usable under CC BY 3.0. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, it seems fine then. It needs to be properly credited tho, with a link to that page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Now added to the file description 👍 . PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-giant-mouths-oral-dimensions-extant.html

Paleoart of Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi

Hello, Here is my paleoart of Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi, a very fragmentary species of Titanosaurian Sauropods from Maastrichtian of India. Until recently, it would have been considered a nomen dubium, however Pal & Ayyasami have put up strong evidence in support of its validity.

Even then, it's only known from a single limb bone. As such, it is impossible to know what its actual proportions were along with the size. What I have made here, thus, is supposed to represent only a possibility of what Bruhathkayosaurus may have looked like based on a lot of speculation inferred from other Titanosaurs. The limbs are taken directly from the figure provided by Pal & Ayyasami, however. Please review and inform me whether it is accurate to Titanosauria or not, and whether the page for Bruhathkayosaurus even needs a reconstruction given how fragmentary it is. The only reason I made this is because I saw some other unrelated fragmentary species also have paleoart on their pages and thought the Bruhathkayosaurus page could use one too.

Thank you, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk • contribs)

Fantastic artwork. It generally looks fine to me for what little we know. I've added the "speculative paleoart" template to your post, due to the fragmentary nature of the genus. Monsieur X (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Monsieur X: I really appreciate your thoughts on my work, thanks. But I'm still not sure on whether it would be fine for me to add this illustration to Bruhathkayosaurus' page, I'll give the description as only a possible reconstruction instead of a life reconstruction of course. Would you say it's okay for me to put it there? - Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think captioning it "Speculative reconstruction of Bruhathkayosaurus as a titanosaur" might suffice in my opinion. Monsieur X (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Monsieur X: I have added the illustration to Bruhathkayosaurus'page. Once again, thanks for taking your time to help me out. Still, if you, or anyone else later finds anything off in terms of general anatomy, please inform me here and I'll make the appropriate changes to the work. Thanks again, have a great day. - Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part; the extensive neck wattle may be too speculative for purposes on Wikipedia. The pose of the left hind foot suggests it should maybe be planted on the ground. Should that leg be brought down slightly to touch the shadow? -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a wattle/dewlap until now. Thought it was just red coloured skin. Yeah, it's a bit much. I also noticed two grey rectangular artefacts above the head, but that's an easy fix. Monsieur X (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The partially lifted foot could probably use a somewhat larger "pad" underneath it as well. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the elephantine skin texture is a little problematic. The texture on the left hand looks a bit better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming everything on the neck that doesn’t have said texture is dewlap, we might want to tone that down a lot. Otherwise it might be too speculative for Wikipedia purposes. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Planning on returning to this, Ansh Saxena 7163? I think the consensus is that the dewlap should be toned way down. If the artist doesn't return, someone else might want to do it, because it's currently used in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Hi! Apologies for not responding earlier, kinda been off the internet for a while due to some stuff. I have read the issues put forward here with my work and I agree I might have taken way too much artistic liberty with it. I will tone down the highly speculative features and post an updated version when I'm done, but I'll have to wait a couple days before I can start with it cause I've got an important exam in a few days to focus on, so in the meantime if someone else wishes to edit the work and tone down the features please feel welcomed to do so! But if not then I will fix it myself. Thank you for informing me, have a good day. - Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 8:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, no rush as long as it happens somewhere down the line, sporadic editors tend to forget to return... FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi paleoart, updated to suggested fixes

Hello! I have made some quick edits to my work as per the changes suggested here, I'll acknowledge them briefly here: 1) Removed the neck wattle/speculative display structure. 2) Adjusted the feet to better align with the shadow on the ground. 3) Removed the minor anomaly on the upper right corner of the canvas, as someone pointed out. 4) Made some very minor changes on the proportions of the tail.

Potential problems that may still be present: 1) As mentioned above, due to personal time constraints, this is just a quick edit and this may not look as polished and refined as the original file. If this does not suffice, I will make a more refined version but it'll take a little more time, so putting this up for consideration first. 2) I did not change the elephantine skin texture, which user Lythronaxargestes suggested could be problematic. This is because changing the texture at this point (because I've merged several of the texture layers) will be messy and may result in a lot of work needed to be re-done, again it can be done and if necessary it will be, but if it's not super necessary I'm a bit reluctant to doing it. 3) I'm a bit worried that on removing the wattle I may have made the neck a little too narrow. Some comments on the neck proportions would be appreciated. Thank you for your considerations, have a wonderful day.- Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly looks better, but I'll let the sauropod experts answer the finer points. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Since it's been like a week since I've posted the updated version and no one else has commented, should I at least, for the present, replace the one currently used on the Bruhathkayosaurus page with the updated one and then wait till others review it, since this one fixes the main problem which seems to have been the display structure? Or should I wait for other people to review it? Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ctenochasmatid illustrations

Balaenognathus size chart
Forfexopterus size chart
Forfexopterus skull

Size chart of the recently described Balaenognathus and a size chart and skull reconstruction of Forfexopterus (pinging Lythronaxargestes who recently expanded the page). If preferred, I can upload the two skulls as separate images, depending on what works best for the article. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Forfexopterus mostly looks solid! Some minor things:

Proportionally, it seems that you have SDUST V1003 as being pretty close to HM V20. Just checking to make sure that you've accounted for the forearm and fourth digit of HM V20 being proportionally a bit longer.
I don't think the "step" over the nasoantorbital fenestra in the fossil is a genuine anatomical feature. This region of the skull is badly preserved and the paper does not comment on it.
Note that Forfexopterus has a "pseudo-odontoid" process at the tip of the dentary.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I did make sure to differentiate the arm proportions between specimens, though it is kind of hard to tell. The slightly more vertical posture of the smaller specimen is a result of the proportionally longer forelimb. I'll fix the "step" at the top of the skull. That was one of my concerns when I was illustrating it. I assume the "odontoid" process is discussed in the tooth occlusion paper? I don't have access to it. How would that affect the appearance in my reconstruction? -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The odontoid is pretty small; it should be shorter than the teeth but be directed anterodorsally. Here's a screenshot of a relevant figure: [12] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the weird crest. Sorry about the wait. And pardon my ignorance, but I'm still confused about the odontoid. How much should it change the current appearance? Is the lower jaw just supposed to come to a sharper point? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just a little spike. But I'd also be OK with adding the images as-is. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

How does this look? Apologies that it has taken me more than a month to make these revisions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I like it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism in Shringasaurus

This is an early sketch of my artwork representing inferred sexual dimorphism in Shringasaurus. I need some comments on the anatomical accuracy before I can go on to colour it and add details. Would really appreciate if someone could help me out with this.

In the famous Shringasaurus bonebed, it was observed that some individuals possessed horns on their frontal bones whereas others lacked horns. This was interpreted by Sengupta et al. as probable sexual dimorphism as is seen in many mammals today like cervids for example but is rarely, if ever, seen in other archosaurs. sengupta et al. <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08658-8"> --Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little doubtful of the massively thick-necked skeletal reconstruction that's floating around. Evidently the cervical and dorsal neural spines should be taller than in Azendohsaurus, as described in the paper, but it really doesn't say much more than that. I think that there are potential scaling and distortion effects at work here (the skeletal is a composite of a multi-individual bonebed), and the articulation of the pectoral girdle looks off in the skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Coccosteus reconstructions

A selection of Coccosteus reconstructions for their review. I also wanted to review the Coccosteus reconstruction by PlacodermReconstructions, but the author in his user profile says not to use it, so I don't know if should use it here. Nevertheless, do you have anything to say about these reconstructions? - JurgenTask (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Engelman's one looks fine, this uses ecologically estimated dorsal fin shape. One by Entelognathus is good at color, but feels dorsal fin is reconstructed too large. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

When I discussed the dorsal fin with Entelognathus, she said that the fin-shape we see in the fossil is the base that didn't rot off from the corpse during decomposition and burial, and that it implied a higher fin. She then pointed me to a blog and paper, ~~let me see if I can find it~~ discussion in question and link therein.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe Engelman and Entelognathus were drawing on the same source here (h/t to Carnoferox), so there may be reason to shave down the latter slightly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I know based on that source, it is especially based on carpetshark, but not sure about difference of fin size between two reconstructions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ohh, I never meant to say you couldn't use my Coccosteus recon, I was saying "Stop using Coccosteus for Dunkleosteus recons", referencing that Coccosteus was used as a basis for post-thoracic Dunk recons in the past, and also the meme "Stop Posting About Among Us".[13]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiGM7D2wZlI PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Placoderms

Lunaspis
Titanichthys
Materpiscis
Groenlandaspis (color based on actual finding)
Holdenius (only jaw is known from this)
Mcnamaraspis
Dicksonosteus
Kudjanowiaspis
Bulongosteus
Eastmanosteus
Bianchengichthys
Entelognathus
Ailuracantha
Cartieraspis
Wufengshania
Heterosteus

Others

For this time probably good to see other reconstructions by Entelognathus. (excluded Brindabellaspis since it was once reviewed) I think it is pretty reasonable to reconstruct body/fin shape from living fish, but possibly can be extreme considering fin number and anatomy? (e.g. two dorsal fins) Curious points are these:

Even through mostly spine of ptyctodontid is considered as base of dorsal fin, Materpiscis does not reconstruct like that.
As I reviewed before, Wufengshania look too extreme, even through it is only known from plate around eyes. It is hard to understand to belong to group close to Bothriolepis.
Keel of Tullimonstrum is not evident as I know.

Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, a minor quibble, but the official reconstruction of Tullimonstrum doesn't have the eye bar elevated above the skin at the midline like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the tully shouldn't really that keel in the trunk, although I'm having a hard time with the eye bar criticism, as looking at offical reconstructions, the eyes seem to be correct, but I am not as well versed with the Tully's anatomy as other organisms. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Odobenocetops

As I'm currently reworking the page for Odobenocetops, I ended up putting together this diagram for the range of motion of O. leptodon. The basic angles are drawn after the work of Muizon and Domning (see "The anatomy of Odobenocetops (Delphinoidea, Mammalia), the walrus-like dolphin from the Pliocene of Peru and its palaeobiological implications" by Muizon and Domning, 2002) with the body being primarily based on belugas, proportioned to lie between the length estimates given in the 2nd Edition of Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Muizon 2008). Armin Reindl (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be an abrupt transition from the torso to tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Endoceras giganteum

Good day, all! Just finished making this illustration of Endoceras giganteum, the page for it lacks a life restoration last I checked, so I made one. Please comment on the anatomical accuracy, and if it's good, whether I should add it on the page.

All the details about the references used and inferences from phylogenetic bracketing are in the description. Thanks!-Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume that @Carnoferox: has some opinion on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia The coloration looks nice, the operculum (hood) looks accurate, and the tentacles don't have suckers like in coleoids. There is also 10 tentacles present, so this looks pretty accurate for a restoration. However, I will say that it looks somewhat like this reconstruction. Although it is more likely that Ansh used it for a reference point. https://incertaesedisblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/reconstructing-fossil-cephalopods-endoceras/ Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have minor criticisms: the operculum should be slightly larger (the same size as the shell opening), the adhesive ridges should be smaller and more numerous, and the siphon should be scrolled/unfused like nautiluses.[14][15] The blog post used for the reconstruction should be credited in the image description. Carnoferox (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Carnoferox: I have updated the file. I made the operculum a little bigger, although in the original image I meant to show it at an angle so at least some of the problem with the size would have been due to the perspective, which is why I've only slightly increased it in dimensions. Other than that I have made the siphon scrolled, but seeing how in images of nautiluses the overlap of the flap is usually on the ventral side, I am not sure if showing it here is correct if we go with Endoceras having a similar siphon since the back of the animal isn't visible from this angle. Regardless, I have added the overlap. I couldn't find any good references for the adhesive ridges in pictures of Nautilus, so I just made them a bit smaller and added 2 ridges where in the original only 1 was. I didn't actually use that blog post as a reference as someone else suggested, and didn't know about it at the time of making. For references I asked some friends on discord for help and they gave the papers and the image used in the blog post to help with perspective. But after seeing it it's likely that's where they sourced those references from, so I've linked it in the description. Also just a request, but please ping me when replying since I don't get notifications when someone replies without a ping, thanks.-Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ansh Saxena 7163: The operculum and adhesive ridges look much better. For the siphon, see this image[16] for where the overlap should be placed. Once that is fixed, the image should be ready to go on the page. Carnoferox (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've updated the file again with the overlap in the right place. Should be visible in the image. I've also added the file on the Endoceras page, but the page honestly could be better, ideally such an image should go under a more appropriate section like the description of the animal or a palaeobiology section, but seeing that the page currently lacks those sections I've added it under the "size" section for the time being. If there's anything still wrong with the image feel free to remove it (please inform me if anyone does so, I'll make the image better).

Thanks for the help, have a good day. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Williamsonia diagram

Based on figure 2 of [17]. @Fanboyphilosopher: given that you are seemingly the only other editor who cares about Bennettitales, do you have any comment? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks good. Generally I would add some color to give it more visual impact. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, any further thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's looking good (at least once I refresh my cache), though some of the ~~interseminal scales~~ seeds are partially transparent while others are fully opaque. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Paleoart from DataBase Center for Life Science

A lot of illustrations from a site called DataBase Center for Life Science (which appears to be Japanese) have been uploaded to Commons, and most of them seem to have been made by the artist Kouhei Futaka, and look pretty good. So here they are for review, I have no idea about the circumstances during which they were made, and it's possible there are more on that site. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah they are something in my mind before. At least Spinosaurus and Hallucigenia are already tagged as inaccurate as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Both the Brachiosaurus and the Stegosaurus seem to have some anatomical flaws, and the perspective on the Allosaurus' neck and skull is quite a bit off in my opinion. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the Therizinosaurus is based on GSP but there's no way that tail and legs are correct. It's almost like they've been displaced laterally. Similar issue with the Tyrannosaurus, the front half of the torso looks shifted vertically and the neck is way too thick. And likewise on the Diplodocus the perspective on the head and hindlimbs is just completely off. The two sauropods share the warped arrangement of the pedal unguals that makes me think the author doesn't understand how they should be oriented.

Edmontosaurus looks fine asides from whatever that ilial ridge is supposed to be.

Most of the armour on Ankylosaurus looks fine but it falls apart behind the hip (compare Saurian's model from a similar perspective).

For Pteranodon I think the issue here is that the artist has digits I-III overlapping digit IV ventrally where this should obviously not be the case.

I don't even know where to start with the Lystrosaurus. This one's not fixable IMO. The skull shape is completely wrong, the limbs are too large, and the beak is missing.

Our fish experts can chime in here, but I don't believe the combination of that dorsal fin and gigantic heterocercal tail is present in any Dunkleosteus reconstruction from the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes The eye on the Orthoceras looks weird, to me at least. Shouldn't it have an eye similar to modern nautiloids and not coleoids?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Smilodon fatalis
Edmontosaurus
Platecarpus ictericus
Dimetrodon
Ichthyostega
Deinonychus antirrhopus
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus
Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis
Diplodocus carnegii
Ankylosaurus magniventris
Ichthyosaurus communis
Therizinosaurus cheloniformis
Allosaurus fragilis
Tyrannosaurus rex
Triceratops horridus
Woolly mammoth - tagged as inaccurate due to sparse fur, but we know it was seasonally affected
Brachiosaurus altithorax
Pteranodon longiceps - one of its hands is gone?
Lystrosaurus
Diplocaulus
Archelon
Dickinsonia
Plateosaurus engelhardti
Pikaia gracilens
Orthoceras
Hallucigenia
Dunkleosteus terrelli
Archaeopteryx lithographica
Stegosaurus stenops
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (by a different artist)

FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the above comments, it doesn't bode well for most of these, and we should add inaccuracy tags. So let's consider it the other way around; which of these are usable? The Edmontosaurus was given the green light, but depending on species, shouldn't it have a skin crest and more of a dewlap? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

With a slightly lengthened skull I think it passes for annectens. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't that be explained by foreshortening? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps? The artist is not good at perspective. But see this image: [18] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want my two cents on Dunkleosteus, the thoracic shield seems too short. Looking at Cleveland Museum of Natural History specimens, CMNH 5768, CMNH 6090, and CMNH 7424, the trunk shield should be almost as long, if not, as long as the skull. PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ichthyostega and Diplocaulus look quite good in my opinion, even if the former would be more presentable if rotated 90 degrees clockwise (which is an easy fix). We have needed a good representation of Ichthyostega for a while now. One could argue a few minor quibbles (like whether the fifth and sixth toes of the hindlimb are combined into one fleshy digit, or whether the otic notches should have spiracles), but overall it's a big step in the right direction. I'm tempted to say Pikaia, Pachycephalosaurus, and Plateosaurus are fine, though someone with more knowledge of those taxa may disagree. The gnarly-looking fingers on Plateosaurus look odd, but that may just be a trick of perspective. Dimetrodon is difficult to assess; the mouth is very fleshy almost like a mammal, and the sail is proportionally maybe a bit too tall and smooth, plus it has a very abrupt transition to the back. We already have quite a few good Dimetrodon reconstructions so we probably don't need another. Regardless, we should add a note saying that it's D. angelensis, according to the source. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The Plateosaurus seems to have claws on the fourth and fifth fingers, which it shouldn't, has demarcated fenestrae, and an overall odd posture. As for the Ichthyostega, is it better than the one currently in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

New artwork by DBogdanov

First new Commons artwork from DBogdanov in years which needs review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk I’m pretty sure elasmotherium had a nasal boss instead of a typical horn based on this https://zmmu.msu.ru/rjt/articles/ther20_2_173-182.pdf. Also shouldn’t plesiosaurs like Kaiwhekea not have lips. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The latest paper isn't necessarily the truth, I don't think the horn/boss issue will be settled any time soon. But yeah, plesiosaurs probably didn't have lips... FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Could the lipped Kaiwhekea katiki be fixed by taking the teeth from this[19] restoration by the same artist? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thyestes looks fine considering larger tail specimen that was once considered to belong to other genus but later assigned to belonged to this genus.[20] I am not sure whether it had spines whole around the body though. In addition did it have pectoral fins? As I see well-preserved relative Auchenaspis did not preserve that, and considering probably finless Tremataspis is also related, possibly it lacked? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, to be honest I am really not sure about hind leg of Gerrothorax. In study at 1946, it was reconstructed with large-sized feet which looks suitable to swim, although it also mentions extract pes shape is hypothetical.[21] Aside from Peters one, as I see skeletal reconstruction like that art is found here,[22] though I am not sure that is enough reliable since that is not main topic in that paper, and that researcher have some not widely-accepted theories like algae-gathering placodonts or synonymization of Cretoxyrhina and Isurus. Are there other papers which show skeletal reconstruction of that? Though morphological difference of Gerrothorax within multiple specimens may be reasonable considering how long only one species in genus existed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A recent reconstruction can be seen on page 86 of this monograph: [23] It does not seem that the feet are known in the material described therein either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, then that reconstruction looks reasonable, enough to exchange with NT's one. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pliosaurus irgisensis is very inaccurate. It’s based off of an old mount that has since been destroyed (how much was real vs. reconstructed is unverifiable, and its general appearance is highly at odds from what we know about Pliosaurus (and other derived pliosaur) proportions) with a highly distorted and partially reconstructed skull. It shows in the resulting reconstruction. All we actually have of P. irgisensis is the back of the skull, and the species may not even be diagnosable. It should be reconstructed like a generalized Pliosaurus after animals like P. kevani, carpenteri, or rossicus. The soft tissue over the flippers is also quite odd. Bogdanov’s P. rossicus is somewhat better, although the external ear is incorrect. The flippers should also be proportionally larger for this species, and the base of the flippers lack necessary bulk and muscle. The back is seemingly somewhat arched, which is not a condition seen in any sauropterygia- but it could also be generous amounts of fat on the torso. That one should be usable with some edits. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the P. irgisensis is unsalvageable then? But the P. funkei could be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't known much about P. funkei, though it could perhaps use more muscle mass at its limb bases, they're a bit skinny right now. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've enlarged the fins of P. funkei, made the bases more muscular, removed the ear, and made the back straighter. I believe Fishboy86164577 was referring to this image instead of P. rossicus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Clepsydrops collettii
Varanosaurus
Estesia (looks like file name have typo)
Chemnitzion
Pliohyrax
Bolosaurus
Kvabebihyrax
Varanodon
Watongia
Gerrothorax
Sauripterus
Karaurus
Turfanodon
Doliodus
Pterichthyodes
Georgenthalia
Pliosaurus funkei
Asterolepis ornata
Ptychodus
Palaelodus ambiguus
Barameda
Mamulichthys ignotus
Thyestes verrucosus
Pliosaurus irgisensis
Pederpes
Telmasaurus
Pachycormus
Dissorophus

Are the rest more or less fine to add? FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Took a quick look through the Turfanodon jiufengensis description. On the skull there should be bosses raised above the surface of the skull between the nostrils, the morphology of which is clearest in Figure 11B; this is an autapomorphy. The tail should be a bit longer, 30 cm compared to the skull's 33 cm. Then there are the standard controversies about the fur and the ear hole. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Also looked at Watongia and Varanodon. They generally look close enough to modern reconstructions of Varanops (we should maybe fix ours). The forelimbs don't look quite right though, see Fig 33 in the Ascendonanus paper. In particular it seems like Watongia should have a massively muscled forelimb that isn't reflected here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I can probably fix the bosses of Turfanodon and remove the ear, as for the varanopsians, Fanboyphilosopher seemed to question their erect gaits on the Discord server, but it appears the skeletal you linked shows it too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Older DBogdanov artwork needing review

Ichthyovenator may have comments on the eurypterids here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus may have something too. I'm still thinking of fixing this eurypterid from the same batch that was reviewed some time ago (now that I understand their anatomy a little more):[24] FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator was the one that worked on both Slimonia and Campylocephalus, so the insight I can give is limited. From Slimonia all appears good though the animal in general looks kinda shrimp-y, specially on the appendages (limbs). For some reason the second pair of the six (the first was hidden behind the head plate and shouldn't be visible here) is different from the third to fifth, but other restorations show it like that too and the article does not describe the appendages in detail so I guess it's good. Campylocephalus is pretty weird and Ichthyovenator would definitively be able to give a better opinion. I personally don't see anything wrong with the restoration. Super Ψ Dro 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, @Lythronaxargestes On the topic of eurypterids, the Pterygotus looks decent, but the first appendage on the head should be much shorter than the next three. Also I counted 11 opisthosomal tergites in the trunk region before the tail, when in others I've seen (including Junnn's reconstruction) has 12. Also does anyone know if P. anglicus had a tail with those spikes on the sides like it is seen here?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The inaccuracy tag on Commons points some of those issues out, some were also pointed out at the old review:[25] I'll try to fix those issues. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Got it, thanks. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking again, since we already have Junnn11's accurate restoration[26], I don't think it's worth the time to do the extensive edits needed to fix this one. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably problem is this image is still used in many pages and afraid of appearing image search. Since some of them are Abyssal's mass outdated list pages... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a general issue we don't have an easy solution for, how to replace inaccurate art which has been superseded by accurate art, or is otherwise used a lot of places even after having been removed from taxon articles. No easy answer, other than having to do it manually... But yeah, it also speaks for correcting images even when not really needed, but if it's very hard it may not feel worth it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Various Archosaurimorphs

Stegotyranno (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems the Ornithomimus has a border under the image that could be cropped, and some smudge by the neck that could be removed? I wonder if the Shringasaurus horn extension is a bit too speculative. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also on the topic of the Shringasaurus, is it just me or does the skull look a little blunt?. Based on other reconstructions (like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shringasarus.jpg) the head looks more elongated. Also the head looks to big compared to the neck (or is that now outdated). Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The horns definitely seem excessive. They're depicted as much longer than the bony cores here, and the little curlicue at the end doesn't seem in line with how horns generally grow. The Shringasaurus also appears to be depicted in an erect-limbed, digitigrade posture, not the sprawling stance one would expect in a basal archosauromorph. The proportions are also unlike every skeletal made of this animal, although it's a bit difficult to be sure how accurate any skeletal's proportions are from available data. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The tail also looks too short based on other reconstructions. Fossiladder13 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The tail of Shringasaurus is not known from very much material, so it's hard to say. The length of the tail relative to the torso as depicted here appears to be more or less consistent with what has been reconstructed for Azendohsaurus, so it's one of the few things I'm not too concerned about here. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, is the Yangchuanosaurus decent? Stegotyranno (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks so, but where's the ear opening? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The lips don't follow the Cullen et al. model but that's more of a minor issue. The background, however, is too dark. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thalassotian

Recently, a new restoration was added to the Thalassotitan article that needs review. I do not know much about mosasaur anatomy, but it overall looks very nice. The head seems correct, the counter-shading looks pretty good, and I like how it has lips covering its upper row of teeth. Definitely one of the more accurate mosasaur reconstructions that wikicommons has. Does anyone else have potential criticisms of this piece though?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Macrophyseter who made it, and who is one of our main marine paleo editors, so I'm sure the image is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Green-colored semi-aquatic, crocodile-like ecology animals, and pseudosuchians by Nobu Tamura

Of course, we don't know the color of prehistoric creatures in most of case. However, there are no extant green species of crocodiles, and there are relatively few green reptiles with semi-aquatic biology. However, if paleoartist Nobu is making these colors green based on the "popular image of the crocodile", it would need to be corrected. Maybe it is fine for land-living, relatively small sized ones though. (for Proterochampsa, as I mentioned before, has anatomical issues.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be easy to fix if everyone agrees with this, and on what it should be changed to. But also good if potential other inaccuracies in each image can be pointed out so that can be taken care of as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Gracilisuchus should be fine. IJ fixed a number of errors back when I was expanding its article a few years ago. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are the dorsal armor plates on the Goniopholis image incorrect? On Nobu's restoration, you can see that the triangular edges of the plates stick upwards, but in this paper from 2020, it notes that the triangular bits on goniopholidids dorsal scutes deflect downwards rather than upwards. They are not present in this reconstruction from a paper (presumably because they are sunk into the flesh). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be an error. Osteoderm morphology is not NT's strong suit in these older restorations. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Any suggestions for different colours? Perhaps Monsieur X also wants to have a look, having done similar edits before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that Gracilisuchus should be left as is as its probably arboreal. Proterochampsa & Notosuchus could also be left as is, they do look relatively reasonable. The rest need new paint jobs, best to look at similar modern reptiles for inspiration. I could edit some of them today. Monsieur X (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed the Teratosaurus, Qianosuchus and Hovasaurus, and added an also very green Hesperosuchus that I changed and added lips to following the latest lip study. And I see you changed the Goniopholis, Monsieur X , but it seems from the above comments that it also needs fixes to the scutes? FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

General Submissions

Going to throw some of my paleoart in here. Most of these are old pieces, so I'm not looking to do revisions on them - if they aren't up to snuff, that's fine. For the size charts, I am able to make images of each individual animal upon request.

Ddinodan (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As said on the dino review, these generally look good, and it could be cool if the individual images could be extracted, as we lack restorations of many of these, and they could be used in cladograms etc. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Here we are (once again my gallery has not worked but they're all in the thread data, if someone is able to fix whatever I've done):

Ddinodan (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice! It was the indentations that caused the gallery to disappear, which I've now removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Added the ones to articles that didn't have proper restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Niolamia

Ontogeny/Comparisson between Niolamia and Crossochelys
Niolamia

I've been reworking the article for Niolamia recently and put together these two images to be used in said article. First pic is simple enough, comparing Crossochelys (now considered a juvenile Niolamia) with the Neotype (based on the figures given in the redescription), with the important scale areas highlighted.

Second one is simply a sideview of the skull with the mandible, again based on the fossil illustrations and identified scale areas of the redescription (Sterli and de la Fuente 2011), which show the skull being a bit flatter than how it was illustrated by Woodward in 1901 (the image currently used in the article). Armin Reindl (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Leptonectes Redo

I'm currently in the process of overhauling my Leptonectes life restoration. I initially based it on primarily on the neotype, as I was unaware at the time that this specimen was actually a probable composite, thus giving it unusual proportions. I also used NHMUK R498 to restore the forefins, but this specimen is known to be at least partially reconstructed as well, and its forefins are rather unusual too. I have thus decided to redo the entire thing from scratch, based primarily on OUMNH J.10305, a good specimen known to be genuine that has measurements reported in McGowan (1990) (though unfortunately much of the postcranium has not been figured). The "Leaping Leptonectes" and the holotype of the preoccupied Ichthyosaurus "longirostris" were used to help restore the postcranium, in addition to SCM 8372 and NHMUK R1127 for the forefins. The tail bend angle is based on McGowan (1989) with the soft tissues based on a combination of Hauffiopteryx and juvenile Stenopterygius. Here's a link to the current WIP (still only a silhouette): [27], how does it look? Please let me know if I missed anything. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the eye supposed to be this low on the skull? Also, don't forget to fix what appear to be artefacts in the limbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a revised version ([28]), sorry for the long hiatus. The lowness of the eye I think is in part due to the huge orbit and slender mandible, but it does seem like it was a bit too low earlier. Also, good catch on the fin artifacts! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I've finished the preliminary lineart and repositioned the limbs: [29]. Any comments before I move on to colorization & shading? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the preliminary color scheme: [30]. I'll attempt to work more on shading over the following few days. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the colored, shaded version: [31]. Turned out rather desaturated, not sure how happy I am with that (I might try to tinker with that a little more). Any comments before I replcaed the current version with this one? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I might blur the contours of the colours a bit more. Also, the eye seems quite dark - makes it feel like a dead animal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've blurred the color boundaries and uploaded the new version to Commons. The black eye is based on Stenopterygius, though it does look somewhat odd--I've tried making it look a bit glossier but I'm not sure how I did. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Meiolania

Here I go again, currently revamping the page for Meiolania itself now so here's two illustrations to go along with the already present image material available on Wikimedia. First is a very simple skull reconstruction based on the material figured by Megirian (1992) for M. brevicollis. I followed the overall skull proportions of their reconstruction for the distance between preserved elements, but based it purely on the material that is actually figured in lateral view (thus the holotype and the rostral fragment) + only showing the surface of the bone, rather than including areas revealed by breakage and such.

Second is a more simplified diagramm showing variation in horn shape, first two are different Meiolania specimens, after two skulls figured in Gaffney 1983, second the Wyandotte species, rostral proportions also based on Meiolania, A-horns after Gaffney 1996 (although they are unknown and their form is unknown), finally M. brevicollis, rostrum and horns shape after Megirian, gaps filled with M. platyceps and horn orientation based on Gaffney 1996 (more splaying than in Megirian's initial interpretation). Armin Reindl (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bird reconstructions by User:Pagodroma721

Aepyornis
Mullerornis
Sylviornis
Kelenken
Aepyornis maximus
Aepyornis hildebrandti
same image, reuploaded
Mullerornis
Vorombe titan
Aepyornithidae

This user added multiple bird images to article without review, even through Kelenken was reverted as unreviewed, this user continued to add images. Some images look like too cartoony? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

They do look quite cartoony in a way that I do not find appealing for a life restoration (this is a particular issue with the Kelenken restoration). In the Sylviornis restoration, its quite busy with other animals. I'd really need to do a thorough research of the literature to make a serious critique of the anatomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

While the legs of elephant birds were of course massive, the ones here seem exaggerated. Haven't seen other restorations with that sort of tree-trunk thickness. But I think some of the images might be fine. Some of them seem a bit "off-model", like those Kelenken. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the percieved thickness of the legs is as a result of the upper portion of the legs being covered by the long hair-like feathers, but even considering that the Aepyornis maximus legs look much thicker than any other restoration I've seen, and the thick legs would seem much less likely for the much smaller Mullerornis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dentaneosuchus

A reconstruction of Dentaneosuchus based on the various referred materials from the recent paper. This includes MHNT.PAL.2011.20.1, MHNT PAL 2012.14.23, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.21 and MHNT.PAL.2012.14.1 (Skull elements of a single individual) and the postcranial bones MHNT.PAL.2012.14.2, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.3 & MHNT.PAL.2012.14.24. The silhouette is based on the proportions of Sebecus, the most complete relative of this species. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Riojasuchus

The current wikipedia page for riojasuchus has an image which does not match the fossil evidence, especially with the skull. I have made a new picture which I think is closer to current understanding. Titanichamster (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a little strange for the nostrils to be completely see-through. Any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have become a trend for some dinosaurs at least, based on some birds? And now we're added, what should be fixed in the old restoration[32], which is still useful because it shows the whole animal? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The skull and osteoderms don't seem to match what is known

[33]https://dawndinos.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/rio.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Riojasuchus_BW.jpg Titanichamster (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the old restoration has a bizarrely lumpy snout and way too many osteoderm rows relative to the two rows as seen in the 2019 postcranial description. Speaking of which, I'm surprised that the impressive 2016 and 2019 papers are not yet cited on the page. I'll correct that. I think Titanichamster's restoration is very good even if the open nostril is a bit speculative. As far as I know, cathartids are the only birds with nostrils like this. While ornithosuchids were probably adapted for scavenging, I don't know if the weird nostrils of cathartids has any relation to their ecology. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not found only in cathartids, look at this screamer for example. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra context, I've also heard that it can be found in rails and phorusrhacids. I suppose it's not outside the realm of plausibility. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Candiacervus life restorations

Candiacervus ropalophorus

I'm not expecting Mr. Fink to fix this restoration he made 17 years ago, but it does have a number of inaccuracies. Notably the angle of the antlers is too narrow, as can be seen in this composite skeleton. To be fair to Mr. Fink, this does seem to have been the way the animal was restored 17 years ago, as the restoration here is very similar to the one given in this 2006 paper [34]. I would be interested in seeing a more accurate life restoration if anybody wants to draw that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Apokryltaros is still around, so there is a chance he'll see this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Fink has made his displeasure with being harangued about his old restorations well known. It isn't my intent to annoy him about a restoration he made 17 years ago, just an fyi just in case somebody else wanted to have a go at drawing this strange deer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that wasn't my impression, he updated his Rodrigues parrot restoration once I asked him about it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I only get upset concerning old restorations if the person haranguing me is a boorish prick about it. Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been meaning to updating my pictures of Candiacervus, so that composite skeleton is more accurate than that 2006 paper I originally used as a reference? Mr Fink (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

According to van der Geer, 2018 the antlers are somewhat off, and should be those of C. listeri type instead, but the antlers of C. listeri are pretty close in morphology to C. ropalophorus, so I think yes, overall the skeletal mount is likely to be more accurate with regard to antler placement and overall body proportions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So, at the very least, antlers held to the side, and not swept back?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Some more pics of the mount for perspective reference [35] [36]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should also note here for posterity that Hippopotamus creutzburgi was not contemporaneous with Candiacervus, so they shouldn't be depicted together, if you were planning on doing that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What about with the Cretan Owl? Mr Fink (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This paper from 2016 suggests that they were indeed contemporaneous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Campinasuchus

This is a digital life reconstruction of Campinasuchus dinzi that I'd like to put into the animal's article, given that it lacks any life reconstructions as of right now.

Integument based off this paper: [37]

EnnieNovachrono (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that exposed teeth are fairly apomorphic, even within crocodylomorphs. Do we have any reason to think that baurusuchids had them? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe baurusuchids had fairly similar skull textures to crocodilians, but I think a lipless or lipped depiction is probably okay for now, given similarities in jaw shapes with crocodilians. Titanichamster (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's still early days when it comes to the "lip-debate", we have exactly one paper arguing for lips in prehistoric crocs, and no follow ups. I don't think we can say either is wrong at the moment.FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at a bunch of paleoartworks, and most of them show baurusuchids without lips. However, there are about one or two paleoartworks featuring baurusuchids, so I think it's safe to say that most prehistoric crocs didn't have lips, and some did. 2601:192:437F:E240:93AD:48F2:A703:3B75 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to input a point or two into this here discussion.

I do believe giving Baurusuchids extraoral tissue around their teeth is as plausible as giving them none.

I also do believe, however, that artworks of extinct psuedosuchians cannot be used as solid reference or evidence for points, given the persistent bias of it being labelled as yet another "prehistoric land crocodile".

In some Notosuchian taxa lie evidence for and against lips.

For example; Simosuchus has good cranial evidence for some extraoral tissue, whereas the new Dentaneosuchus implies evidence against lips. EnnieNovachrono (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Strudiella

Found in Commons, and currently only used in French Wikipedia. Looks like traced after Nobu Tamura's noncommercial work.[38] Its affinity as insect[39] is actually not solid, since response paper found that additional leg-like structures are visible.[40] This is replied by original authors and this shows just internal structures.[41] With bad preservation, it may be hard to decide affinity of that fossil, maybe diagram showing both interpretation may better to have in article? I may try something later but not sure. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Crassigyrinus

A new paper has produced a 3D skull reconstruction of this taxon that gives it a flatter shape, bringing it more in line with other stem-tetrapod skulls: [42] This means that all of our reconstructions with a bulldog-like snout are wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That paper is Creative Commons licensed anyway,[43] so skull figure itself is usable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Paper doesn't work for me, annoyingly, but seems it should be possible to fix the restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that an entirely new restoration may be more advisable since more information has also been published on postcranial proportions in the last few years. The skull diagram is useful on a historical level, I may be able to generate an updated replacement. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but as usual, these are used all sorts of places and will remain so if they stay inaccurate, and as always, it's unlikely we'll get a new version anytime soon. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there's also a press release Bob Nicholls restoration showing the new skull shape:[44] Probably good to base it on? And what's wrong with the body? The NT version will be much easier to tweak. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Before I take it further, how is this[45]? And what needs to be done to the postcranium? Also, someone should really upload the free figures of that paper... FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I can upload the figures, just wait a moment —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: They have now been uploaded and can be found here. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice! Now someone just needs to expand the article to make room for them, hehe. But of course, we could just replace a restoration and the old skull drawing for now. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Argh, we were too late.[46] Any comments on this[47] WIP? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Does anyone have a preference for which figures should be uploaded from the paper? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

At least this[48] one, as it shows the most angles? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the NT image and added one more image from the paper to the article. I found this[49] unreviewed size comparison (also added to the gallery above), could it be used if the head is flattened? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Basically most of Abyssal's old charts are just scaled after NT's recon, looks like not considered proportions. Probably better to rescale after skull length? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't edit SVGs, but perhaps @Slate Weasel: could do some adjustments? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can try to take a crack at updating it tomorrow. The tail should probably be straightened out to better show the length, does anyone have any references for how long it should be at full extent? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I've uploaded the new version and updated the description of the image on Commons to credit NT in the source. How does this look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks solid, but I think Fanboyphilosopher would have more targeted feedback. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Orthocormus

Finally got around to uploading this reconstruction of Orthocormus cornutus to replace the one currently on the page, which does not represent the preserved material particularly well. I largely referenced the holotype (SMP 1863) as described in Lambers (1992), and some other specimens referred to the genus, and filled in some of the missing or otherwise obscured material with O. roeperi as figured here [50]. Coloration and soft tissue is largely inferred from modern pelagic fishes and Elops and other basal teleosts. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I will probably need some help navigating the editing process.

Orthocormus (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No objections from me. I've added it to the Orthocormus and Pachycormiformes articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe @Fishboy86164577: has some useful input? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Palaeoraphe life restoration

I don't know if this is the right page for this to be reviewed in, but I've made a life restoration for the extinct Palm Palaeoraphe dominicana. Thoughts? SpinoDragon145 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't think we have any experts on prehistoric plants around, but pinging Casliber, who has written about both plants and palaeontology. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)