Uploaded in last to this month. As I see Cooyoo looks more accurate than existing one, considering specimen body shape according to undescribed complete fossil reported here?[1] (Shame this article confusing paleontology and archaeology by the way...) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not an artist but the left forelimb on both seems hyperextended: [2] In addition, I. africana seems proportionally inconsistent with its sister species [3] and the two left feet seem excessively supinated on Woznikella. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
How's this?[6] Also, I wonder if that line from the nostril that seems to separate the "tusk" from the beak should be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Updated and added to article. Will see what I can do with the Inostrancevia, as we don't have other restorations of the particular species. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Made the neck a bit thicker too and updated the file, I think it looks a lot better, but of course point out if there is more that should be done. I didn't bother to cover the canine, because Tasmanian devils.[8]FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The Cooyoo is a significant improvement over the older reconstruction, however, it appears to be missing supramaxillae, which although not figured, were present. Additionally, the quadrate and ectopterygoid are visible, when they should be obscured by the circumorbital series, which although present, was not figured in Lees and Bartholomai (1987) [9]. Orthocormus (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
DiBgd's acanthodians (Euthacanthus and Ptomacanthus) seem to be following an old trend of osteichthyan-like traits, such as transparent fins and externally visible skull bones (scleral rings and branchiostegal plates). I'm not really a fan of this choice, though I admit that shark-like acanthodians are very uncommon in paleoart despite their placement as stem-chondrichthyans being pretty solidly supported since 2015 or so. I suppose the branchiostegal plates are not a major problem since they're strongly textured and probably partially external anyways. Even with the choice to make the scleral rings visible, he got the number wrong (4 rather than 5) on E. macnicoli despite tracing over the 2014 redescription's diagram, which has the correct number. Ptomacanthus's gill placement fully behind the skull is contradictory to the 2019 paper on the subject and I don't know if the green color is plausible for acanthodian denticles. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Cladoselache is a problematic, mostly because it's traced over an old (1938?) skeletal. The biconvex dorsal fins contradict the 2015 paper on the subject, and are at odds with living chondrichthyans. The skull is unusually flat and wrinkly and the mouth completely lacks the characteristic external tooth rows. The reconstruction seems to be inspired by deep-sea bottom dwelling sharks like cat sharks and kitefin sharks, probably an over-extrapolation of the fact that chimaeras are the closest modern relatives to Cladoselache. That ignores the more extensive evidence for a fast pelagic ecology akin to lamnids and dolphins. The same set of problems, glowing green eyes included, shows up in his Helicoprion restoration. Fortunately we already have a good Cladoselache restoration by EvolutionIncarnate, so it wouldn't be a loss to tag this one and move on. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Given that @Fishboy86164577: has drawn the chondrosteid Gyrosteus for a scientific publication [10], perhaps he would have some comment on the Chondrosteus and Stronglyosteus restorations? Looking at them superficially, there's nothing that jumps out to me as immediately off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Added two new images. Laccognathus is probably better considering other holoptychids, than current reconstruction by Obsidian soul? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Updated Obsidian soul's original chart[11] as length estimation as 1.3 m is dubious. (see this discussion) Proportion would be mostly fine considering telson length. Only consideable problem may be original chart is for E. remipes, while largest specimen is E. lacustris. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I've got a few unfinished life restorations of ichthyosaurs on Commons that have lingered that way for around a year now, and I plan to finally finish them up over the next couple months. To start, I've "colored" my Cymbospondylus; how does it look? If it is satisfactory I can produce a smaller version with a transparent background for the navbox and cladograms, if desired. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to smooth out the head a bit, does this look better? (The double-humped sagittal crest does seem to be a genuine feature.) I also noticed I somehow forgot a caudal keel, so I add that too. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Next up is Excalibosaurus; I've made the tailbend approximately 40 degrees, based on Eurhinosaurus. I'm considering making the flesh profile of the hindfin broader and triangular as well, as seen in other ichthyosaurs with very small hindfins (Hauffiopteryx and Stenopterygius, although Excalibosaurus does seem to have closer affinities with long-finned taxa). Is there anything else that needs to be changed before I colorize it? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to lips? I honestly have no idea; what I've tried to show here is the snout getting progressively less lipped anteriorly, given that there would be no way to fully cover the teeth beyond the overbite. It would be helpful if we knew what "eurhinosaurs" used their weird snouts for, but unfortunately practically nothing has been published on this subject. :/ --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I've not progressed any further on Excalibosaurus yet, but I have overhauled my original Suevoleviathan based on more direct resources. The proportions are really strange (I kind of toned them down in the original), but that appears to be genuine. Comments? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thought I would draw this given that the antler angles proportions are incorrect in the current restoration. The huge length of the antlers relative to the skull makes making a well proportioned image challenging, but I hope this is good enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't easily find any images of specimens specifically of Candiacervus ropalophorus that had been taken in lateral view. I could maybe go do some extensive digging in the literature to find one, but meh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Is the anatomy of Lonchodraco different from other Ornithocheiromorpha? From images and travings from I've seen, it seems to have crests on its upper and lower jaw. The reconstruction is based off the Lectotype of Lonchodraco, not Lonchodectes, which is crestless. Red Natters (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The upper profile of the snout looks a lot straighter in the Lonchodraco specimen, whereas in the drawing it has a more concave profile, like Cimoliopterus. The drawing also seems to show a lot more than what's preserved in the fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've put together this life restoration for Eremiasaurus, a taxon badly in need of images. The fin shapes follow Prognathodon, as do most of the unknown parts of the body, with the exception of the forefins, modeled after Mosasaurus. I'm not especially familiar with mosasaurids so please let me know how I did and what needs fixing before coloring. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
On the skull, perhaps the frontal flanges could be more prominent laterally, and I'm not sure what the under/over is on external ears. For the tail, if we put the dorsal fin lobe near the start of the inclined haemal arches like in Prognathodon, I wonder if it'd potentially be further forward and smaller: [12]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot about the ears... probably too used to drawing ichthyosaurs. While looking again, I think that the lobe may be a bit far back, I'm not sure if it should be quite that far forwards as it seems to be immediately behind the last intermediate in Prognathodon. I'll look into making the changes over the next few days. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I've made the updates to head, using modern monitors as a rough reference; how does that look? Looking at the tail again it seems to check out against that of Prognathodon in positioning of the lobe, scaling to the approximate length of the pygals + intermediates. I think the lobe appearing unusually big may be due to me reconstructing it as fairly pointed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I tagged this previously reviewed size chart inaccurate, because in this chart carapace length of Notochelone clearly exceeds a meter, while it is not according to claim of museum and scale bar in the paper.[13][14] With perspective, probably proportionally rough flipped Archelon, this chart is mostly unusable. We should remove this size chart from pages and make better one. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Paraceratheriids are characterized in part by having some of the largest skulls of any known terrestrial mammal. I used figure 1 of the article "An Oligocene giant rhino provides insights into Paraceratherium evolution" to try to measure the skull of Paraceratherium linxiaense in length (lateral view of skull) and height (lateral view of left ramus), and the skull is indeed very long based on the independent scale bars, measuring over 100 cm in length and over 30 cm in height.
The reconstruction's head looks too small in height and especially length and should therefore be extended in both. The skull in the lead image in the Wikipedia article definitely looks longer than the skull shown in this reconstruction. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I might return to Para in the future but for now I'll bench it. Just wondering, how long until the review process is considered complete? I've had these up for 7 days (+notified the Discord) and received little feedback so I added the images (-Kariridraco, Harbin, hand) thinking it would be alright. I'll keep all of this in mind for my next submissions. Clumsystiggy (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Usually if there are no comments, it can mean there are no problems, but if issues are pointed out, like with the Charonosaurus on the dinosaur review, they should at least be addressed or countered before adding. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, if Enchoteuthis has a (speculative) restoration, I don't see why Tusoteuthis shouldn't also? As it stands, having both the fossil and the gladius length reconstruction feels a bit redundant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the trilobite Trimerus delphinocephalus from the Rochester Shale. The page itself may need a small update anyway. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The description says "featuring setae filling the pores that cover the fringes of the exoskeleton" If such structures have not been suggested to fill those pores in the literature, it is too WP:or to use. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@FunkMonk and @Lythronaxargestes Ok he has responded. He said “Many species of trilobites had setae, especially on the fringes of the body. Trimerus had a very dense covering of them, which can be seen as pores in the fossils. They could have been used to inform the animal which parts of it were buried when it was burrowing”. He also went on to say “This has been suggested in a few papers, notably in Eldredge, 1970, in comparison to modern horseshoe crabs. We don’t know what these setae would have looked like exactly, or how long they were - that’s where I’m guessing.” Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Will add that Eldredge (1970) also explicitely singles out homalonotids like Trimerus as burrowers with very probably tacticle setae for sensing which parts of their bodies were buried. The pores are very obvious on the fossils, and even extend to the hypostome. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Croc Dump
Size comparisson for Eothoracosaurus
Size comparisson for Kambara
Comparisson between skulls of Kambara implexidens and Kambara murgonensis
Bunch of croc related stuff, two very basic size comparissons, one based on the holotype of Eothoracosaurus using Thoracosaurus proportions (based on width across the quadrates), one for Kambara following the upper estimate given in Salisbury and Willis 1996. And then a comparisson of the type skulls of both sympatric Kambara species, which mainly have been uncrushed and made symetrical. The extend of the quadrates in K. implexidens, so its based on the better preserved specimens. Likewise the back of the skull in K. murgonensis is poorly figured and preserved, so the extent of the ectopterygoid is based on K. taraina. Also just to point out, in K. implexidens there is the weird thing that the squamosals transition fairly gradually into the quadrates, which is why there isn't as bold a separation as in K. murgonensis. Just to clarify that part. The size of the scalebar is clarified in the description. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
While I don't think I can add anything about accuracy, but since this is a "croc dump" thread, I wonder if you would be the right person for a Kaprosuchus size comparison? And I'm not sure if we have adequate lie restorations either, I was thinking the article could be nice for GA... FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Size comparisson between Baru wickeni and "Baru" huberi
Skull comparisson between Baru wickeni and "Baru" huberi
Since this one's still the most recent post in here, gonna throw this one in here too instead of making a new post. Nothing super notable. "Baru" huberi (Mekosuchinae gen. nov. huberi) is here reconstructed based on the holotype with the missing elements reconstructed after Trilophosuchus (see the "Baru" huberi page, its closer allign to that branch of Mekosuchinae than true Baru) with those elements highlighted in grey. The Baru wickeni is from my old recon (might replace it with a new version down the line), but since that fossil is highly complete without no inferrence from other taxa I didn't highlight anything in grey. Size comparisson of the same two taxa.Armin Reindl (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Note that you should preferably upload on top of the earlier version instead of as a new file, see the button "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the image page. FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
That said, it probably can't hurt to have the unshaded version available too, but future tweaks should just be uploaded on top of the old. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems to match the published restorations, but why does its head have a convex upper profile instead of more concave? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you think I should make a more detailed version with size comparisons in your opinion and keep this image as a placeholder, or will this current iteration do fine? Stegotyranno (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally I'm not a fan of combined life restorations and size diagrams, but if you can make it more detailed, why not. The outline seems a bit fuzzy in places. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, I just thought so since (especially with this genus) size comparison seem to be more shared and popular, so far. If the single animal is fine, then that’s great too. But yes I do think I can make some improvements to better show the anatomy Stegotyranno (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, my issue with having size comparisons with the life restorations is that again and again we run into issues where the size comparison turns out to be inaccurate, and then we can't use the retoration (even if it's accurate) unless someone also fixes the human's size. Keeping restorations "clean" also makes them useful in cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
We have too few of that kind of restoration in general, so as long as it follows what the source indicates in regard to environment and behaviour, it would be useful. FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Here's my life restoration for the newly named Perucetus. While the ecological niche and the appearance of the animal is still being debated, there is still a possibility of it being a macropredator hunting other whales large and small, no? I thought it'd be nice to add so people can see the differences of how this animal has been reconstructed based on its remains if that's okay. Please let me know your thoughts.
The paper discusses several hypotheses regarding the diet of Perucetus, and “active predator of other whales” is not one of them; it also seems unlikely for an animal that has been interpreted as a slow swimmer. Given Wikipedia’s policy on original research, it’s best for us to stick with hypotheses that have been proposed in reliable sources. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree. While the exact ecology remains unknown until a skull is found, the paper makes explicit mention of shallow water habits and slow swimming speed, which is why the two primary hypothesis are suction feeding and scavenging (tho on a personal note I do not put much value into the later). Being rather chunky, dense and slow moving is not the greatest prerequisite for active predation and thats probably why that notion isn't really entertained by the authors. The art looks good otherwise tho. Armin Reindl (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Australosuchus
You know the drill, yada yada crocodilians, yada yada obligatory review. As stated, the size comparisson is based on the largest known skull, AMNH 12200 as figured in Willis and Molnar 1991, the skull recon is a composite based on various individuals made from scratch, but utilizing Willis' reconstruction where direct use of fossil specimens was not possible. FunkMonk...I'll get to the Kaprosuchus don't worry. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe this has been reviewed and have a hard time believing that a taxon known from all of two teeth could have a life restoration that isn't identical to modern lions. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be identical to modern lions, but yeah, it's quite messy, so the quality alone perhaps makes its use questionable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this reconstruction of Sidneyia inexpectans correct?, I have noticed that the reconstruction most often used as a reference in more recent articles is that of Bruton, 1981, for example this one: [18], which is something like the second image. But the reconstruction used in the Sidneyia article has somewhat strange cephalic appendages, maybe they are based on the original description by Walcott, 1911 Plate 2, but specimens 2 and 3 on that plate are not Sidneyia but Emeraldella, as they are USNM PAL 57488Iezer (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention! I also think it was based on Walcott 1911 Plate 2, since there's no evidences of such comb-like structures and alternated morphology on Sidneyia's post-antennal cephalic appendages.
Thanks for answering!, then this reconstruction is apparently wrong, the cephalic appendages (3?) should be subequal to the trunk appendages as in S. minor. Although I also think the eyes are misplaced, if the Bruton, 1981 reconstruction is more correct in this regard, the eyes should be on the lateral notches of the carapace and the antennae should be placed below the eyes, as in S. minor. Iezer (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Qohelet12:, would you be interested in restoring Sidneyia minor, given the inaccuracies in the other restorations? The diagram of the species can be found here. I assume the carapace shape is overall similar to S. inexpectans. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Did up a new recon for Deinosuchus following a more contemporary understanding of its anatomy. Both the current recons on its page are seemingly referencing Hartman's 2018 skeletal.
I wonder how useful a reconstruction of D. hatcheri is, considering that it's pretty undiagnostic? Perhaps replacing one of those two reconstructions explicitly would be better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Here are two skeletals I uploaded, Tanystropheus hydroides and Machaeroprosopus gregorii (formerly Redondasaurus). I hope these prove useful. Fishboy86164577 (talk)
Skeletal reconstruction of Tanystropheus hydroides.Skeletal reconstruction of Machaeroprosopus gregorii (formerly Redondasaurus gregorii).
Only thing I'm wondering is if there wouldn't have been a bit more padding under the heels of the phytosaur?[20] Looks like just flesh and bone now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Ultrastenos
Same deal as per usual, the skull recon is based on the holotype quadrate region, occipital and the referred skull table. The former two are figured by Stein et al. 2016, the latter by Willis 1997. The rostrum is of course highly speculative, based on the constriction of the mandible. There has been the suggestion that a related taxon has been found and that revisions will follow, so I'll update it accordingly if/whenever that comes out (which may still be a while given mekosuchine research). The size estimate is based on the width across the quadrates (as done in other works) so its independent of the skull length and it matches well with what's been suggested by Stein. That is, an animal roughly the size of a modern freshie.Armin Reindl (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Size chart of this recently-described basal avemetatarsalian, illustrated using Hartman's Teleocrater skeletal as the base (as done in the description paper). As always, comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me, the only thing I can think of, which is not your fault, is something that was also discussed on the Discord server: how likely is the presence of a claw on the fourth finger? FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The skeletal reconstruction does show it as being preserved, but they note in the ESM that the arrangement of the phalanges is uncertain... I don't know if removing it would be considered too OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe they could just be made a bit less conspicuous? They look like some of the largest claws on the hands now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I am skeptical of the paper's portrayal of Venetoraptor with four claws on each hand, but I think it's probably too OR for us to depict it otherwise. The relative sizes of the claws seem consistent with how they reconstructed it, but I think the claws do look a bit too sharply recurved here. Also, it kind of looks like you've depicted the beak as extending most of the length of the jaws, but the authors apparently interpret it as being restricted to the tip of the snout. Other than that, it seems fine to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the file with a new version which shortens the fourth claw, straightens the claws overall (they've still got some curve to them with the keratin I've applied), and restricting the beak to the front of the jaw.
Adding this as a sub-section to help keep discussions on individual taxa together. Unfortunately, the description paper doesn't seem to have bone measurements, so I just went off the skeletal diagram. Not much to say for this one, other than that it's quite the strange creature. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the membranes should be removed—probably too OR as it is. It doesn’t seem like the teeth match the published skull diagram. There aren’t any preserved, but it would be best to follow what the authors suggest. Also somewhat strange that the caudal vertebrae stop part of the way down the tail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding this before I forget to later—a size chart of the strange crab Callichimaera, requested by Ta-tea-two-te-to. I don't know much about arthropod anatomy, but the silhouettes closely follow the diagrams in the description paper. This chart shows the biggest and smallest known specimens. It seems that using currency as a scale in images is discouraged(and for understandable reasons, although maybe this only applies to photographs where a scale bar is not also given?), but it seems helpful for giving an additional sense of scale since the subjects are so small. If anyone has a better idea, I am open to suggestions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Still going through mekosuchines (tho various reasons caused a delay), currently Baru, added some illustration to bulk up the page. The first image is a skull recon of Baru darrowi. The fossil material is taken from the lateral view published in Ristevski et al. (2023), which is CC BY 4.0 and the general proportions are based on the material figured by and reconstruction depicted in Willis, Murray and Megirian 1990. There are some adjustments, the posterior end of the skull is adjusted to better match the later discoveries of Baru wickeni and although the image quality in the online upload of the paper is horrible, I still noticed some differences in how the mandible was shown in photos vs the illustration (presumably to make them match better as later discoveries showed they were two different species). Also given the use of fossil material the overal rostrum form also differs subtly from Willis' illustration. Speaking of which, size chart is likewise based on Willis following the size given in his 1997 review. The dimensions of the skull are based on Willis et al. 1990 (following the scalebar of Ristevski it would be slightly smaller, but Willis provides actual measurements which are more trustworthy than a scalebar). Armin Reindl (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What the hind limb? That's just what it looks like during the high walk, the leg is further back, just standing on its toes before the foot moves forward again basically, it's not smaller, its just that what is seen is the foot, not the entire leg. Armin Reindl (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Qohelet12's nice work of ecological reconstruction of Anomalocaris after Bicknell et al. (2023)[22]. Done after request by @Junnn11:. In conclusion, this paper indicates that Anomalocaris was a very active pelagic hunter, but some news reports mainly about how it could not feed on trilobites, so misinterpreted impression remains. Trilobites were not hunted in the first place due to its extremely hard carapace made of calcite which only a few animals with gnathobase could break, and the unsuitability of Anomalocaris as a benthic predator. As prey, Isoxyid (Isoxys) is used, which is given as an example of prey in Bicknell et al. (2023). Are there any comments for accuracy of posture or other things? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
On the Collinsovermis restoration, the spinules on the lower surface of the front limbs are drawn as flexible when they seem to have been rigid, and are often drawn at odd angles rather than projecting perpendicular to the limbs as they do in the paper's restoration. Admittedly that's difficult to get right with the constantly shifting angles of the limbs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The general anatomy is good. I don't know about the morphology of Parastylonurus' epimera (the spikes on the segments near the tail) so I can't tell about that. Everything else seems good. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a brilliant piece of ecological reconstruction! Glad to see the accurate trunk segment (the correct number is 11, but misdrawn as 12 in Fig. 6 of the original description).
My only opinion is the annulations of antenna-like cephalic exopods (same case in the reconstruction made by myself, which was based on the camera lucida drawing of Legg 2014. I'll fix it later on). Recently I re-checked Aria & Caron 2017 and I found the exopods had been described as "with long and slender podomeres" for both Sanctacaris and Habelia. So the exopods of Sanctacaris should be the same as Habelia: compose of several long podomeres instead of dense annulations. Junnn11 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Argentavis magnificens
Argentavis pretty desperately needed an up-to-date recon, so here's one:
They shouldn't be, the actual tail of the animal is above the ankle of that furthest leg - their extent is about the same as other large flighted birds with similar wing proportions. Ddinodan (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I can remember @Hemiauchenia removed the H. gorgops reconstruction from the article, saying "the images do not really demonstrate how this animal would have been different from modern hippopotamuses, so there have been removed". Larrayal (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Considering the main discernible difference would be the more raised eye sockets, which is shown here, seems it could be used anyway? It looks more probable than the currently used image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the main artwork of Kylinxia is now inaccurate due to O’Flynn et al, 2023 finding that that arthropod had three eyes, instead of five like it was previously thought. I wonder if someone could edit the existing image?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It's really up to Junn. I think the original version is useful as a historical reference, and probably should be retained as a separate file. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Jun seems to be busy lately. They have just finished the work on Pseudoangustidontus, and will need to add to the Japanese Wikipedia about new study of Stanleycaris. That edit should happen soon anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Also problem would be, paper itself is hard to access, it is not sure if there is other change for anatomy other than eye placement, and they have to rewrite Wikipedia articles not to make it contradicted, so it would be take time until changing that I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
There is diagram to show multiple interpretation of eye placement anyway, previous eye placement would just able to see in this probably. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The new reconstruction has only three eyes, which is different to the previously proposed reconstructions. That'll require updating the diagram Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is just based on original description and reinterpretation according to brain of Stanleycaris. I meant that life restoration will be updated into three-eyed one, and this diagram will show three different interpretation. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the mentions!
I can't access the paper, so I wouldn't update the reconstruction for now. But I'll edit the diagram by adding one more version, since there's a seemly reliable artistic reconstruction clearly showing the new eye structures. Junnn11 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
As much as what I could tell from the image and article, the only major changes seems to be the eye region (3 eyes + 1 sclerite) and the first 4 pairs of short post-oral appendages (all biramous and cephalic). Not sure if the two small protrusions anterior to the carapace margin is a new feature or not. The trunk was illustrated as 26-segmented (maximum 25 in previous version). Junnn11 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I'll update the diagram first, the reconstruction update could be done around this weekend if I have enough time. Junnn11 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The head reconstruction is based on closely related species, namely Palaeophis toliapicus and "Archaeophis" turkmenicus, from which skull material is known. (Also, what would be the alternative ? Portray the animal headless ?) Horus-Horakhty (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh if it is based on relatives then it would be fine. Not sure about head-body proportion of that but probably fine to be speculative? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Horus-Horakhty: After review of that, I just wonder if you can work on better reconstruction of Gigantophis which only have this poor illustration used in many pages in different laungage, if not busy? It is placed somewhat close to Yurlunggur with complete skull in some studies though not sure what is plausible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh I would love to do it at some point, though right now I'm trying to finish an updated Palaeophis reconstruction for its page, as the old one is not that accurate. The main issue I would have with Gigantophis is that I fear its eventual reconstruction would be quite speculative, as the recent work by Zaher et al. 2022 on the skull of Sanajeh resulted in the paraphyly of the Madstoiidae family, which both Gigantophis and Yurlunggur were historically a part of. And since Gigantophis is mainly known from vertebrae, any phylogenetic effort concerning it is questionable at best. Its vertebral morphology is somehow reminiscent of Matsoia and Powellophis, from which cranial material is known and thus could be used as proxy, but this is debatable as well. Also its paleoenvironment/ecology is barely explored in the published litterature... I think in the end it would overall just result in a generic-looking constrictor snake (not that it's a problem in itself). Horus-Horakhty (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Otodus megalodon
skeletal reconstruction of otodus megalodonlife restoration of megalodon
i have completed a life and skeletal reconstruction of otodus based on modern lamnids and cretalamna sp. fossils
i dont know of how much use this will be but im submitting it for review
-Evolutionincarnate09:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Main issue of first image is that it would make viewers misunderstand that whole skeleton is known? Since it is mostly teeth, vertebrae and some cartilages, using that on page may bit dangerous. Second image looks nice for me although good to check if that is original research or not. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if human silhouettes are even necessary in life restorations, since there will usually always be a dedicated size diagram, and having no human will spare it of becoming inaccurate or having to be modified repeatedly if size estimates change. But this is a general issue here, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
i have updated the skeletal and also have removed the human silhouette from the life restoration , though im inexperienced so i dont know how to change the thumbnails to match the new files EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, first time contributing to wiki. Here's two life reconstructions and two svg silhouettes of Anoplotherium commune, based primarily on Hooker 2007 (https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/151/3/609/2630879). If anyone wants to use the sils for a size comparison graphic feel free.
Maybe someone could make a size comparison from these silhouettes?
Basilosauridae
Recently finished up recons for all (recognized) members of Basilosauridae, if these are of any use. Perucetus is included for my completionist mind - it has been discussed at length as to why it cannot be included at the moment (pertaining to the fluke of the tail not matching the one proposed by the publication). Hopefully the rest can be of some use - most of these whales lack a recon or have one that is fairly outdated.
Uploaded a larger version of the file. Since it was made in-scale with the others, it'll always look a little crunchier than the larger whales. Ddinodan (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean they all kinda look the same except for the color scheme (and of course Basilosaurus has a much longer tail). I know for Perucetus it's exceptionally heavy for any whale modern or otherwise (which has attracted ecological comparisons with sirenians) so its body plan may not have been as streamlined as other basilosaurids Dunkleosteus77(talk)23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone. If I may, I would like to have my reconstruction to be reviewed before I upload it. Here is the link of my reconstruction of Tungsenia and Kenichthys. The source that I used for the reconstruction are written on the description. I think there aren't many Kenichthys reconstruction eventhough it is quite a important species in tetrapodomorph evolution history. So does my reconstruction good enough to be uploaded in Kenichthys or Tungsenia page? Thank you and sorry because I don't know how to attach my image directly here.
Two structural comments... (1) Is it possible to split apart the two? (2) Are the skull images original or from the papers? If the latter, it may be better to remove them for rights reasons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be better if you drew it using software like Inkscape so you could easily make it symmetrical, as this drawing is somewhat irregular. The proportions are somewhat off compared to the source drawing [26], as the pygidium looks too large and the trunk section too short. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Anatomically, I have some comments. Trilobites had only three pairs of undifferentiated cephalic limbs - yours seems to have 7, with the anterior-most pair apparently larger, based on the drawing you referenced. I can't find any evidence to support that - the soft tissues we have from Isotelus suggest 3 cephalic appendage pairs, identical to the trunk appendages. The fossil appendages also don't show evidence for hairs, although this could be down to speculation. There should be small hairs on the shell, however.
And overall regarding the shell, the proportions look closer to Illaenus - in Isotelus, the thorax segements should be thicker, and the pygidium should be about equal in size to the cephalon. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@PaleoEquii I've updated the image using an online website. Now because I can easily edit it, what should be fixed. I know the trilobite needs hairs, but I do not know how to draw them. Could you help me with that?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I assume it is deduced from gracile metacarpal and unguals of the second finger, a trait different from "Anchiornis and more crownward taxa" and noted by Xu et al. --Tiouraren (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Still on mekosuchines, now Kalthifrons, pretty basic size comparisson. Only thing of note is that its scale after Yates and Pledge 2017 who's scalebars and measurements are consistent with each other and a head this size. Notably, Ristevski et al. would indicate a much lower size, however their scalebar does not add up with the measurements given by Yates and Pledge so it can be ignored in this case (similar to Baru now that I come to think of it). Anyways, just wanted to get it out of the way. Armin Reindl (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Bachitherium
Here's another batch of Quercy artiodactyls. These reconstructions are based on the complete skeleton from Ceresté, with B. curtum having modified modified proportions based on known limb material.
Looks good, we definitely know that B. insigne was larger and more cursorial than B. curtum based on limb proportions. Thanks Triloboii, I'll add the last image to the wiki shortly! PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, the two images are MS paint quality, and do not depict anything specific about either animal, so I would say that's it's better that neither are used. Better no restoration than a bad restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
i feel offended by that ms paint comment, and yeah, they are not great restorations, im probably going to make new ones (my artistic abilities have greatly improved id say). Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't match P. o. mesembrina, though, since we actually have a coat description of that subspecies (we don't for P. o. augusta, though I'd assume something close to modern jaguars). P. o. mesembrina was had a reddish (chestnut, as in the horse color) base color and black spots, with white markings on the front legs. And I don't believe bright cyan or red eyes are plausible for either species- cats generally have golden-yellow eyes. Otherwise, your images are painting-like enough that I can't nitpick on the anatomy so long as its similar to modern jaguars it should be fine. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Note that when you update an image, it should be uploaded on top of the original, rather than as a new file—in Commons, click "Upload a new version of this file" under "File history". -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Palaeoloxodon falconeri
2008 restoration by Milooryx
2019 restoration by SERGIO GAUCI
Accurate restoration of P. falconeri by SlvrHwk for comparison
While the 2008 restoration may have been accurate for the time, there several issues that are obvious with it when looking at the more recent restorations from 2015 [28] and 2019 in Historical Biology [29]. In the 2008 restoration, the back isn't concave as in the 2015 and 2019 restorations, and the ear is maybe a tad too large (though not excessively so). The ears in the 2019 Gauci restoration are definitely too large. One could also argue that they should also have fur like in the 2015 restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
That's lots of efforts! Nice details on the diagnostic telsons of Leanchoilia.
On the description section, I think it would be better to further feature the titles of those original descriptions as well (regardless they're available online or not). Junnn11 (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Albanerpeton
Hello. Sorry to bother again. Can I get another review for an image that I am planning to upload?
Here is the link to my reconstruction of Albanerpeton. I am aware that the page used to have Nobu Tamura reconstruction in it. But correct me if I am wrong, his image seem to have been removed and said because of the inaccuracy issue. So I am trying to make a newer version of it. I am using skeletal reconstruction from Carroll (2009) in his Rise of the Amphibians book. Also I used Wesserpeton reconstruction by Mark Witton. About the tongue, I am using research from Yaksha that say albanerpetontid probably have projectile tongue. Lastly I tried to make the head looks kinda rough or scaly since if I remember correctly, albanerpetontid are said to have scales and even claws.
So if I may ask, is my reconstruction good enough? Sorry for my long ranting and if the animal is too plain...
It looks significantly better than the previous restoration, due to having a much more accurate head. I do have an issue with the tongue placement. The length of the hyoid entoglossal process (the rod shaped bone in the tongue) of Yaksha implies that the tongue should originate further back in the throat, rather than seemingly originating mid-jaw, similar to the official Yaksha life restoration [30] or living plethodontids [31]Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah thank you if the reconstruction for the most part is already more accurate.. I see, I am not paying enough attention for the tongue when I am making the tongue position. So is it better if I just redraw it with closed mouth but keeping the body proportion that I already made here? DD (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It could easily be digitally moved? If it's thought to have had such a tongue, it's nice to show. By the way, should be possible to fix the NT version[32] as well? FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The Nobu Tamura skull is extremely proportionally off. There's a restoration in Fox and Naylor 1982 (accessible via shadow library). [33], which demonstrates that the skull of Albanerpeton is nearly as tall as it is wide. It would be very difficult to fix it without distorting the perspective of the image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I drew it manually it and then scanned it so it can't be remove. But it is fine, I think I am planing to redrew it without the tongue.. DD (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Albanerpeton (newer version)
Hello. Sorry for asking for review again. I have made a new version of my Albanerpeton by removing the tongue because I am afraid to make the same mistake again. I also made the it a bit bulkier especially the neck region considering the Wiki say that this genus have a robust head and neck. I also aware that Nix's Illustration reconstructed it into quite a chubby salamander-like animal. So is the newer version below quite good enough to be uploaded? Thank you..
@Daeng Dino: The drawing of the skull of Albanerpeton inexpectatum from Fox and Naylor 1982 suggests that the skull should be somewhat deeper (see [34]), though it's subtle enough that you'd probably be able to get away with just altering the proportions using an image editor rather than having to redraw it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
ah okay, thank you for the reference. I will try my best to tweak the proportion of the image.. But if I am unable to modify it and don't have time to redraw it for the time being, please just remove it since I don't know how to remove the image from wikimedia library.. DD (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Back in June, this "speculative" skeletal reconstruction of the rubidgeine gorgonopsian Dinogorgon was uploaded to its page without review by User:Werewolfcowboy. I'm afraid I do not consider this reconstruction appropriate for a number of reasons:
The skull is based on the holotype and incorporates elements reconstructed in plaster, notably around the orbits, and does not represent to the known morphology of more complete Dinogorgon skulls, ditto for the entire postorbital region.
The postcranial anatomy of rubidgeines is almost entirely unknown, so the inclusion of a complete skeletal reconstruction for one is misleading, especially when it differs so markedly in proportions from actual known gorgonopsian postcrania, which leads into:
The skeletal anatomy is not an appropriate representation of gorgonopsian anatomy. The overall proportions do not match (e.g. torso is shorter and deeper than any known gorgonopsian skeletons, the pelvic girdle is massive, and the tail is short), the sternum looks to be entirely made up and I'm not sure what's going on at the shoulder joint, and the overall shapes and articulations of the bones are just too simple (e.g. shape and size of the vertebrae, rib articulations, limb bones).
Agree, there is also something "cartoonish" about the proportions and shapes overall, like they are more approximations of the bones than rigorous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Don't know much about this guy, but it's a bit of a shame that the teeth aren't filled in with white considering the background is transparent; the teeth are now also transparent. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Request 1: Enhydridon sivalensis restoration
Hi! Not completely sure how the process works, but may I request an image restoration of Enhydriodon (or more specifically the type species E. sivalensis)? It is a Pliocene (possibly up to Pleistocene) species of the Indian subcontinent. It would overall weigh an estimated 22 to 25 kg according to one source, within the range of the sea otter (Enhydra), and it would have lived in freshwater sources within deciduous tropical forests. We don't have closely complete skeletons of any species unfortunately, but as long as its teeth and physical appearance is closer to the sea otter (bunodont dentition and elongated I3 incisor not larger than its canine), then I think it should be fine. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
What modern otters could be referenced for proportions and colouration? And I guess it would have to be swimming with its mouth open to show any teeth? I can try to do it, quite a while ago I did a mammal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Since Enhydriodon in terms of extant lutrines would've been closest to Enhydra (the extent of the phylogenetic relations remain unstable and uncertain, however), it should likely be closest to the sea otter in design. You could refer to this restoration artwork of Siamogale for what Neogene bunodont otters could have potentially looked like, and they're closer to the sea otter than other extant lutrines. In terms of coloration, brown is probably the default color I would refer to. You can also show Enhydriodon eating a clam since that's what the Indian subcontinental species probably ate on a regular basis given their bunodont dentition. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, PrimalMustelid, I finally took a look at some otter videos and photos to get an idea of how these guys work, and damn, are those sea otters elusive. Really hard to find a good frame showing the anatomy, so I ended up trying to base it on the pose of a more "regular" looking otter, but with a bit of the more robust features of the sea otter. It's a pretty rough sketch[36] to give an idea of where it could be heading, maybe it could look at some shells below, or maybe it should just show the otter itself. I'm uncertain about some of the soft-feature features that differ between sea otters and more standard otters, though, since Enhydridon is supposed to be closer to the sea otter. Seems sea otters have very different hands, feet, and tails, from more standard otters (plumper hands, very wide feet, short, wide tails), so should it look more like that in Enhydridon? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Enhydra (including the sea otter) is usually agreed upon to be a close relative to the Enhydriodontini clade if not the closest relative, so that would likely imply close features (the bunodont dentition makes this clear). PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it doesn't show an open mouth/teeth, because it doesn't seem sea otters, or most otters for that matter, swim around with open mouths. Also, since sea otters are much more adapted for ocean life, the limb and tail pecularities I mentioned above would perhaps not be present in a more general river living otter, PrimalMustelid? FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah the lack of an open mouth is fine, originally that idea was for if Enhydriodon was to be drawn floating on water. E. falconeri and E. sivalensis likely would have been more adapted for river bank lives within the Indian subcontinent, but it's difficult to say anything about its body anatomy since there's no postcranial evidence of the species. I would tentatively make it more similar to the sea otter in features because many species were likely more analogous to the sea otter and giant river otter than other river otter species. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Just finished this drawing of Meganthropus. I have restored it as a Ponginae as according to the latest research. I can also remove the background if necessary. let me know if there is anything that needs fixing. Thanks! TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Inostrancevia africana
Paralligator major
Ptomacanthus anglicus
Paleotherium magnum
Body shape reconstruction of Laccognathus by Obsidian soul for comparison
Profile of the Harbin cranium.
Meganthropus skeletal, as a pongine.
Skeletal of Kariridraco.
Skeletal of KNM-WT 22944 G-J.
Balistes dubius reconstruction.
Paraceratherium linxiaense skeletal.
Skull of Propalorchestes
Skull of Palorchestes
Interpretated reconstruction by me
Outdated restoration by Nobu Tamura with squid-like characters
Outdated restoration by D.Bogdanov
Size comparisson for Eothoracosaurus
Size comparisson for Kambara
Comparisson between skulls of Kambara implexidens and Kambara murgonensis
Size comparisson between Baru wickeni and "Baru" huberi
Skull comparisson between Baru wickeni and "Baru" huberi
_-_Sidneyia,_hyoliths.jpg)
_gregorii_skeletal.png)
Skull reconstruction
Size comparisson
Size comparisson of Kalthifrons
B. insigne sil
B. curtum sil
B. insigne
B. curtum
B. curtum and insigne scaled together based on limb measurements from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1251805098800815?via%3Dihub
2008 restoration by Milooryx
2019 restoration by SERGIO GAUCI
Accurate restoration of P. falconeri by SlvrHwk for comparison
Sollasina cthulhu
![[2]](https://i.imgur.com/S7QOzGn.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FFCkXDWhXIAU96ir.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://i.imgur.com/t8gAm9E.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://i.imgur.com/5MWvaAW.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://i.imgur.com/QiugOGL.jpeg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tasmanian_devil_fangs.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eurypterus_size_comparison.png){kind=link}
![[12]](https://i.imgur.com/YLTzJy3.png){kind=link}
![[26]](https://media.australian.museum/media/dd/images/Image_3_size_comparison.12844d3.width-1600.6b4f196.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albanerpeton_BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://i.imgur.com/obJtBrc.jpeg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://i.imgur.com/GCasy8K.jpeg){kind=link}
