I had a similar thought (but I also know very little about ichthyosaurs). Was there any specific reasoning behind that particular fin placement? -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, not really besides that whales of similar sizes seem to have if slightly further back, I know it’s a bit speculative but maybe there’s a purpose for that. SeismicShrimp (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Between that and the large tail fluke, I think it's much better to stick to the anatomy of known shastasaurids than inventing something new for an animal known from mandibles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The proportions look like a mix of Guanlingsaurus and Shonisaurus (based on head size and trunk depth), but some features seem to fall outside of known variation among "shastasaurs". The forelimb length in particular seems pretty excessive, nearly as long as the trunk; they are significantly shorter even in the long-limbed Guizhouichthyosaurus. The hip region and preflexural tail seem excessively deep; shastasaurs were typically fairly slender animals (Shonisaurus is a bit of an exception), and even the thunnioform ichthyosaurs like Stenopterygius seem to have skinnier tails. Additionally, the tail fin seems quite short, in Guizhouichthyosaurus and Shonisaurus, it seems like they take up half the length of the tail. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Ichthyotitan size comparison diagram
Ichthyotitan size
Trying to keep things together here for future reference so I'm posting this as a subsection of the above.
It seems to follow the proportions of Shonisaurus popularis fairly closely, though it looks like the tail fin is a bit small relative to the preflexural tail compared to this species and Guizhouichthyosaurus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The preflexural tail (the part between the hips and the tail fin, basically the part of the tail before the bend; my apologies, I probably should have explained that) still seems kind of long relative to the postflexural (fin) portion. Some other thoughts: Hartman's Shonisaurus has quite a steep tailbend, steeper than Kosch's 1990 reconstruction that McGowan & Motani (1999) described as "far too steep", so making it shallower might be warranted. Additionally, since we have almost no information to go on regarding what Ichthyotitan looked like in life, I wonder if putting a question mark in the silhouette might be warranted. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I made some further adjustments to the caudal region and added a question mark. Let me know if any further fixes are needed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is my latest art released, a sketch for the new and colossal Ichthyotitan! I also have a piece for Gamatavus that I've had sitting around on Wikimedia for about a year now, and I never got the time to also share it. With that said, please let me know your thoughts on these two!
SpinoDragon145 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak much for ichthyosaurs, and of course there is a lot we don't know with Ichthyotitan, but based on other reconstructions (including the "official" commissioned illustrations) the dorsal fin (if it had one) should maybe be less prominent and more posteriorly placed. Maybe the torso should be deeper, too?
The Gamatavus pieces looks nice but is very dark, making it difficult to clearly see the animal in the landscape. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Since Ichthyotitan is only known from lower jaw bone fragments, a lot of whats in the sketch is speculation. The overall anatomy is referenced from mostly Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus just slightly for the head shape, and the dorsal fin is based off of a Mixosaurus specimen that preserves a dorsal fin. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do about the mass of the torso and size of the dorsal fin.
As for Gamatavus, it's time I made this piece brighter anyway since that's the main critique I get from this one, lol. Thanks for the advice! SpinoDragon145 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we can necessarily consider the dorsal fin placement as inaccurate, currently all we can really say about "shastasaur" dorsal fins is that they probably existed. I haven't done a detailed check, but I'm not sure if the torso here is necessarily too shallow either; Shonisaurus popularis is actually pretty unusual among large "shastasaurs", which more typically have shallower bodies. If anything, given how poor the Ichthyotitan material is I think it would be better to show a variety of interpretations, rather than just make everything a giant Shonisaurus popularis. I'll see if I can do a more detailed review of all the Ichthyotitan restorations here in the coming week. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Based on other "shastasaurs" (and most ichthyosaurs in general), the nostrils probably should be lower on the skull and oriented more laterally; they are higher up in Shonisaurus popularis but in that taxon they're closer to the eyes, and once again that species is an exception to the typical rule. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Possible life restoration of Ichthyotitan severnensis
Hi, wanna put this Ichthyotitan restoration up for review, since the remains aren't that good I based some of it off related Ichthyosaurs like Shonisaurus, though I don't usually make artwork of Ichthyosaurs so I've very little idea how much I got it right... Please check it out and let me know if there's any problem with it, thanks! :)
Edit: I should also probably mention all the art references I've used for this, I used the size comparison on its page by SlvrHwk based on Shonisaurus, the artwork by Sergey Krasovskiy and one by Gabriel Ugueto Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Judging by Shonisaurus popularis, which this restoration seems to be very similar to, the nostrils should probably be further back, the preflexural tail shorter and the tail fin longer. I almost wonder though if this might work better repurposed as a life restoration of Shonisaurus? For future reference, I would recommend using fossils and skeletal diagrams as references for life restorations, rather than other life restorations. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the late response, and thank you for the review... I will make the changes that you mentioned as soon as I get more time for this. Though since there's very little material that gives a good clue about this thing's life appearance, I didn't think it'd be wise to stray from other related ichthyosaurs, at least until better material is assigned to it.. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The anatomy seems pretty similar to Shonisaurus popularis, which makes the apparent lack of teeth seem odd; the toothless shastasaurs seem to typically have shorter snouts, where the more longirostrine ones (Shonisaurus, Guizhouichthyosaurus, and Besanosaurus) all have teeth of some sort. The eye looks too low on the head. The postcranium looks kind of odd as well; there seems to be a sort of hump immediately behind the hips that makes it look like the body is bent pretty sharply dorsoventrally; additionally, the shading on the flippers and the way that they attach to the body makes them look almost conical rather than flat. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks pretty good based on fossil images and a model I found from the Yale Peabody museum, but I am very unfamiliar with the specifics on these worms. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@PaleoEquii: also created reconstruction of Pambdelurion (originally created as Omnidens and posted to Twitter but I recommended him to upload this as Pambdelurion). Spines on frontal appendage looks like different from reconstruction by @Junnn11:, but I think spine numbers are uncertain? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think so. Some specimens seems to show a bit more of them. In my opinion, Even the size of frontal appendage itself seems to be somewhat variable (flexible?) as well. Junnn11 (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure its related but yes the appendages are extremely flexible. The appendage and head anatomy here was based on Supplementary Figure 9 of Young & Vinther (2016), MGUH 31551. This one shows the many thin elongate spines well, as well as the cephalic spines, and the extreme flexure of one of the appendages. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Pliodetes nigeriensis
Created life restoration of Pliodetes, lepisosteiform from Elrhaz Formation. Proportion and fin placement are based on Wenz (1999) (inaccessible, I obtained from resource exchange and shared that in discord server), and head anatomy is based on Cavin and Suteethorn (2006).[2] I already got review by User:Orthocormus but any opinions from others? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Dichodon
Hey folks, our next Eocene European mammal, Dichodon.
Made this artwork to be included in the Tanis (fossil site) page. It was a bit challenging to guess where I should ask for advice in this piece, given there isn't much going on, but I decided to add it here for review.
YellowPanda2001 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems extremely unlikely that a turtle could ever get spiked through the entire carapace by a branch like that... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
An impaled turtle was found at the Tanis sight, but this illustration was clearly not informed by the preserved material. As can be seen in the fossil, the branch enters near the head and leaves near the leg, thus not penetrating the carapace as shown here. Also strange that the image specifically depicts a nanhsiungchelyid rather than a baenid, since the specimen was suggested to have affinities with the latter clade. I agree with previous comments regarding overall clarity and detail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In my defense, this was a piece inspired by the finds in the Tanis, not necessarily a depiction of the actual fossils we find there. I wasn't, indeed, aware of what kind of turtle was the one impaled in the tree, just that it was a turtle. Considering the setting, a baenid seems just as likely as a nanhsiungchelyid, though the latter was ultimately the one chosen. Lacking much awareness of how exactly the turtle was impaled, naturally the result of this art was merely a product of imagination rather than one taken from a direct reference of the fossil, though I assumed the overall strength of a blast could, hypothetically, allowed a turtle shell to break after colliding against a strong tree branch, though perhaps that's still unrealistic (ultimately I suppose the lack of available pictures of the fossils reported from Tanis was a contributor to the poorly informed conclusions here, but maybe I just didn't look in the right places).
Regardless, thank you for the replies. I was a bit reticent about this artwork of mine, not going to lie, but I still thought it was worth giving it a try. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, could probably be impaled~in other ways, but the scenario shown here looks unlikely. But I don't know the details of the fossil, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems that this image is added to page without review, and uploader seems to be author of the research[3] Dan Valentin Palcu. Seems that this image origins at late 2023.[4] Maybe it would be fine that is created by paper author himself, but there is some concerns, that first image includes multiple logos, and size chart seems to directly taken from Prehistoric Wildlife (which is already dead website, here is archive link[5][6]). How should we deal that and other than that are there any issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There's errors in the chart. The paragraph refers to that small whale as Cetiotherium, but the size chart refers to it as Ceratotherium. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It's now a much closer match to D. acanthocercus, though the grooves on the raptorial appendages, tail fan and final abdominal segment still seem to be missing (I annotated a figure from Schram (2007) to show what I mean: here). Olmagon (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The abdomen apparently lacking 1 short basal segment (see fig. 12). Other than that it looks nice to me as well.
Thoracic region around the wing base might be more complex like a dragonfly, but the previous reconstruction of this region are best considered doubtful (the author is known for faking insect fossil anatomy). Without further information, I think it's better to keep it rather simple like this artwork for now. Junnn11 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I have already added another segment. And thanks for the information!, I will leave the wing base unchanged if that is better. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I am very rusty in my knowledge of Synapsids and even more so in their anatomy, and this image is from 2017, but I gave it a little background and improvements to make it look better. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking about it, at the time of giving color to the background, it is very clear that it does indeed need correction in the posture of the legs, I will be reading more about this point in some papers and I will correct that detail. Thank you. Levi bernardo (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Vasuki indicus
Life reconstruction of Vasuki indicus
Hi! Wanted to put this Vasuki life reconstruction up for review... since it's only known from a few vertebrae I didn't have much to go off with, but I've tried to keep it in line with Madtsoiidae in general, taking inferences from Madtsoia and Gigantophis Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Those weren't supposed to be scales, just a pattern, though I see now that they look more like scales... I'll make some changes to make it look more obvious Edit: I have made some changes to fix the issue, please check now Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It is a size comparison, originally by Steveoc 86 and Oryctolagus XL reuploaded with the addition of Vasuki, I have used the mean of the lower and upper ranges provided in Datta & Bajpai 2024 (10.9-12.2 m has been averaged to 11.5 m and 14.5 to 15.2 m has been averaged to 14.8 m)
I have no idea about the others, I took the size comparison from the Titanoboa page so figured it might be right... If it is problematic though here's one specifically for Vasuki Vasuki indicus size comparisonAnsh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I started an update to my version a while ago with the intention of adding Palaeophis but I don't know when I'll finish it. I should probably add Vasuki now. The current iteration can be seen here [7]. The extinct snake silhouettes in the diagram mainly use the size of known vertebrae to roughly estimate torso height, then draw the snake to the estimated length. Doing this resulted in my version of Palaeophis being slightly leaner but otherwise similar. I gave it a more rounded head shape, which some living sea snakes have, but I'm unaware of decent skull material for the group. The paddle is slight less prominent in my version as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
That sounds better, then I think it'll be best to wait for the updated version for a size comparison. Adding only the life restoration for now to the Vasuki page then. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Bright yellow isn't the best color for visibility, a more subdued shade would be ideal. Maybe Steveoc 86 can share his font and text size details so the labels for Vasuki can be standardized even further. But otherwise the diagram looks good! NGPezz (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's a link to a potential update that adds Vasuki[8]. The skulls of both Vasuki and Giganotophis are inspired by a diagram of Wonambi by Scanlon & Lee (2000).
Re Palaeophis; There's Archaeophis that is well preserved and doesn't seem to show evidence of a paddle. It also seems that the lateral compression of the body varies within Palaeophis and P. colossaeus 'might' not be as compressed as other species. So, I dialled back the paddle somewhat, but still speculative.
Re the anaconda; Living snake sizes seem fairly contentious. 5.21 m is usually mentioned as reliable and is leaned towards in the wiki article but just recently one was found dead that is larger. There's video of it being measured by rope that estimated it at around 6.45 m. Reportedly, it was later measured properly by a biologist at 6.32 m. However, most the information comes from Instagram and YouTube videos. So it might not make sense to include it here unless we can find a better source? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why it has a spatulate premaxilla (an apparent exaggeration of the condition in Stagonolepis) when the skull of Paratypothorax shows no such feature: [9]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Well a spatulated premax is present in paratypothorax, just not to the extent I've shown here. I'll update it. thnx for the critique! DNB XD (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The skeletal is not a rigorous reconstruction of Venkatasuchus. It is almost certainly copied from this reconstruction of Typothorax: [10] And I will note the following passage from the paper I linked: "The tip itself appears to have been unexpanded as in Aetosaurus and Stenomyti, and is rather different from the shovel shaped premaxilla in most other aetosaurs." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I drew this reconstruction of Manipulator but I'm not sure if the head is well reconstructed. Any suggestions? Qohelet12 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Overall looks ok for me as well, only the leg with following issues:
Absence of trochanter (a small, narrow, triangular segment located between coxa and femur, a general feature of insect legs). In the original decription the segment is even visible via the specimen photo, but ommited in the drawing for whatever reason.
Detail of tarsus. According to Li & Huang 2022 Manipulatoridae should have 5 tarsomeres instead of 4 unless it was regenerated (see fig. 8B, although it's a different genus but still from the same family). Also an arolium (median sucking pad) is evident between the tarsal claw as well (see fig. 5C).
Now new study[13] have shown complete remain of Ptychodus. Although paper is not freely licensed, supplementary information of the paper[14] is CC BY 4.0 which we can use some of fossil images. Either way, I think we probably need new Ptychodus reconstruction based on Mexican specimen. @Damouraptor: or @EvolutionIncarnate: would be interested in that? Supplementary material also includes size estimation of multiple specimens based on newly found specimen. I wonder if @PaleoNeolitic: would be good at making new size chart? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Size comparison done. I depicted four species of each tooth morphology following Vullo et al. 2024, as well as the new body shape indicated by the new fossils. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want it might also be a good idea to upload this picture as an SVG or put the Ptychodus silhouette on Phylopic. I don't think anyone has uploaded one for the new body shape yet and it would be useful to be able to reuse it as a reference.
Koleken
Hello. It's been a while, but can I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to reconstruct Koleken mostly based on the skeletal reconstruction from the official paper (?) in this page... https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/05/koleken.html For the scale with human, I am basing it on the femur length that is described from the paper which is 50 or so cm if I remember correctly? So that is for the reference. Is my reconstruction good enough to be put in the Koleken page? If the human scale is jarring or say "unartistic" and inaccurate, I can just omit it from the image... Thank you very much as always and sorry for my bad english!
The foot claws look overly curved, and like they're reaching below the line of the feet themselves, which would be impossible. Dinosaur palaeoart should be posted to WP:Dinoart, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah I guess you are right. I just realized it is too curvy..
Oh I didn't aware that there is a page dedicated to dinosaur paleoart review.. Thank you for both of you guys input! I will not upload it then if there are some major issues.. DD (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Aw how could I forget about that paper.. For the right foot, yes I made it to looks like its just about to lift from the ground DD (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that the "official" skeletal diagram was for whatever reason not created with a scale bar(‽) (and wasn't actually published in the paper) and no size estimate seems to be given in the paper, the human scale seems to fall under original research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Tealliocaris etheridgii
At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request I made this reconstruction of Tealliocaris. How is it?
As far as I can tell, Clark (2013) is the most recent publication to have described T. etheridgii so the comments I'm about to make are based on that:
By my count, this drawing shows 8 spines on the lateral margin of the carapace, whereas the study states there should be at least 10 (see figures 14 and 17a).
The antennal scale seems to have too many spines, which are also too small (see figure 16b).
Just quick illustrations of the type specimens, not much that I expect to be controversial but putting up for review in case anyone has comments. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
For Makarkinia, as I see there are no morphological issue but any opinions? This blogpost estimated flying posture of Kalligrammatids[15] and shows some videos which shows slow-motion of flight of neuropterans, comparing that this would be fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Found two Paleozoic arts, Bothriolepis looks fine to me, especially since it is based on latest interpretation. While Pterygotus, is outdated. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I could only comment on arthropods, the Opabinia looks good, while the first 3 leg pairs of Burgessia could be a little bit longer, representing the specialized exopods (see 1).
The body segments of Opabinia are not arthrodized or sclerotized, what you see in the fossils are raised ridges of the soft cuticle. They make a gentle slope back into the next segment, with zero overlap. These ridges also increase in height and definition towards the middle posterior, starting very faint behind the head. It is important that they are not depicted as sclerotized, arthropod-like segments, and they should fade into smooth cuticle before they reach the flaps.
In terms of proportions, I really liked your previous verion - Opabinia is very tall for a lobopodian. Lastly, Opabinia had a long-ish distinct neck region (see Budd and Daley [2012] figs 3a, 3e, and 8a). The head should be faintly annulated, continuing from the proboscis, with the annulations fading away around the neck region. There is probably no external 'segmentation' between the head and neck. I won't make any suggestions regarding legs, as although I believe they had them, this is still not agreed upon. Also, given that this is an ecological reconstruction before anything, I won't complain if you choose to keep it as is. As always it is a very nice drawing. PaleoEquii (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I made a model of Entothyreos synnaustrus, a new collinsovermid from the Burgess Shale. Of course, there is no Entothyreos page for it to accompany yet, but its here when such a page exists. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This is my attempt at creating an illustration of Kermitops. The body is based on that of a salamander, while the eye is based on the eye of Hyalinobatrachium dianae (chosen because it resembles the eye of Kermit the frog). Does the illustration seems suitable to use? If there are any glaring issues, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)'
Seeing as I have updated the proportions and have not received any other comments, I will assume that the image is good to go. If not, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I made basic improvements to an old Cryptovenator illustration, as I said before I'm rusty with synapsids. I added lips, put gingiva, gave more shadow to necessary areas, put a more natural and neutral color to certain areas and modified the neural spines. Any comment? Levi bernardo (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I had originally drawn it somewhat similar to Sphenacodon and with certain similarities also to Ctenospondylus. In the redraw I did almost a decade ago I did that combination again. But I think it will be time to rethink it and perhaps be more attached to Sphenacodon, but I wouldn't like to completely abandon the high vertebrae either. One option would be to delete everything beyond the atlas, but aesthetically I like seeing the neck in this one. Now, regarding the appearance of the vertebrae, I think that the most convenient thing would be to blur the area where they emerge to give a more natural transition and with more tissue, but as for the tips, it is a good question to know if they will really have been similar to what is known about Dimetrodon Levi bernardo (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I made this model of shucaris appendages and wanted to know if it's good and accurate enough to add to the article. Is there anything to change? Wawrow (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I'm not sure is the inward curving of endite 6-13 (AFAIK there's only lateral view for these endites, which can't tell if it was curved inward), but that's not a major concern IMO. Junnn11 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This may be a matter of perspective, but the eyes seem too laterally directed considering the dorsal position of the orbits (cf. the lateral reconstruction in Fig. 2). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Macrauchenia patachonica
Hey folks, here's a reconstruction of Macrauchenia with saiga-esque facial tissue.
The first Macrauchenia image is difficult to judge proportions due to the angle, but it looks fine to me. Xenorhinotherium also looks fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's a life restoration of the Canadian Triassic ichthyosaur Callawayia, which, up until now, had no images on Commons at all. I've detailed my process and rationale for reconstructing it the way I have in the file description. How does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I just followed what Nicholls & Manabe (2001) said about this, namely: "A 25 cm gap is present in the middle of the tail, following vertebra 93, suggesting that approximately 15 vertebrae are missing." --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
A Bunch of Restorations that I forgot to have reviewed
Skull anatomy and osteoderms look OK for Turfanosuchus, but I'm wondering about the limb proportions and stance. Based on the known limb proportions [19] and other gracilisuchids [20], the forelimbs should be much shorter than the hindlimbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I can definitely see that and certain things were corrected later on including removing osteoderms on the tail and removing claws on the outer two digits on the front limbs. I should be able to fix this later today along with the proportions on the other Asian taxa in the family that I’ve yet to upload to wikimedia. SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
i could argue that, based on the trilophosaurus skeletal, the illustration you showed has actually kind of short arms, and that my depiction is within a natural range of motion for the creature, between the usually depicted limb that's far away back and the other far away forward [23]. So like a mid-step position LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, the point is to ignore Peters' work entirely (found on his blogs "Reptile Evolution" and "The Pterosaur Heresies") since he usually introduces many misinterpretations due to his unorthodox methods. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
i mean; ok, but that's not really the point, judging by other skeletals (like the one from its own paper) the arm lenght is fine in my opinion, and its in a natural middle-ground between the usually depicted far-away-back and far-away-forward foot pose, unless there's evidence of teraterpeton's legs being shorter which i haven't found yet LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Here are all of this user's uploads (including Teraterpeton, discussed above). I can't speak to the little anatomical details, but they seem quite good artistically. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thanks!, i also wonder what other species could be in need of a good paleo-art, like i did with Puercosuchus, which even with how interesting it is, there's ZERO other drawings of it i the internet! LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The difference between the mandrill and the Geikia is that the former is still recognisably blue-on-red... the latter is just straight-up violet. I'm OK with a less vibrant purple. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
My traditional pen + pencil reconstruction of Amananulam sanogoi, largely based on modern sea snakes and alethinophidians such as boas. No species within this family have genus/species pages with artwork, to my knowledge, and only one has a created page. This is my first time ever using wikipedia to submit my own artwork, and while I may fear some aspects of this reconstruction are too speculative, I may be able to make minor edits per your suggestions. While I plan to color this, I'm uploading the uncolored version first as it may be easier on the eyes and more anatomically digestible.
Edit: this specific individual is a female, hence the lack of spurs. Lythronax246 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Very few waves in a tsunami crest, which does make it a bit less visually dramatic. Whether that is an issue with this piece that makes it need revisions or not, I cannot say, but it is something others should keep in mind when reviewing this piece. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Megatherium life restoration by ДиБгд
While this restoration isn't used in the Megatherium article proper, it is widely used elsewhere, including at the collage in the infobox of Xenarthra. Looking at the head, there are a number of issues. 1. While this was a popular historical paleoart meme, Megatherium almost certainly didn't have a protrusible tongue based on a 2010 study of its hyoid bones [25]. 2. Megatherium probably had a prehensile upper lip similar to that of a black rhinoceros, see this 2006 paper which has a good restoration [26], which isn't shown in this image. The first issue and probably the second issue are fixable with editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Not the easiest angle to show this snout morphology from, but I've updated the image to show something like in that paper, what do you think, Hemiauchenia? If that's fine, I'll fix the landscape image too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks fantastic. In addition to the landscape the Xenarthra collage will also need fixing [28] (which just a simple job of replacing the original with your fixed version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I found exactly same skeletal reconstruction in DeviantArt.[29] Is image uploader same as original author? Also found some description of article of Vishnuictis which is citation needed, is somewhat similar to description in this deviant. (difference is upper length being 3.4 m instead of 2.4 m) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Don't have any comment on these but looking at Commons you don't seem to have got around to uploading the Youngina drawing we were discussing on Discord a few months back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Got a bit busy with stuff so I never finished it but all it needs are osteoderms so maybe like 10-20 minutes of work. I can get Youngina and both of the Temnospondyls I have on commons done later today. SeismicShrimp (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Unclear what is claw and what is soft tissue in the forelimbs of Yonghesuchus, not even clear if the forelimbs have claws at all. Separating them with linework (as in the hindlimbs) or different colors would be a simple fix. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think all of these look good. I can't recall ungual counts off the top of my head for non-archosaurian archosauromorphs, but thats a minor and fixable detail if incorrect. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
In at least the largest specimen of Prolacerta, the femur is a good 50% longer than the humerus [31]. The opposite seems to be true here? Or is it the posture? Also, Figure 9 in the paper has a new skull reconstruction that gives it somewhat larger eyes and a mild overbite. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Two illustrations of mekosuchines. The first one displays the diversity of the group, comparing Paludirex, Quinkana, Mekosuchus and Baru darrowi (to scale). The other is a size comparisson of Quinkana fortirostrum with a human based on the estimates of Flannery (1990) and Sobbe et al. (2013).
I also got a skull recon in the works but that will take some more time to finish and recieve feedback from a first hand source so really thats not relevant right now.Armin Reindl (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I’m doing an in between sort of reconstruction where the osteoderms are visible but under a layer of skin instead of keratin. SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Paranacaiman bravardi
A skull reconstruction and size comparisson of Paranacaiman. The skull reconstruction features a generalized skull shape and is based on a reconstruction of the holotype skull table. Missing sutures are inferred based on the general anatomy of close relatives like Acresuchus, Purussaurus neivensis and Mourasuchus atopus.Armin Reindl (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Goronyosaurus nigeriensis
Goronyosaurus nigeriensis
Reconstruction as a plioplatecarpine following recent phylogenetic studies, updating from previous reconstructions as a mosasaurine. Head is based on Lingham-Soliar (1991), while body proportions are based on the Los Angeles Platecarpus skeleton. Macrophyseter | talk21:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I've been working on a bunch of stuff this week with a focus on a few archosaurs and a bunch of cynodonts, but I saw this guy got published so I decided to drop what I was doing to get a quick life restoration out. I'll be putting the rest of my stuff up for review in the next few days, expect around 10-15 taxa. SeismicShrimp (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Just before someone jumps in to say the canine should be covered, Tasmanian devils often have exposed canines (as I like to point out). FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Gracilisuchus generally looks fine, but the lower jaw seems too tall. There is some crushing in MCZ 4117 but the thinness of the lower jaw is fairly consistent across specimens. Either way, this is a substantial improvement over the current image. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
You’re right, I should be able to fix that within the next 30 min. Was about to start working on some other crocodylomorphs anyway. SeismicShrimp (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Ticinosuchus looks fine considering the mess that the material is. Erpetosuchus looks like it has longer forelimbs and a smaller head than restored by Foffa et al.? I won't discount the effect of perspective, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
the forelimbs are just more stretched out but i sort of agree with the head size problem, just give me a few minutes and I can fix it SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Ichthyotitan severnensis
Gamatavus antiquus
Size Comparison for Dichodon
Dichodon Portrait
based on Texas Through Time specimen
New size chart
Ordosipterus planignathus
Caviramus schesaplanensis
Lariosaurus
Eryops (have inaccuracy in fingers, I will tag)
No need to explain
Ostenocaris and other Osteno fauna
Pterygotus (already tagged as inaccurate)
Palaelodus etc.
.jpg)
Second version (I decided to upload them as separate files)
Maledictosuchus (seems file name typo, Maldictosuchus)
Rhacheosaurus (seems file name typo, Racheosaurus)
Carbonodraco lundi
Elliotsmithia longiceps
Haqelpycnodus picteti
Khirtharia inflata
Limnocyon verus
Trypanognathus remigiusbergensis
Turfanosuchus dabanensis
Gyrodus hexagonus
Rhodotheratus parvus
Reiszorhinus olsoni
Eothyris parkeyi
Palaeotherium medium
Size chart of a selection of the many sp. of Palaeotherium
Tseajaia campi
Yonghesuchus sangbiensis
Notobrachyops picketti
Bothriceps australis
Youngina capensis
Thabanchuia oomie
Kourerpeton bradyi
Prolacerta broomi
Epoidesuchus tavaresae
Nanxiongilambda yei
Impumlophantsi boonstrai
Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum
Ticinosuchus ferox
Erpetosuchus granti
Brachyprosopus broomi
Eodicynodon oosthuizeni
Vaughnictis smithae
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diprotodon_optatum_moulage.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/99825050/zlx01104.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/776947525252939780/1225583180120195112/Teraterpeton.png?ex=6621a848&is=660f3348&hm=13845c7d648261a5ef62047c527cdf34491632f1cf576bca086fc624808658fc&){kind=link}
![[23]](https://www.reptileevolution.com/images/lepidosauromorpha/diadectidae/lepidosauriformes/Trilophosaurus588.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pleistocene_SA.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xenarthra.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palaeoloxodon-Species-Scale-Diagram-SVG-Steveoc86.svg){kind=link}
