Yewtharaptor just uploaded this Sarcosaurus skeletal diagram from the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. I can't see any indication of a free license, though, and the article isn't even open access. Does this necessitate deletion? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly states that it is under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model, so this is likely to be a fake license. Yewtharaptor has a long history of directly plagiarising material from research papers and adding them straight into articles, as well as claming unreasonable grounds for fair use of images, so this use of a fake creative commons license does not suprise me, but it is a new low, especially for someone involved in the production of the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on updating this diagram after the new (well, new-ish by now) Spinophorosaurus paper, and I think that it's ready. I've reposed the tail, wedged the dorsals, rotated the scapulocoracoid upwards, and accounted for the fact that eusauropods probably held their manual unguals in an oblique view. I'm not too sure how well I did the latter, but it is a minor detail, and the claw actually fits between the phalanx and the ground properly now. How does this new version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess in a similar vein to Spinophorosaurus above the outer toes should probably be splayed to the sides more if possible, I know skeletal perspective is difficult. That's all I have though. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I splayed them out a bit more. I think that they were already sort of in perspective, but hopefully it's a bit more obvious now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I just updated the composite Brachiosaurus - how does this look? I seem to remember that I was instructed to update the skull but never got around to it - does anyone recall what this change was? I've updated the layout, given the animal lips, marked one tooth as ambiguously known, rotated the scapulocoracoid, and deflect the tail upwards. Once this is approved, I'll updated the skull diagram and "parking ramp" (the latter will prove interesting to remake with the new format). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's yet another size comparison, this time an updated one for Parasaurolophus. I've included P. cyrtocristatus in it in addition to P. walkeri. I didn't include P. tubicen or Baby Joe, but I can try to add them if it's desired. Our current image gives quite a high length estimate, considering that Paul (2016) lists it at 7.5 metres (25 ft). Additionally, the silhouette in the current version seems to be a direct trace over Hartman's older P. walkeri skeletal, which poses copyright issues. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a deletion request can be opened? Looks like a pretty blatant copy to me. Hartman has put a version of the skeletal as a silhouette on Phylopic but it is listed as noncommercial: [2]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Many of them have issues with the plumage and underdeveloped feet. The annoying this with Corythoraptor is also that the paper had a free restoration[3] (now added above), which shows pronated hands and lack of primary wing feathers attached to the second fingers, which they are thought to have had, and despite its artistic quality and the rest of that image being correct, it is not really usable to show an accurate depiction. The detailed style also makes it very hard to just fix it by painting feathers over, but if someone wants to make a try, feel free. The Heyuannia possibly has issues with the arrangement of the nest, Jens Lallensack once notified me that palaeontologist Tzu-Ruei Yang had used my Nemegtomaia restoration for his thesis[4] (page 148), and also that Heyuannia image above, noting that their nest arrangements were wrong. I subsequently fixed mine after corresponding with him per email, but it would seem the other image would still need fixing. Perhaps Ashorocetus has some comments here too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Should we really question published reconstructions so much, i.e. do we need to be better than the peer-reviewed papers? Note that a downward facing hand can also be produced by angling the elbow towards the outside. This is what sprawling reptiles do; they cannot actively pronate their forearms, yet their sprawling posture results in forward and downward facing hands. Same in humans, if you try to keep your forearm fixed while stretching out the elbow, the hand will automatically face downwards. In this aspect the reconstruction looks fine too me. Regarding the primary feathers on the second finger, I am not up to date with this; what evidence is there and for what oviraptorid species? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's mainly the right hand on the front individual that looks pronated, the others seem like they could be explained by sprawling. As for primary feathers, the phylogenetic bracketing used to argue for oviraptorosaur primary feathers (and tail fans) is Caudipteryx, which basically only have wing feathers on their second fingers. Since it's basal, it would be assumed it could be an indication for later groups, and long wing fingers have also been hypothesised to be used for brooding based on the nesting specimens. It's of course possible that later ones lost their primaries, but all modern birds with wing feathers seem to have primaries on their second fingers (even ostriches[5], which the depiction above is clearly based on), so well, I guess it's a tricky one. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That said, I think the published Corythoraptor image would probably be more appropriate to use than the one currently in the article. As for questioning peer reviewed restorations, these ones for example[6] have so many inaccuracies (proportions, limb postures), that I would feel it problematic to use them, even though they do properly illustrate some hypotheses. So I don't know what others think about this.. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The individual on the right does not have the hands extended which makes me think the unusual hand posture of the left 2 is because they are engaging in some kind of display. It's conceivable trends in feathering were different in oviraptorids than modern flightless birds considering oviraptorids had functional hands. If we have considerable doubts that would prevent us from using a journal-published restoration in an article, we should contact the original author and ask why they decided to reconstruct it this way User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk13:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I think most of them would be usable with just minor corrections. It's just a matte r of pointing the inaccuracies out and seeing who'll take them (I can fix a couple). FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Kongonaphon life restoration
I'm not sure if lagerpetids are close enough to dinosaurs to justify putting this up for review here, but I can move it to the paleoart review page if necessary. How does it look? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks cool, I only have some issues I'm not sure about. First, the hands look a bit mammalian, with very dexterous fingers, and it almost looks like one hand is part pronated? Also not sure if the shoulder joint would be that visible under the feathers. The nostrils are also sitting very far back, which is unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Although the hands are unknown in lagerpetids (and early avemetatarsalians in general), I based their proportions and range of motion on pterosaurs and Heterodontosaurus, which I believe have quite dextrous hands. I wasn't intending for the shoulder to show up through the feather coat, though I did intend for the feathers to clump and conform to the underlying musculature. The skull is partially based on undescribed Lagerpeton skull material mentioned in a recent conference abstract. The large nostrils offset from the front of the snout are consistent with pterosaurs and the shape of Kongonaphon's maxilla, which has a strongly concave front end which likely formed the rear edge of the naris. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't say I know enough about the hands of these early things to say anything conclusive. As for the nostrils, it seems many basal pterosaurs did not have very retracted nostrils (also assuming Witmer's idea that the fleshy nostril would have been at the front of the bony opening)? Say Dimorphodon (Witton restores the fleshy nostril very far to the front[7]) or Preondactylus, the front extent of the nostril is almost theropod-like, so retraction seems to be more derived, as the beak lengthened I guess? But again, very unclear and hypothetical, so it's probably ok at this stage. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with Witmer's arguments. I've reconstructed the skull with a pointed and partially toothless premaxilla projecting anterior to the naris. This is speculative, but is somewhat informed by the fact that the maxilla of Kongonaphon was toothed and the anterior dentary of Lagerpeton is reportedly toothless. The nares weren't meant to be retracted relative to the skull as a whole, just that the premaxilla was elongated akin to Eudimorphodon, Seazzadactylus, Caviramus, etc. Once again, this is mostly speculative based on preliminary reports, and may be revised in the future once more info is published. That's the risk with groups having incompletely-known anatomy, such as lagerpetids. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this level of guesswork is probably fine. One last thing, it looks like the leg in the background kind of "disappears" hind wards, as in I would expect to see the back of the ankle poking out above the other ankle from this perspective? Because it wouldn't be overlapped by the front lower leg judged on the direction of the hindmost foot. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of Olorotitan, matching the 8m estimate in the paper pretty well. Olorotitan is quite an intriguing hadrosaur morphologically. Also, anyone know where the 12m estimates are coming from? Comments? (Also, I'll get to Tylosaurus, Prognathodon, Eonatator, and Globidens soon, hopefully.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is a link to an update to my Rinconsaurus (The rendering and colouration will be the same as previous)[8]. The material is said to be from 2 adults and one juvenile but the paper doesn't specify which material belongs to which so there is some uncertainty regarding how to scale the illustrated material. The cervical is listed as 495mm but using the scale bar it comes out at 395mm. In the current version, I used 395mm because at the time I thought it looked more in proportion with the other material and I was influenced by shorter necked reconstructions. However, Overosaurus shows proportionally large cervical vertebrae [9]; using the listed size of 495mm makes the reconstruction superficially look more like Overosaurus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I would trust given measurements over scale bars any day. However, of course, the lack of associated individuals makes scaling hard anyway. Pitekunsaurus is probably the closest relative of Rinconsaurus based on material known from a single individual, so you might want to check how its proportions compare. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think what also threw me was the centrum height coincidently works if you treat it was a 'maximum height' when scaled to 395mm and also works as a posterior height when scaled to 495mm. Most of the limb material seems to fit well together. The ischium is scaled up a fair bit to match the other hip material and it's described as small so it's probably from the juvenile. A complete scapula and coracoid are known but not illustrated, it's not clear if the length measurement provided is for both together or just the scapula. There's a nice image of the Muyelensaurus scapula that I'm going to look, hopefully that will help. I'll look into Pitekunsaurus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Shantungosaurus is actually the largest cerapod. Did you mean ceratopsian? If so, then... possibly? The problem is that large ceratopsids are generally not very complete. T. horridus, T. prorsus,"T. maximus" Eotriceratops xerinsularis, and (I think) Ojoceratops fowleri really don't present a clear answer as to who's the biggest, and Torosaurus latus may also be worthy of belonging to that list. We really cannot say which of these ceratopsians is the largest, so I think that T. prorsus works just as well as any other. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This image is currently on Draft:Lusovenator, the description says that the taxon is known from a holotype "partial postcranial skeleton preserving odontoid, atlantal intercentrum, a cervical vertebra, isolated cervical neural spines, dorsal vertebrae, fragments of sacral vertebrae, caudal vertebrae, chevrons,fragments of cervical and dorsal ribs, right ilium, both pubes, and ischia" and a paratype "l—SHN.019, a partial skeleton represented by a series of articulated caudal vertebrae and an almost complete right pes" I think that this complete skeletal reconstruction is unduly speculative (particularly for the skull) given the fragmentary material known for this taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Also the pubis looks to be inaccurate compared to the one present in the Skeletal reconstruction in the paper, with the keel in particular looking to be inaccurately shaped. The illium and ischium also look off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The pubis and ischium are only shafts and therefore don't contact each other beneath the acetabulum, thereby forcing the femur to articulate with the ischium! The flesh profile also doesn't seem to follow the bones very well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
There's the figure with the skeletal reconstruction from the paper in this NovoTaxa post. The ischium looks longer and more crookedly shaped in the official reconstruction, and has a proper proximal articulation with the rest of the hip. The illium also looks proportionally larger in the paper figure as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Hemiauchenia
It's been too long since I last made a size comparison, so here's one of the recently described sauropodomorph Irisosaurus, with notably broad hands (akin to Yizhousaurus). Comments? Also, it doesn't look like this name was registered in ZooBank, so I assume that that's bad for its validity. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Size estimates should come from the published literature or a source cited by the published literature, i.e. Paul's Field Guide. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Size Comparisons by Dropzink
No indication that the source image is free, and for some reason it strongly reminds me of the illustration from the Marshall/Macmillan Encyclopedia...
I don't have high hopes for this one considering that the source is stated as "the dinosaur is based on File:Brachiosaurus.jpg (later deleted for copyvio)" - I think that this may be one of the DK Brachiosaurus images
I started a section about copyvio in size comparisons a while ago, and I fear that I may have come off as sounding somewhat snotty, sorry about that. However, the issue does still stand, and I believe that I've found more examples of it. The images uploaded by Dropzink~enwiki in particular often contain copyrighted silhouettes. Note that there are SVG duplicates of some of these images that have the same issues. Before nominating these for deletion, I thought that I'd post them here to be sure about the copyvio, and, in the case of Braciosaurus and Styracosaurus, to see if anyone can find the original images. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll start some deletion requests later today. In the meantime, here's a new Eoraptor size comparison to replace the old one. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I've completed a skeletal diagram for Suuwassea as a dicraeosaurid, something that I don't think that anyone else has done yet (correct me if I'm mistaken). I did my best to cram the known material of Suuwassea' skull onto that of Bajadasaurus, but my success was... limited. I've come to the conclusion that Suuwassea, Bajadasaurus, and Dicraeosaurus all had rather different cranial morphologies - unfortunately we need more material to confirm this. Anyways, Suuwassea is a super-obscure animal, yet it has one of the most thoroughly done descriptions of any diplodocoid. It's pretty interesting as well, and has a neat name (which, coincidentally, sounds remarkably like Eulalia!). Suuwassea has historically been classified as a diplodocid - something that seems pretty understandable after drawing it. Further information's available in the file description. Comments? How did I do? And yes, the size comparison will updated - someday. Next up is Brachytrachelopan. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The torso looks quite long compared to the other dicraeosaurids done, which is probably because of the elongation of the anterior dorsals because of cervicalization, but still should probably be attempted to be remedied. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think so. As far as the one dark blue rib goes I don't think distinguishing that a single rib has unknown preservation is necessary, but thats up to you. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Tschopp and Mateus [10] reidentified the bone Harris described as a clavicle as an interclavicle. Other than that point, I see nothing obviously objectionable. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've relocated the interclavicle. The dark blue color also applies to nine of the whiplash caudals, as these are only known from their ends and could represent as few as five caudals in total. Any more comments or is it good to go? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone will see this (since it's so far up) comment, but I've just updated the posture of Suuwassea. Comments? If everything's okay, I'll update Amargatitanis too. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Could be due to preservation? The holotype seems pretty battered. But anyway, doesn't count as an inaccuracy until we know more, but I'm not sure we could rule it out either, and the current size diagram also shows a membrane. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Epidexipteryx and Scansoripteryx also have much shorter forelimbs than Ambopteryx and Yi, indicating that they are presumably less specialized for wing-having, and the description of Ambopteryx features a skeletal reconstruction of Ambopteryx/Yi with membranous wings adjacent to a skeletal reconstruction of Epidexipteryx without membranous wings. On the other hand, the description also indicates that the elongate third digit of scansoriopterygids supported a wing membrane. Ornithopsis (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up because I think this would be the best candidate for a scansoriopterygid FA (I'd like to nominate a member of every major dinosaur group at some point). So if people think it's fine to show it without membranes, that should be ok for that. If I had to restore it myself, I'd draw a membrane, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobu Tamura's Albertosaurus life restoration currently being used in this dinosaur article does not appear to have been reviewed. I'm not sure, but maybe it is too thin. In addition, we have a restoration by Mariomassone that has not been reviewed properly. HFoxii (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
They both have some funky things going on, NT's 3D models often have a somewhat club-footed appearance, but it is usually easy to fix in Photoshop. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The Alberto in the second image is missing both halluxes; has an oddly-shaped, almost "allosaur-like" skull; and the upper half of the neck appears to be missing. Also the torso seems far too short, even accounting for perspective. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I've recently updated my Euhelopus size comparison based primarily on the original figures of Wiman (1929). Comments? How does it look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I can't comment on the accuracy of these reconstructions but they suggest that the scapula in a more elevated orientation would produce quite a steep torso. [13][14][15]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I just checked the history and you've already done a version using the Bricksmashtv recon. It's seems like the forelimbs are shorter in this version? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working on yet another update at the moment, this one also involving Wintonotitan and Tambatitanis (I might even bring in a bit of Mamenchisaurus, too), and I've come to the conclusion that the arms are way too short in the current version, and some aspects of the torso are probably wrong, too. I'll upload the new version here when I'm finished. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
How does this version look? Wintonotitan and Tambatitanis were much more useful than Huabeisaurus. Euhelopus sure was one weird sauropod... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
It's defo a weird one. It looks more like what I'd expect based on skeletals. Is the neck long enough? Most of the recons above show the neck mostly straight which makes comparison difficult. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Old life restorationNew life restorationHolotype tooth illustration
While Siamosaurus and Ichthyovenator are going through the GAN process, I'm gonna start prepping our second spinosaur tooth taxon, Ostafrikasaurus, as well, starting by digitally re-doing my old restoration, and drawing the fossil tooth in a separate image instead of just having a silhouette for some reason. Fixed some anatomical issues with the reconstruction, such as the unusually short humerus, skinny thigh, and wonky feet, and made the throat pouch more akin to those of crocodilians, with it deepening right under the hyoid. Also gave the "proto-nasal crest" a splash of colour, assuming they evolved as a socio-sexual display structure as suggested by Hone and Holtz (2017)[16]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that you've used Torvosaurus as a reference, but it's a pretty derived megalosaurid that appears to be designed for tackling large prey. Perhaps Eustreptospondylus might be a better reference megalosaurid, seeing as it diverged before the Afrovenatorinae+Megalosaurinae split and already has a long, low snout? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I also thought it would be a good idea to split the images, nice! I see you've covered the teeth in lips, so I wonder if the "subnarial gap" would even have been visible? Now you have a kink in the "lip" where it would be, which is sort of odd. The thigh also seems exceptionally wide? And maybe you need more indication of the deltoid muscle, the arm looks a bit odd where it attaches with the body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Slimmed the snout and overall proportions to make it more Eustreptospondylus-like (I'll admit I didn't do much proper research as to what megalosaurid reference would be most appropriate when creating the original drawing). Also made the thigh less broad and added skin folds to show presence of the deltoids. For the subnarial gap I was assuming that if the lips follow the shape of the skull it may still be visible, since if we're going by how lips seem to work in modern reptiles, they're pretty rigid and don't "droop down" or stray so far from the outline of the skull as they do in mammals. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Interesting now that the latest paper again says it is a ceratosaur. Should we then also show that option for balance, or is it perhaps enough just with the Ceratosaurus skeleton? We have nothing to base a restoration on anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Suzhousaurus Skeleton Reconstruction
Hey fellas, it's been a while since I passed through here. I started to work on Suzhousaurus a few weeks ago (very slowly) and it is now finished. How good the skeletal ended up? 21:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Looks nice, I wonder if the tail is too short? Looks kind of like it would tip forwards, and it seems proportionally shorter than in other therizinosaurs. Or maybe it would help if its posture was made even more vertical, as in this journal image.[17] While we're at this genus, the reconstructed skeleton in the taxobox has some odd hands:[18]FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparently is shorter; I used the tail of Nothronychus as a direct reference but probably more caudals are required? As for the lines, yeah, I'll make them slightly thicker. 22:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Changes are up, how does it look now? 05:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Looks better, Nothronychus doesn't appear to be closely related in the latest studies, and seems to have the shortest tail of any therizinosaur, so I'm not sure we'd have to follow that anyway if its atypical (the paper only assumes its complete tail is preserved). And oh, in one of your other edits I see a cladogram was added which shows the two Nothronychus very far apart from each other, interesting... New genus coming up? FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as the sauropodomorphs go, the Thecodonto is excellent, and the Melanorosaurus is also great, and both display the weird features of the two taxa (proportions, hands etc). The Patagotitan looks alright we can't yet tell whether it would've lacked the thumb claw, although the torso may be a bit deep, I can't quite tell. The Turiasaurus also looks good but there may be two hand claws? There should only be one but I can't tell from the resolution whether theres a second or just a shading artifact. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've seen him on Instagram and he appears to be more active there than on other platforms, gonna try messaging him. He's responded to me before so there's no way he won't see it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
There is something odd about the perspective in the Saurophaganax's lacrimal horns. They should run in parallel (as in other allosaurs), but here it looks like they are somehow "flaring" to the sides, kind of like the crest of Cryolophosaurus. And speaking of Cryo, the image of its head here also seems way too speculative to use, we are not supposed to show our own extreme ideas not reflected in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
[Below unsigned comment from Mariolanzas]
It seems that some of the issues ¨reviewed¨ on this page are in many cases just minor details open for interpretation and treated here as an excuse for the editors as to decide which pieces to keep or reject mostly based on their personal perceptions.
Mariolanzas, while your artwork is very nice, due process exists here for a reason. This is not DeviantArt, but an encyclopedia where verifiability and accuracy are important factors. Images need to adhere closely to sources and not present unpublished ideas to avoid falling under original research. That means that they need to be sourced and reviewed, neither of which is happening with your images. Indeed, this page exists because of a historical precedent. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, though the images are mostly good, some of the speculation goes outside the bounds of what is supported by even the "All Yesterdays" books. But Wikipedia is even stricter when it comes to novel interpretations, and we need to reflect published sources. For example, no spinosaurids are known to have had downturned snouts, therefore the Vallibonavenatrix image fails the criteria established by phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Mariolanzas I understand how frustrating it must be to pour hours into a piece of artwork only to have others tear it down for minor details. However this is to be expected in Paleoart, if you were doing commercial work for a museum for instance you'd expect similar feedback. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, we are required to go through this strict review process, otherwise we could be shut down by the rest of Wikipedia, and usermade paleoart wouldn't even be allowed. And trust me, there have been several attempts at that. So this is a small price to pay. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I remember Bob Nicholls talking about this, saying the scrutiny is much stronger than for normal artwork and quite off putting initially, and you have to get used to it.FunkMonk, can you link to the attempts to shutdown this process? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There were some more aggressive attempts too, but I only kept the links hat lead to our policy of being more rigorous with sourcing. I'll see if I can dig one of the other cases up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
A few comments: While the osteoderm distribution in titanosaurs is not known for sure, the Patagotitan reconstruction does not resemble any of the suggested distributions discussed in the literature and is at odds with the consensus that titanosaurs had few osteoderms. The tail of the Patagotitan also looks unreasonably thick at the base. The Inostrancevia reconstruction appears to be good in terms of all of the frequent mistakes I'm a stickler about. Agreed that the Cryolophosaurus is too speculative to use as is. As I am wont to say, remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Just added another one, Pelicanimimus this time. Mariolanzas, you know about the review page, yet continue to add images to articles without dropping them off here first, and fixing any potential inaccuracies/errors. We very much appreciate and welcome the contributions you're making, but as stated above, there are some rules for this and they exist for a reason. And that reason is pretty much the same as why you wouldn't just put your artwork into a scientific paper/journal or museum exhibit without consultation or peer review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that I'm working on a expansion for Garudimimus, I have realized the lack of decent files for the taxobox. Sparse photos of the mounted holotype can be found here and here ([20], [21], [22]) but none of them are CC licensed or at least, is not clarified. How can we get this mount on Commons? 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Well, maybe Justin Tweet who runs the Equatorial Minnesota blog could be asked if he wants to donate some images? I have commented on a few of his posts, he seems friendly. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I've just send him a mail. Hoping for the best 👌. 03:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Done! Justin nicely accepted the request and the photos [23][24] are already on Commons. Guessing this aged real quick lol. 02:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC) קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς
Ah ok, I always start with a GA nomination, which is pretty simple, you can see the step by step instructions here:[27] Peer review or GAN is always good for getting more eyes on an article before FAC, which is quite a bit more difficult. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
My old restoration of Siats was too allosaur-like, I guess based on what neovenatorids were thought to have looked like at the time, and also seems a bit too fluffy for an animal its size. I wasn't too happy with my more megaraptoran-like digital modification of the head[28], and a more fitting restoration has since been added to the article, so I thought the original version of the drawing[29] with a more generic allosaur-like head could be used for another genus with no illustration that would fit better. I thought the smaller Lusovenator could fit the bill, any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, as a basal carcharodontosaurian, Lusovenator probably would have had a long, pointed snout like Neovenator. I'm rather dubious about such heavy feathering on a more basal taxon as well. Also, isn't there some doubt about the megaraptoran status of Siats? The Lusovenator paper recovers it as basal to the Carcharodontosaurus-Neovenator split. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Was the Chaunjie Formation similar to the Yixian in its environment though? There would have been minor snowfall there, if I remember correctly. The North American tyrannosaurids seem to have been significantly less fuzzy, and some of them inhabited cooler environments, too, although not significantly warmer than the Yixian if my brain's functioning correctly. Right now the reconstruction seems to have Yutyrannus-level fuzziness. I'm not sure if non-coelurosaurian theropods would have had such extensive feathering, I think that scales are all that's ever been found for sure (although these impressions aren't too big), and even some coelurosaurs (i.e. Juravenator) have rather limited feathering. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't know about the climate, but at least according to Mark Witton's blog post[30] on the issue, he seems to find size rather than phylogeny as the most important guide to restoring integument. That is of course speculative as long as we have so scant fossil evidence, and lack of feathers in a fossil of course doesn't necessarily mean they were absent in life. Especially if we assume fuzziness is primitive for dinosaurs, it could have disappeared several times in several lineages as they got bigger. We know primitive oviraptorosaurs were feathered, for example, but what about Gigantoraptor? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there other good contenders? Surely, Yutyrannus can't have been the only large, shaggy theropod that ever lived? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This may have already been stated, but the idea that Siats was a megaraptoran only came up in its original description and hasn't really been considered likely since then. Siats generally sticks around Neovenator even when megaraptorans move elsewhere in the theropod family tree. I think the (newer, jpg) illustration is perfectly fine for Siats, barring the whole feather thing (which I have no strong opinions on for this taxon). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Even if the classification fits, I'd still not make it that shaggy today due to its size, even the time I drew it it was a bit too much. But it's an interesting range of opinions now for sure, maybe a perfect fit will come up... FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A while ago, I began to work on some skeletal diagrams for Dicraeosaurus hansemanni and D. sattleri, mainly because I didn't think that there would be enough rebbachisaurs left for the month (I was wrong, though, there's still Cathartesaura, Comahuesaurus, Rebbachisaurus, and Zapalasaurus at least, so some of these may pop up eventually). Currently for D. hansemanni I've drawn all the presacrals except for the atlas, the sacrum, 31 caudals, 20 chevrons, the humerus, the pelvis, both tibiae, and the fibula. For D. sattleri I've completed the sacrum, two caudals, the ilium, the tibia, and the fibula. Janensch (1929) & Janensch (1961) have been my resources so far (it's fortunate that Paleoglot exists seeing that I don't speak German. However, I think that I may need to reference Janensch's 1936 paper (Ein aufgestelltes Skelett von Dicraeosaurus Hansemann), since I think that there's a illustration of the mounted skeleton in there. Does anyone have this paper or an image of the said illustration? Another thing that I've been considering is what to do with the skull - I suppose that Bajadasaurus might be a good filler? Any comments on this project so far? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of Janensch 1936. Bajadasaurus has the most complete skull of any dicraeosaurid. However, the skull of Dicraeosaurus hansemanni is by no means poorly known itself and there's an illustrated abstract by Schwarz-Wings with a reconstruction of the skull. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've scaled some parts of Skelett m to get this: [32]. It is pretty obvious that my old Dicraeosaurus silhouette's outdated. I found another useful paper: [33]. I think that I should be capable of getting the astragalus and a few costae from this. However, I still lack a reference for Dicraeosaurus' atlas. As for the skull, I've yet to draw any of it, although I really should. Any comments on the WIP? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Besides the clear points of adjusting the silhouette the material seems to be properly sized and I see no issue with your plans to proceed either. If it is necessary the atlas can be taken from a relative, there is minimal variation anyways. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I may have to take the atlas from Amargasaurus. The unknown regions of the two skull reconstructions aren't very detailed, so I'll have to rely on Bajadasaurus for the unknown bits. I tried scaling the dorsal ribs, but they wouldn't articulate with the dorsals, so I think that I'll have to wait for Janensch (1936) for them. I suppose that I could also use the Wilson skeletal for some parts. I've scaled the coracoid and humerus, and it would appear that Dicraeosaurus has rather longer arms than often depicted... I'll try and post a link to my progress sometime soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
What specimen(s) did you base your limb measurements off of? In my collection of sauropod measurements gleaned from the literature, the only Dicraeosaurus specimen with an associated humerus and femur (skeleton O of D. sattleri) has a h:f ratio of 0.61, which is actually lower than the ratio depicted in the Wilson skeletal (0.66). The atlas of D. hansemanni is figured in Fig. 6 and 7 of Janensch 1929. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Skeleton Q of D. hansemanni preserves a humerus and tibia, though, and scaling off of it does produces a h/f ration of ~.65... not especially longer, so I guess that it's mainly just longer than I depicted it. The problem with the atlas is that it's not figured in lateral view. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Are the Dicraeosaurus bones from site Q known to be from the same individual? It's apparently a multi-taxon bonebed; Giraffatitan and Kentrosaurus specimens are also from Q. Ornithopsis (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize that. Using the humerus of Q as is produces an h/f ratio of ~.61, so perhaps not changing its size (as indeed done in the mount) is the best option. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've found the figure from Janensch (1936) in Taylor, Wedel, & Naish's "A new approach to determining the habitual neck posture of sauropods based on the behaviour of extant animals" (available for download from Taylor's website: [34])! I should hopefully be moving a lot faster now! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Skeletal reconstructions
Dicraeosaurus hansemanni
D. sattleri
I'm almost done: [35]. Any comments on this? I can't seem to figure out how the preserved portion of the neural arch of the atlas fits into the rest of it - does anyone know what I'm missing? (I'm not very good at atlantal topology...) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I would just recommend checking out the SVPOW posts on the atlas/axis complex, since thats the best resource I've found for those bones in sauropods. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the neural arch on the caudals should fade out sooner, with the transition to the 'whip' occurring somewhere between Cd30 and Cd40—see Apatosaurus louisae in Gilmore 1936, for instance—unless there's a good reason for all the extra caudals with neural arches. It looks like you're gonna have to re-pose it a bit to get the feet in the right plane. You should probably undo the damage to the left tibia. Nothing else strikes me as a significant issue, though I'm not checking the exact proportions. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, many of those posterior caudal vertebrae are actually preserved, and they're seen in the skeletals by Wilson and Paul as well, so I can't really do anything about them. I'm still kind of baffled by the atlas but I think that I did it reasonably well (and it's pretty small). The lowering of the hindlimbs and reparing of the tibia have both been done. Here it is, by the way. It looks really, really weird, but dicraeosaurids were pretty weird anyways. How does it look? Up next -> D. sattleri. Then either Brachytrachelopan or Suuwassea. Hopefully. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure the sequence has to be that long? Since there are large gaps in the sequence and I don't believe the posterior caudals are all from the same specimen, I don't see why you couldn't shorten the sequence considerably. Wilson depicts it with around 35 caudals with neural arches (as in Apatosaurus) and Paul depicts it with around 45–50 (closer to Camarasaurus), in either case much fewer than your 55+. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but why are most of the bones brown when the legend notes that "known in the holotype" is assigned a blue color, which I don't see anywhere in the skeletal? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Dicraeosaurus sattleri has been completed! Comments? It's really weird, even when compared to D. hansemanni. One thing that I'm concerned about is that I was unable to replicate Paul's 15m length estimate for it - specimens m and M have equal femoral lengths, and D. sattleri has anteroposteriorly shorter vertebral lengths compared to D. hansemanni. Equally concerning is specimen Nr, a D. hansemanni specimen which preserves a femur that's about 5% longer than that of the holotype... Anyways, once these are ready for the article, I was thinking that a multi-image template like the one used above might be useful. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Whoa... my work got on TetZoo?! Neat! I've fixed it and overhauled the proportions. It's now ~36-37 m long, within Paul's range of 35-40 m. The tail was redone by putting together the tails of Haplocanthosaurus, Lavocatisaurus, Demandasaurus, and Nigersaurus. How does this new version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't seem to see the previous version easily, but looks good to me. And yeah, there's also one of IJReid's skeletals in there... FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed a photo of a reconstructed Maraapunisaurus vertebra[37] at an unidentified museum on Commons and added it to the article, and isn't that Slate Weasel's diagram next to it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
WOW, I never expected something like that! Funny how the least complete animals can attract the most attention... I also will updated D. hansemanni momentarily to account for the wedged dorsals - this new version looks pretty reasonable in my opinion. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Brachytrachelopan has also been updated. Unless anything's wrong with it, I suppose that I should go back and update the chart again... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
So I was expanding Podokesaurus for various reason (we don't have a coelophysid FA, it was the first dinosaur named by a woman, a Danish ornithologist wrote a lot about it which I can summarise), but it also lacks a restoration, so I thought I might just to one myself. I tried to colour it with some old colour pens, but they were pretty dry, so I'm not sure whether the experiment was very successful, anyhow, thoughts? It is drawn in a resting pose similar to how the now destroyed holotype seems to have been posed. The article needs a size comparison too, if anyone's interested... FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks good! The middle toe of the foot should probably be longer compared to the other toes, as in Coelophysis (see, e.g., the skeleton of the latter that is in the Podokesaurus article). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah yeah, so I wonder what the best solution would be, to lengthen the middle one, or just shorten the outer one? Looking at the photo[38], it might seem the latter? FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe both; also, compared to Ceolophysis, the metatarsus in your reconstruction seems to be too long compared to the foot, compared to Scott Hartman's reconstruction [39]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah yeah, I was foolishly going by Lull's 1915 reconstruction[40] because I thought the legs were more or less preserved, but much of that is restored after Compsognathus. From reading newer papers, it would seem the proportions were nearly identical to those of Coelophysis, so yeah, I'll try to more closely match it with Hartman's skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Reading a bit more about this genus, and considering its name means "swift-running lizard" in reference to Achilles, I kind of regret not drawing it in a more active pose. So I'm thinking of reusing this drawing as another coelophysoid (maybe Lucianovenator or Powellvenator), and drawing a new one of Podokesaurus in a running pose. Or is that silly? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Thought it might be fitting to make this a subsection of the above, but let's see how it works. As usual, Greg Paul has a measurement, 1 m, but note that the tail is missing all of the base, so the length of it is impossible to determine, so it would need to also be scaled with known elements in mind. The length of the body without the neck and tail was 18 cm. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I've begun work on approximating the proportions, seems like it has slightly longer legs than Coelophysis. I'll try to get the diagram uploaded later today or sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Here it is! It falls between Paul's 1m estimate and Holtz's 1.5m estimate, so it looks like the scaling went okay. I never really realized the significance of Podokesaurus until recently, it's been interesting to learn a bit more about it, and refreshing after immersing myself in Permian tetrapods all month. How does the chart look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me! But I of course don't know too much myself yet, so maybe I'll return with some comments once I've read and written more about it... But yeah, it would have been very important in the history of theropod palaeontology if it didn't go up in flames 7 years after it was discovered... FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried it in the article, Slate Weasel, and it's a bit long vertically, could the empty top and bottom of the image maybe be cropped? And not that I want be too on the nose or anything, but I wondered that, since this is the first dinosaur named by a woman, it could maybe be interesting to show a woman in the size comparison? FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I definitely could look into replacing the human silhouette, since the average female height is slightly shorter than the average male height, this could solve the spacing issue. Alternatively, I could revive the cat for smaller dinosaurs (I've recently made a new cat silhouette), which would drastically reduce the spacing issues. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded to their pages without review by Y. Mudei on behalf of Cameron Spahn (similar discussion here[43]). I've seen this guy's stuff on Instagram[44] and he does some real nice work, cool to see him contributing some art to Wikipedia. These look pretty solid to me, with the exception of some of the Raptator's proportions, such as the oversized left foot phalanges and inconsistent digit lengths on the hands. I'm not the most familiar with megaraptoran anatomy though, so there may be other errors. Further comments are welcome. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The Coloradisaurus page surprisingly has no images and very little text, despite being known from a nearly complete skull and two partial skeletons. Someday I hope to get around to expanding it into a proper page, but in the meantime I made this skull reconstruction to put in the taxobox. The references used are listed in the file information. Carnoferox (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know an awful lot about this taxon, but it seems pretty good at a glance. This file should be on Commons, though, instead of Wikipedia. I think that there may be some way to transfer files there, but I'm not sure as to how it's done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why you need to show the missing hyoid? It's a pretty big bone and takes up much of the space, and not really part of the skull anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I already included the sclerotic ring so I figured that I should include the hyoid just for completion's sake. It also serves to differentiate it more from the skull reconstruction in Apaldetti et al. (2014). If it's too big of a problem I'll remove it. Carnoferox (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that they are equally part of the skull. Both are "floating" bones that connect to organs, the eye with the sclerotic ring and the tongue with the hyoid. Carnoferox (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the hyoid isn't part of the skull, but the sclerotic ring seems to me like it's part of the skull, yes it's attached to the eye, but it's still a bone within the skull, so I'd personally still consider it part of the skull. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
So is the sclerotic ring though. What I'm trying to say is that there is no functional difference between the sclerotic rings and hyoids in terms of being skull bones. Both are unconnected to the skull bones but are connected to organs that fit in spaces between the skull bones. The eye fits in the orbital fenestra and the tongue fits in the space between the mandibles. Either both are skull bones, or neither are. Since both are in closest proximity to the skull, as opposed to another part of the body, I think it's easiest just to classify them as skull bones. Carnoferox (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hm, the discussion of whether the sclerotic ring or hyoid are part of the skull is beyond the scope of the image review, but to finish, I'll oppose my idea of the sclerotic ring being a skull bone, it's within the skull, but like the eyes, it's unconnected to the skull itself, so i guess you're correct. As for the Coloradisaurus reconstruction, which is the thing that we should be discussing here, seem pretty good to me. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my point wasn't that it was inaccurate either, just that it is a bit distracting in a skull reconstruction to show such a big bone which isn't part of the skull when it isn't even known in the animal. But iff it was known from this genus, I'd be fine wit it. It is more abut clearly and simply conveying information, and avoiding unnecessary distraction. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that this drawing is a very close tracing of the skull diagram of the Apaldetti 2014 skull paper, including the tiny details, with only slight modifications (sclerotic ring and hyoid added from other papers, and some bones coloured). I wonder if we have a copyright issue here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is well within the boundaries of fair use since it is transformative/additive while still crediting the original. Otherwise the majority of skeletals on Wikipedia would be considered copyright violations since they trace photographs and diagrams published in papers. Carnoferox (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an exact copy though. I mean, I would love to hear that we would be allowed to do this, but I'm not sure if we are crossing some line here already. The skeletals you mention do not, or should not, trace the original exactly; the originals only inform, but the result has to be a unique work. Well, maybe your skull falls indeed under fair use and is compatible with Wikipedia:Non-free content in some way, but if so it should not be uploaded to Commons (which is very strict here), and it should come with the usual non-free content rationales. I feel we should consult somebody who knows better first in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you actually think all those skeletals were drawn free-handed? Because they certainly weren't, as any skeletal maker could tell you. And again it is not an exact copy, it has been redrawn in higher resolution, the sclerotic ring has been added, the skull and mandible have been articulated, the known and unknown material has been colored, and a new scale bar has been added. What I have done is no different than any other skeletal. Carnoferox (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Tracings based on photographs of the fossils themselves (as done for the skeletal reconstructions) is something quite different. I draw my recent skull reconstruction ([46]) based on photographs of the actual fossil as well, informed by the published skull reconstruction. And please don't get mad at me, I certainly didn't invent copyright law, but we have to comply with it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This should not only be discussed here at the Image review but at Commons, where the experts are. Has this been done? We are definitely well within the grey zone here. If the experts at Commons think differently about it, we risk a mass deletion of affected skull drawings some day. If you can convince me that close tracing are considered OK, then, as said, I would love to hear that and even do it myself. But I didn't see respective statements yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with them, as long as they didn't copy other silhouettes. Greg Paul once wanted to copyright the pose of his silhouettes if I remember correctly, but I'm not sure if actual lawyers would agree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Many silhouettes are copies of ones by Hartman, Paul, etc. with minor reposing (like the Triceratops one right below this). They arguably have the same amount of modification as my skull drawing. Carnoferox (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is true. And see what Paul (here) and Hartman (here) have to say about it. The first is much more restrictive than the last, but both clearly agree that reproducing the outline (both the silhouette and the outlines of the bones or skulls of their reconstructions) is a clear copyright violation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
How exactly is that "not true"? They are specifically credited to be copies of Hartman's silhouette with only minor reposing. Here is what Hartman says word-for-word: "That said, the images themselves are copyrighted - you can't decide to put one in a book, museum display, etc. without licensing them. And while the pose itself can be copied (in fact, please do) the outline of the image cannot be - i.e. if you make your own skeletals please adopt the pose, but you can't cut and paste the outline onto a children's toy without permission." I think this is clear that the outline (i.e. silhouette even without the bones) cannot be reproduced without licensing, which would put any silhouettes based on his in a grey area too. Carnoferox (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Jens, as was noted back in January, this issue isn't even absent from professional scholarly publications, the Asfaltovenator skeleton from the description paper is a blatant modification of an Allosaurus skeletal by Scott Hartman with no credit at all, is the onus on us to remove it or is it on Nature Comms for publishing it in the first place? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. If we start disallowing redrawings/modifications of skull reconstructions and other skeletal elements, then most images on dinosaur Wikipedia, including size comparisons with redrawn/modified silhouettes, will have to be removed. You're opening a whole can of worms that I really don't think you want to open. Carnoferox (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not opening anything. Most of our works here (not all, surely), especially the silhouettes, are unique works and therefore are fine. But what you are doing with both this skull and your silhouettes is a copyright violation in the eyes of both Hartman and Paul, you have to agree with this (see links above). If Hartman and Paul are correct in this assessment, then affected images will have to be deleted here sooner or later. I will surely not be the one who nominates them, but it will happen. I just want to warn you, you are risking to do a lot of work for nothing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I was discussing other peoples' silhouettes, as I haven't created any of my own, so do pay attention. My point still stands that many of the size comparisons with silhouettes could be considered copyright violations and be removed, if you are applying the same logic to them that you have applied to my skull reconstruction. I will reiterate that my reconstruction is transformative, additive, and credited, and does fall within fair use. If you have a problem with it then you should have a problem with dozens if not hundreds of other images currently on this site. Carnoferox (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If much more blatant modifications of Hartman's work are being published as figures in actual scientific papers without credit with seemingly no consequence then I doubt anything will happen here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If other people outside Wikipedia do copyright violations doesn't mean we can do copyright violations by ourselves. And Commons is comparatively much more strict with this issues as I would expect from a journal. If you feel that we won't get problems, then I just hope you are right. But it takes only one editor bringing these things up in Commons, and the figures may be gone (and no, Commons doesn't even allow fair use content). @Carnoferox: The examples you mentioned (the Triceratops below) are clearly not copies of Hartman and not even modified tracings; they are unique, independent works and therefore without any problem. It is only your skull that is a problem. Enough said, I won't bother you anymore. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it is quite irrelevant what people on completely different sites get away with, Commons has pretty strict rules. If figures are plagiarized in published papers, that is up to the the original artists to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant because the Asfaltovenator skeletal is hosted on commons, which means that it it comes under commons rules regardless of its origin. I am starting a deletion discussion now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Again Jens you are completely incorrect, the Triceratops silhouettes I pointed out are stated by the author to be modified from Hartman's. But I digress. What is the consensus here? Is my reconstruction modified enough to be put on the Coloradisaurus page or does it need more changes? Carnoferox (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It is irrelevant in the sense that we can't use it as a precedence. Commons has a very strict guideline on this, see precautionary principle:[47] As for the Asfaltovenator image, a better solution would just be to modify it. We do ave free Allosaurus skeletals that could be Photoshopped in.[48]FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking again, Hartman has released exactly that skeletal freely in another paper[49], so there should be no problem. Also, we shouldn't nominate images for deletion if they have many useful free elements, like the bones in that image, if we can find alternate solutions (such as cropping or rearranging), it's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is such a thing as the threshold of originality. Since drawing the skull requires no originality—that is, there is really only 1 way to draw it correctly—it can't be copyrighted. Of course, the drawing in and of itself can be copyrighted (so we can't upload a skeletal diagram from a journal article that isn't under an applicable CC license), but making a similar (or otherwise) drawing is completely allowed. This contrasts with a reconstruction of the actual creature, which does require originality (for example, coloration) and is therefore copyrightable.User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Given the threshold of originaliity, does this mean that cladograms are public domain and can be uploaded to commons regardless of source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing about fossils, there is no one way to draw it if it is a reconstruction, like in this case. The placement and deformation of each bone has to be evaluated (and a posture has to be arbitrarily chosen), and this would be done at the whim of an artist and their supervisor, that's why no two skeletal reconstructions are alike. But even if it was completely drawn after a fossil with no reconstruction, it would still be the artists interpretation of a 3D object, and saying it's not copyrightable is like arguing still life art isn't either, which is a bit absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Since "my" (really Hartman's) Asilisaurus skull is a part of this discussion, I do have a few thoughts. However, I am not well-versed in copyright law and I am a bit biased, since my personal philosophy is that all scientific information should be freely accessible to society without paywalls. My rationale is that Scott Hartman is far more skilled at translating fossils into diagrams than I am, so deviating from his diagram may produce an inaccurate result. I've actually seen the Asilisaurus skull fossils in person (they're housed at my university's paleontology department), and even then I don't think I could interpret them as well as Hartman could. And if I do deviate, wouldn't that qualify as original research since I'm inferring traits which contrast with the official depiction? This situation really is like walking a tightrope between different Wikipedia policies and regulations, which are admittedly in place for very good reasons. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
, It's sort of like Clean room design, because you have seen Scott Hartman's restoration, any attempt to restore the skull independently is tainted by the knowledge of the restoration and so therefore it is difficult to come to a novel interpretation without feeling like you've misinterpreted it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course we can and should use Hartman and others as our basis for such drawings. It's like writing articles: We cannot copy&paste the text out of the books into our Wikipedia articles, nor can do do close paraphrasing. We have to write our own text. But we can use the information presented by the book. This means that we can use the scientific information conveyed by the diagram, but we have to draw our own outline. The ideal way in my opinion is to trace from photographs of the original skull (or of the individual bones of the skull) to get a unique, significantly different interpretation of the 3D object (view angle, and thus general outline) which is still arguably close to the fossil, and then draw (free-handed, of course) everything we can't see on the fossil itself approximately as Hartman did. And then correct factual mistakes we might have made using Hartman's interpretation. We could also label our drawing as "schematic and may not be exact" to be on the safe side regarding possible inaccuracies; I did so for my Limusaurus skull. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I do have to say that the Triceratops are not modified from Hartman's silhouettes or slightly reposed: I've reposed every reposeable part of the animal, given it a different soft-tissue envelope, and even changed the amount of keratin on the face. I will admit that some of my older diagrams probably could have been more different from the skeletals that I based them on, but they still are quite different from them. Tracing directly over a skeletal diagram is copyright violation. This discussion has got me wondering about my Peloneustes skull, though, which is mainly based on the reconstruction in Ketchum & Benson, though. I assume that this is undesirable, based on the above comments, so I may try to redo it sometime soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
So what changes would I need to make for it to be considered significantly different from the original, enough to be posted on a Wikipedia page? Maybe add my own soft tissue silhouette to it? Carnoferox (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Google image search, other skull reconstructions exist[50] that are quite different from that in the paper you based it on. That would mean there is some leeway in how you shape, proportion, and place the skull bones, and again confirm that no, no two skeletal reconstructions are alike, so there not not one, uncopyrightable "truth". So I guess it's a matter of just playing around with the lines. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
That is the skull reconstruction from the original description (Bonaparte, 1978), which doesn't take into account distortion of the bones and has some articulation errors. The skull reconstruction from Apaldetti et al. (2014) fixes those problems. I really don't see a point in creating an entirely new reconstruction. Carnoferox (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
But that's the thing, "the fixed problems" are just one interpretation of an extremely distorted skull. There is still quite a margin of error. We should of course follow the literature as closely as possible, but there's a difference between using it as basis and tracing. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I doubt anything I could come up with would be significantly different from the reconstruction of Apaldetti et al., considering it still follows pretty closely to their photos/interpretive line drawings of the actual bones (which are the only published ones). Carnoferox (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Its a bit of work for sure, but it's doable. Try to modify each individual line while looking at the photographs of the bone, Bonaparte's reconstruction, and reconstructions of related forms such as Plateosaurus. Make the whole skull a little bit shorter or longer, and rotate so that the jaw is actually horizontal. I personally would have retrodeformed the skull even more, i.e. make the lacrimal a bit more vertical so that the orbit becomes more circular, and the sclerotic ring most likely would have been fully circular in live as well. You have much freedom especially in not preserved parts, such as the jugal-quadratojugal articulation (just draw after a Plateosaurus reconstruction). You could also simplify a bit, e.g. remove all but the posteriormost nutrient foramina in the maxilla, and all of the dentary; or at least change their shape (their orientation, i.e. in which direction they open, is important though). I don't think the articulation between the nasal and premaxilla is ideal; it looks like the premaxilla is overlapping the nasal but the opposite is the case. Also, the premaxilla process of the nasal is unlikely to become thicker rostrally as is currently shown, this is an effect of view direction (you are looking at the underside of a narrow roof, therefore it seems thicker than it actually is). Just keep constant thickness in this part. I would also expand the nasal fossa onto the premaxilla (you see it in the photographs; it could be a full half circle). This line that marks the anterior border of the antorbital fossa of the maxilla could extent all the way up to reach the antorbital fenestra. These are just examples of what is possible; the most important thing is to just change every line within the range of possible interpretation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No indication that the source image is free, and for some reason it strongly reminds me of the illustration from the Marshall/Macmillan Encyclopedia...
Silhouette taken from Hartman
Silhouette taken from Hartman
I don't have high hopes for this one considering that the source is stated as "the dinosaur is based on File:Brachiosaurus.jpg (later deleted for copyvio)" - I think that this may be one of the DK Brachiosaurus images
Life restoration by Nobu Tamura
Life restoration by Mariomassone
Cryolophosaurus with speculative crest
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[3]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corythoraptor_life_restoration.png){kind=link}
![[6]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png){kind=link}
![[7]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Dimorphodon.png){kind=link}
![[11]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epidexipteryx_hui.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epidexipteryx_NT.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Falcarius_%26_Suzhousaurus_teeth.png){kind=link}
![[18]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Suzhousaurus_megatherioides.JPG){kind=link}
![[23]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garudimimus_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garudimimus_skull.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siats.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YidamzZLGMQ/XmPDGj9JbAI/AAAAAAAAAsA/DupeUYf9xqgVMXKBFJG0C3GnZE2ClnWkgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP1.png){kind=link}
![[35]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ue_0dWrCyk/Xmz3SRUJx3I/AAAAAAAAAsk/eTB5U2Hx8IcCJdBmy4j25nznMsLm3b-_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP2.png){kind=link}
![[37]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maraapunisaurus_fragillimus.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Coelophysis_bauri_mount.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Podokesaurus_skeletal_reconstruction.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_wetherilli.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Limusaurus#/media/File:Limusaurus-skull-diagram.png){kind=link}
![[49]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allosaurus_jimmadseni_skeletal.png){kind=link}