Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Rebbachisaurus and Comahuesaurus

Rebbachisaurus

Comahuesaurus

It's time for some new rebbachisaurid skeletals this time around! Rebbachisaurus is pretty fragmentary, but it is quite obviously exceedingly weird: [1]. I've filled in the unknown regions with Demandasaurus and Nigersaurus, but the former has made the tail extremely long. Any thoughts on this? I've excluded one of the caudals, as it was not figured (I could try to add it in if desired), and I've neglected to reconstruct the unknown parts of the neural spine-only dorsals, the humerus, and the sacrum (I'll probably restore the first two elements, but the sacrum feels too poorly known to do this for). Any comments on this project? I've also been working on Comahuesaurus: [2] The femur is just a placeholder stolen from my Demandasaurus (again), and a chevron is currently missing (I think I'll have to take that from Demandasaurus too to get a lateral view). The apendicular elements all look like they could belong to a single individual (Comahuesaurus is known from a bonebed), but some of the caudal vertebrae look suspiciously huge (and maybe the posterior dorsal material as well). Any recommendations for how to compensate for this? Any other comments on these projects? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume white means known but there're 3 different shades of gray and I don't know what they represent User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Would Limaysaurus also work? Has a paltry amount of caudal material. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded Rebbachisaurus! Dunkleosteus: The darkest shade of gray was an error, I've removed it. The light gray is for material not figured in lateral view. Lythronax: I'm not whether you were referring to Rebbachisaurus or Comahuesaurus here. I've rescaled the tail for Rebbachisaurus (although not based on Limaysaurus). I could definitely look into using Limaysaurus for scaling the Comahuesaurus material, as I've already got a skeletal for it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, was talking about Rebbachisaurus, sorry. Missed that you were also working on Comahuesaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the moment, I think that I'll keep it as-is, but after I overhaul Limaysaurus, I'll have another look at the caudal proportions for Rebbachisaurus (the scapular angle in Limaysaurus is innacurate, and I'm not sure how rigorously the tail was drawn). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a couple of different scalings of the Comahuesaurus material, one based on Limaysaurus, the other on Lavocatisaurus: [3]. They actually came out pretty similarly, which is a good sign. Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And here's the Comahuesaurus diagram! I don't really have anything to say about it that isn't stated in the file description or stated above. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yangchuanosaurus

This is just labeled Yangchuanosaurus with no species identification. What is this? And is it accurate? I'm asking because the two Y. shangyouensis skeleton mount images on page Yangchuanosaurus are definitely incorrect as they deviate radically from the actual fossil. I guessed other Yangchuanosaurus mounts were probably inaccurate too.Kiwi Rex (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks kind of sculpted? As do many of the other Chinese mounts. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Diamantinasaurus

So the user Mariolanzas is "back", so to speak, and he made this new restoration of Diamantinasaurus and added it to the article directly[4]. As we all know, he doesn't submit his artwork to be reviewed, so I'm putting it here now. I don't really know much about Diamantinasaurus, so it's up to you guys to correct something if necessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Diamantinasaurus is not a lithostrotian according to current phylogenies, so it probably shouldn't have osteoderms. It especially shouldn't have so many; it's likely that even derived titanosaurs only had a single row of osteoderms on each side. The proportions look alright to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Coelophysis clavicles

This image comes from Padian and Chiappe (1998), which actually says the left clavicles are those of Segisaurus, not Coelophysis (because "No Coelophysis clavicles are well preserved" (10.1038/scientificamerican0298-38). More recently, a Coelophysis bauri furcula was described (10.1007/BF02988391) Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the multiple typos... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hollanda luceria

On the Wikipedia page for Hollanda luceria is a reconstruction of the animal as a member of Ornithurae, which is now considered to be incorrect based on the current placement of the animal in Enantiornithes. I reconstructed H. luceria as an Enantiornithine to update the page. Let me know if anything needs changing. Luxquine (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

While I wouldn't call the original ornithurine placement "incorrect" yet (indeed it is only 4 steps longer than as an enantiornithean in the analysis of Hartman et al.), I think this is a very nice illustration of the animal regardless of its phylogenetic placement. The proportions of the legs and toes look correct, and the only noticeable enantiornithean characteristics—a snout without rhamphotheca and a seemingly absent tail fan—aren't so conspicuous as to be incompatible as an ornithurine-based reconstruction either. I like it, nice work! DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, the most recent study to include Hollanda places it within the more advanced Euenantiornithes (Hartman et al.), and as such would be too advanced to support the possibility of the style of rectrices seen in the current illustration. Regardless of possible inaccuracies, would it be reasonable to replace the current photo? I’m having issues finding information on the protocol specifically on replacement. Luxquine (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

By all means go ahead. It's clearly superior in artistic and scientific quality. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't say much about accuracy, but looks like the right margin of the image has a black border? FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I can’t see a black border, is that something other Wikipedians are seeing as well? Luxquine (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, I only see it in the thumbnails, not the full version... FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I can see it by clicking on the full image. It's very thin, only a few pixels. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

How strange.. Any suggestions for fixing the issue? The original photo I uploaded doesn’t seem to have the same border. Luxquine (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Itapeuasaurus Skeletal

While I have not finished Katepensaurus, I have nevertheless completed another rebbachisaurid skeletal. While all of the holotypic material is figured in lateral view in the description paper, none of the paratype material is shown or even really described at all, so I have omitted it. Any comments on the skeletal? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No comments on the skeletal itself, but I would include a unit for the scale bar on the image in case the viewer doesn’t care to look at the caption. Luxquine (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Added! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Parvavis

I’ve created a page for the genus Parvavis, as we didn’t seem to have anything about them on Wikipedia aside from a brief mention in the Enantiornithes page. I have also created this image to supplement the article. While I don’t think I’ve forgotten anything, let me know if something needs changing. Luxquine (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Up the contrast perhaps? Pretty hard to see even on a bright screen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the suggestion, that’s definitely the issue it was having but I for some reason couldn’t figure it out. I’ve replaced the pinned photo with the updated version (the old one is still on Wikipedia under .png in case someone wants to look at the difference); anything else I should edit? Luxquine (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is better, but the background could still be a few shades lighter. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately lightening the background really seems to make it look off somehow.. I’m not sure how to change it in a meaningful way without redoing all of the shading as well. Luxquine (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It'd be better if you had a clear skies/partially forested background than a forest background User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the file history it looks as if the first version[5] of the .jpg you uploaded is brighter than the current version[6]. I'm not sure if that first version is what you were referring to when you said "lightening the background really seems to make it look off", though personally I think that version still looks good, in my opinion at least. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I hadn’t uploaded the lightened background version just because my attempts looked worse than the original drawing. I took a nap (which was probably the issue in the first place.. lol) and then tried again to fix the issue; I redid the background to be much brighter and removed the dappled shading on the Enantiornithine. Please let me know if anything else needs to be changed! Also, for future pieces, are darker backgrounds not preferred? This is my first time uploading a piece that doesn’t have a white background, and I want to make sure going forward that I don’t run into the same mistakes. Luxquine (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just sufficient contrast, I think. Otherwise it's hard to see the animal the image is meant to depict. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Saichania Issues

As Conty~enwiki pointed out on my talk page, the juvenile Saichania specimen has actually been reassigned to Pinacosaurus indet., meaning that it will have to be removed from this size chart. I've been trying to figure out what to base the adult Saichania' postcranium on instead. I'm thinking that Pinacosaurus might be the go-to taxon for this, but I'm still indecisive, so I thought that I'd post this here. Any recommendations? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Pinacosaurus still works but I'll let others weigh in too. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

To further complicate things, Kinneer et al. (2016) argue rather convincingly against the assignment of this specimen to Pinacosaurus and refer it back to Saichania. I'm not totally sure what to do now, perhaps change the key to say "Saichania chulsanensis? (IGM 100/1305)"? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Notatesseraeraptor

New model of the basal neotheropod Notatesseraeraptor frickensis! HFoxii (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The leg articulation just looks really off to me. Almost like it's going to fall over. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the legs okay now? HFoxii (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The eye is probably two times too large (common mistake to fill up the entire eye socket with the eye, but the visible part would only cover the inner margin of the sclerotic ring[7]), and the front teeth seem arranged kind of oddly? FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- And now? HFoxii (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Better, I'm not sure, but do the leg scales seem a bit too large and bulky? A bit like they're glued on... FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The corrected version is already uploaded. HFoxii (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating Rebbachisaurids

Part of my work on the Comahuesaurus skeletal involved me making a new Lavocatisaurus silhouette. Two years ago, I used an older version of this silhouette that I no longer consider accurate for many of my rebbachisaurid skeletals. Amazonsaurus was one of these, and I've recently overhauled its skeletal diagram to incorporate these new predicted proportions. Any comments? If this update is seen as an improvement, I'll also apply it to my Xenoposeidon skeletal. I also plan on updating my Limaysaurus skeletal and cross-checking the reconstructed regions against those of other rebbachisaurids. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Katepensaurus

Limaysaurus

Well, this is sort-of on topic here. I've finally finished up Katepensaurus which will likely be the last new rebbachisaurid skeletal I produce this month. I stuck with published measurements where possible, but I did have to rely on scale bars for a few bones. For the material not figured in lateral view, I colored it in light gray and used a gradient to denote its more speculative nature. With regards to the updated Lavocatisaurus, recent reading at SV-POW seems to suggest that it had at least one more cervical vertebra, so the neck in my Comahuesaurus and Amazonsaurus are actually not quite long enough (granted, they had this issue prior to the updates as well), so those will have to get updated (again). Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I've corrected the neck length in Amazonsaurus and Comahuesaurus, and updated Xenoposeidon. I've removed the gray unknown material because it was based primarily on the highly aberrant Rebbachisaurus. Really basal rebbachisaurids with more of the upper vertebra preserved (i.e. Maraapunisaurus, Histriasaurus) are lacking in good lateral views in the literature and are pretty fragmentary themselves, so I didn't feel comfortable trying to fill in the unknown regions here. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As March is reaching its end, this Limaysaurus update is probably going to be the last rebbachisaurid skeletal from me for a while. It didn't change too much with the update (then again, I only modified the silhouette and element placement, unlike Demandasaurus, where I redrew the whole thing), but the small changes did add up to make it appear noticeably different. Unlike other rebbachisaurids, Limaysaurus seems to have a rather small tail (although that could just be due to having to rely so much on scale bars). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've got the Limaysaurus skull too big. Compare to the scale bars and measurement of the endocast length in Paulina-Carabajal and Calvo (2021). The scale bars seem off in the latter as well, but in the opposite direction. I'm guessing that the scale bar in Calvo and Salgado (1995) is supposed to be 5 cm, not 10 cm, and 3 cm, not 1 cm, in Paulina-Carabajal and Calvo (2021), based on the actual measurements they provide for the endocast. Also, the ulna should clasp the radius proximally. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Scaling by the maximum width of the endocast makes the skull about half as big as it was before, and matches up nicely with other rebbachisaurids in size. I've also made some changes to the arm, including how the radius and ulna articulate, does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, that looks better. No other problems stand out to me with any of these right now, so I think they're good to go. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request: Hadrosaur skin impressions

Perhaps someone will be interested in making a diagram displaying well-known material of the skin of the hadrosaurids based on this [8] ([9]). I think it would be really useful for articles about the illustrated taxa. HFoxii (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Cedarosaurus Redo

Kenneth Carpenter recently uploaded an image of the known material of Cedarosaurus laid out, which inspired me to revisit this old diagram and renovate it a bit. I've uploaded an updated version of this chart based on the aforementioned photograph, using Hartman's (honestly rather odd) Cedarosaurus skeletal to fill in the missing parts (I also somehow broke the information template - does anyone know what went wrong?). I scaled the animal to the length of the femur, and the overall size matches Paul's 15m estimate pretty well. Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You had an extra bracket. Chart looks reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lurdusaurus

This (p. 289) is the only published reconstruction of Lurdusaurus I'm aware of. The one we have right now seems too limber and it's stomach is too high off the ground. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed those issues in this version. The old skinny version:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

the forelimbs should be 40% shorter than the hindlimbs (so the torso should be angled downwards towards the head), so about a meter long forelegs vs 1.7 m hindlegs and 2 m at the hip User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Should be easy to fix, most of the legwork (so to speak) has been done. Will look tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Now the front limbs are even shorter. Note that if the hindlegs look short, it's because the thigh is encased in flesh. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps modify the hand to be more in line with [11]? Granted, Lurdusaurus is pretty far from Edmontosaurus but I wonder if its hand anatomy may have been similar (notwithstanding the fact that it has digit I). The claw on digit IV definitely shouldn't be there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you seeing the new version or a cached version of the original? I actually did remove that hoove, there is still a scale line there that may make it look like a partial hoove, though? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked like an ungual to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well, I removed the line that gave it a complete contour to make it clearer it wasn't a separate element... FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps thinning the line would make it look less like an ungual? I also wonder if the head and neck could use more flesh, they look a little incongruous with the rather rotund torso and limbs. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Did that and gave the bottom of the neck more volume. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mario Lanzas' new Concavenator reconstruction

2021 Reconstruction
2019 reconstruction for comparison

Mario has recently uploaded a new reconstruction of Concavenator. Any thoughts? A marked improvement in some aspects, but the more astute out there can probably spot some anatomical issues that I don't know about. Though I question the visible fenestrae. Monsieur X (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do the feet look very short? FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Request: Protoceratops life restorations

Hey how's it going fellas. So, I'm currently working on a very large and quite difficult expansion for Protoceratops and noticed the aggresive lack of up-to-date restorations for this arguably well-known dinosaur. Not long ago I submitted a restoration of P. andrewsi from DeviantArt so..... There are many papers to cover (expansion about 50% done) regarding its paleobiology and it would be nice to have restorations depicting things like its reproductive life, intraspecific varitions, etc. Restoration requests:

Restoration of a nest or juveniles (whatever you want): as far as I'm concerned, at least P. andrewsi laid soft-shelled eggs[12] in small circular mounds.[13]
Dimorphism within individuals: there's a lot of papers discussing this condition in both species and seems to be well-supported.
Environmental scene?: several articulated specimens of the Djadokhta Formation suggest that some individuals were buried alive, sandstorms maybe.

Some of the best references online for the overall anatomy of Protoceratops may be Scott Hartman's skeletal[14] and Matt Dempsey's muscle studies[15]. I would like to do these but I'm terrible at ornithiscians and perspective. I hope it's not too much trouble! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should also evaluate the existing restorations and fix or tag the ones that are inaccurate? FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds about right, I'll hook them up. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not related to restorations below but is it possible to extract the skeletal from the supplementary information of Knapp et al. 2020? It could be useful in the Description section. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It has Scott Hartman's copyright notice on it - I'm not sure we can actually use it. We've gotten in hot water with this previously with the paleo maps and Sinosauropteryx... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But what about the other skeletals on Commons? At least the juvenile Parasaurolophus skeletal was stated: Reconstruction courtesy of and copyright Scott Hartman. The copyright notice could be also regarded as a watermark, not entirely sure. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Existing Protoceratops restorations

The MALvit seems good, though a bit too skinny? The AntoninJury image seems to have too short neural spines on the tail? I'm not sure, but does the Ferahgo the Assassin image have a too long crest? The rest seem to be off for other reasons, outdated, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think AntoninJury's one has the correct tail height, just looks like it's partly obscured by the bristles. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

MALvit's restoration seems pretty solid regarding proportions even though it was made back in 2012, but yes, some regions are probably skinny; the lower belly for example. I have just realized that AntoninJury's one indeed has the correct tail height but I'm not sure if the limbs are correctly proportioned as they look quite, small? Emily's restoration seems way too bulky and short armed & tailed. Also yeah, I think the frill is probably too long. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a coincidence, but I just noticed MALvit's image is very similar to this figure:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be strongly referenced after that figure. I wonder if there are any problems to this, probably not? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably different enough for it to be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday was my day off so I took the time to fix the Fighting Dinosaurs life restoration, now added. Comments on it? I tried my best to make it look consistent with Raul Martin's art style. Also added a comparison between P. andrewsi and P. hellenikorhinus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Woah, that was unexpected! Looks quite good, only obvious thing is that the Protoceratops also has claws on its fourth and fifth fingers, which it shouldn't? FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right, now corrected. Also, the fifth finger is obscured by the others, so it's probably okay. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Splendid. Looks great. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yutyrannus Restorations

Personally i think this looks better than the current art but i will leave it up to you guys Jakegaming7788 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, what makes you think this is even free to use? Noticed the huge watermark plastered over it? This is why you need to start using talk pages ASAP. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oviraptor skeletal

Added by Ifory without review. This has replaced Headden's 2011 skeletal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the earlier one is more appropriate, as the new one shows everything as intact... FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk that the original is more proper. However, I personally prefer the pose/overall aesthetic appeal of the new one, and I do think that the original could use an update. @Iofry: would it be possible/how easy would it be to show only the fossil material in your diagram that has been discovered, similar to Headden's reconstruction? SlvrHwk (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Gargoyleosaurus

For some reason, no one have made a restoration of Gargoyleosaurus to Wikipedia. I have worked carefully to get the body shape and angles correct. I also wanted to give it some enviorement to be in. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 20:04, 20 March 2021

Looks good. One perspective issue I can see - the left hand appears to be rotated too far towards the front. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Amen to that, problem fixed (oh-oh, I saw that user Jonagold2000 made a nice restoration of this one last year...) Conty~enwiki 06:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Another point I noticed upon zooming in - the tooth row seems to extend under the beak? AFAIK this would not have been the case. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I can understand that, but you can take a look at the skull in the original paper if you want to. 13:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the answer is that it simply did not have a beak on the upper jaw: [17] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the describer, Carpenter, Kenneth, is now actually editing Wikipedia, perhaps he has some advice? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We also have another Gargoyleosaurus image that might need further look over. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just want you to know, Dr. Carpenter have looked at my restoration: he argue that Gargoyleosaurus had a beak. Conty~enwiki 06:16, 1 April 2021

I'm not one to argue with the expert - beak it is! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, nice to see he responded there! FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Deltadromeus Size Comparison

The Deltadromeus skeletal in the big Kem Kem paper reconstructed it as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid, so I decided that it was time to update my size chart for it. I primarily used Gualicho to fill in the gaps (mainly the hands and feet), whereas I used a combination of Masiakasaurus and Limusaurus (which were actually more similar than I thought) for the head and neck. I considered re-adding the huge destroyed femur, but I ultimately decided against it as it is destroyed, not too similar to that of the holotype's, and here results in an animal a little over 15m long! I'll also update my silhouette, which, I hate to admit, is pretty much just a streched-out skinny Allosaurus with its lacrimal horns removed. Any thoughts on this new silhouette? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Suchomimus Restoration Illustration

Hello, it's been a long time since I've been here but I'd love to try and get back into donating illustrations for Wikipedia. I'm looking to work on a new piece for Suchomimus. I feel like it needs a polished, updated bit of art to the page. What I have here is a rough sketch. Any and all criticisms are encouraged. Forgive me if I've typed things out incorrectly here on the forum, I'm still rusty when it comes to typing things here. --Fred Wierum

Good to see you back! PaleoGeekSquared has been working on expanding the Suchomimus article, so maybe he has something to add. The only thing I would say is the same as with your Irritator, that it would possibly even have the inner hallux toe reaching the ground, as shown by some probably baryonychine tracks, and a Spinosaurus foot.[18] FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm on a bit of a hiatus from the Wiki due to university, so progress on the spinosaur articles has kinda stagnated. But this recon looks wonderful so far! Big fan of the poses and composition. Along with the hallux thing, the Suchos' heads seem to be too robust here. I overlaid the skull image from the article, as well as Francisco Bruñen's skeletal in Krita, and their skulls are definitely too short. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The teeth look too short and broad, though this may be just because this is a prelimary sketch. It's nice to have a picture of spinosaurid catching a fish while wading, as this does seem to be the leading proposal for their ecology (though not depicted as often as one would expect). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, it's been a while...again. Ive finally managed to work on fully illustrating this piece for the page. Let me know if there's anything that needs correcting. --Fred Wierum 03:31, 22 March 2022

Plagiarism and innacurate representation of Tlatolophus

I'm making this case after this representation of Tlatolophus galorum:

.

This is a case of plagiarism and inaccurate anatomical representation of the species. The wikimedia illustration depicted is a direct copy trace from the original paper: Ramírez-Velasco, Á. A., Aguilar, F. J., Hernández-Rivera, R., Maussán, J. L. G., Rodríguez, M. L., & Alvarado-Ortega, J. (2021). Tlatolophus galorum, gen. et sp. nov., a parasaurolophini dinosaur from the upper Campanian of the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, Coahuila, northern Mexico. Cretaceous Research, 104884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104884

This is the Figure 1. Of the paper. And as we can see, the picture is a direct trace from the skeletal silhouette.

File:Plagiarism in paleoart.jpg

Besides the obvious plagiarism case. The adressed reconstruction does not present any anatomical highlights. Listed as follows:

The skin does not show the scaly integument known in this group of dinosaurs. The tail margin has the same problems the silhouette of Ramírez-Velasco et al. (2021) has, namely, a lower margin with a weird ondulation. The feet does not display any distinguishable toes or ungueals. The manus is a blunt tube with no distinguishable features, such as fingers or claws/ungueals. The eyeball is placed on the jugal bone, and not in the orbit. And finally, the bony crest does not follow the correct shape of the skull.

Therefore. And after the evidence listed here. I suggest that the picture should be adressed by the community to determine its value, and possibly adding a warning of missrepresentation or if necessary, removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Díaz Sibaja (talk • contribs)

@Roberto Díaz Sibaja: For future reference, do not upload copyrighted works without creative commons licenses to commons, even if it is highlight plagiarism, it's better use something like imgur for that instead. I have nominated the image deletion. That said Levi Bernado's image is obviously a derivative work and should be deleted from commons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, alright, this is weird. I made the image in the middle of last year and when I did it I had no idea in which magazine the article would end up. To start we will go by points,

1.- Was it really necessary to expose myself publicly, not only to me, but to wikipedia in Spanish as those responsible for the reversion of the article? that in fact you yourself from the beginning deleted my image to place the one made by your friend and colleague? I think we're both over-exaggerating here.
2.- There are literally a ton of images of skeleton diagrams and an endless number of artists as is my case, we rely directly on them to make the illustrations, in this matter I have seen myself in the pain of saying that you are right with Regarding the CC license, but as Scott Hartman comments in his section on licensing his works, many paleoartists have his concept and Angel A. Ramirez as far as I know him, has never told me otherwise about what the direct use of his art to make reconstructions is wrong. In fact, when I shared the illustration with him, he had no additional comment to a "Very nice reconstruction".
3.- The super-exposed illustration does indeed match 90%, but at the time I made the illustration I also based my personal judgment on a couple of Parasaurolophus diagrams by both Scott Hartman and Gregory S. Paul. And, indeed, if you notice, the Angel A. Ramírez-Velasco diagram is loosely based, but with a large percentage of conservation, on different Gregory S. Paul diagrams.
4.- If the case were to eliminate my drawing, since it is indeed a work that is quite derived from that of the article, we should eliminate an endless number of illustrations that apply the same and worse.
For this reason I am totally sure that my illustration can pass as "Fair-Use"
In view of all the above and the "Quemada" (Spanish word for means "dirty my name) that you have given us, I consider that the best thing would be to re-upload my illustration in one that does not completely integrate all of the above in the diagram by A. Ramírez-Velasco Levi bernardo (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Roberto Díaz Sibaja, blowing this up on facebook was totally inappropriate, there was no need to do this for a minor dispute over the tracing of a silhouette, this is not serious plagiarism. That said Levi bernardo, you can't just trace over the silhouette of somebody else's work without legal permission. You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "fair use", "fair use" images cannot be uploaded to commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use. As for the two images you mention, I nominated the Asfaltovenator one for deletion, as was pointed out at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Asfaltovenatorskeletal.png Hartman has uploaded a version of his Allosaurus skeletal under CC license, so it is fine on commons. The other image probably should indeed be deleted, but it isn't really any loss as it isn't used in any articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous and petty that this has been plastered on social media with denigrating insults. But, at the same time, the derivative nature of Levi's work and some of the anatomical deficiencies (the comments about the unguals are fair, the comment about scalation is not) would have been caught if the image had been submitted on this very page. I don't know when it became OK to post reconstructions before they've undergone proper review, but this will take us down the path of losing all user-contributed palaeoart.

Might I point out that the current image used in the article has also never been subject to proper image review? Although it is objectively superior, that does not free the image from the due process of scientific critique. I have removed the image for now. It cannot be reinstated until it has been reviewed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Tracing skeletals certainly isn't uncommon or some sensation, even Raúl Martín traced/closely drew after Gregory S. Paul skeletals for a book once. But whether it infringes copyright is of course dependent on how much the end result differs, but I definitely think such drawings should be done free-hand to get as far from the original as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that skeletals can't just be directly traced over (unless, of course, they're freely licensed, in which case attribution should be given). Hypothetically, one should be able to turn their life restoration into a silhouette and own the copyright of the silhouette, but if a life restoration is just a direct trace over a skeletal, then hypothetically its silhouette would be owned by the author of the skeletal, which seriously brings into question who actually owns the copyright of the restoration. We've had some trouble with copyrighted silhouettes popping up in size charts, and the consensus usually seems to be that one cannot just turn an image into a silhouette and call it one's own (and I must admit that while I've generally sought to change the animal's pose, I used to follow the torso probably too closely (while dinosaur torsos were rather inflexible, they weren't entirely immobile), so I have been trying to update some of my older images that may have strayed a bit too close in these regards, and I'll try to get to some more over the summer).

As for discussing the new image, I wonder if Tlatolophus should be depicted with a skin crest kind of like that of Corythosaurus along its back (unfortunately, phylogenetic bracketing doesn't really seem to be too enlightening here, as far as I know. Also, would manual ungual III have extended that far up the hand? I must admit that I'm not really a hadrosaur expert. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, days have passed since this, and nothing has yet been ruled on both illustrations and even Roberto once again placed the illustration on the article, even without reviewing. Now I will give some comments about it:

Although the illustration is much better executed, it has a series of anatomical details that make it more like a Parasaurolophus with the head of Tlatolophus, the tail and the number of real vertebrae do not coincide with the apparent length of the illustration (approximately half), the sacral vertebrae look too low. The neck region also has a series of nonconformities with respect to what we know of Parasaurolophus specimens [19]. I agree with the points that Slate Weasel mentions regarding the crest and the legs, in addition the anterior musculature of the head and its insertion in the neck is very unusual.

I know that my illustration will be deleted and I agree to it now, I accept all responsibility in this regard. Now, as I cannot overwrite the illustration, now rather I will venture to conclude a better executed illustration, it is still too preliminary, but I would like to know opinions that obviously do not fall into the too logical, but rather in details and questions that you think I'm going to continue on the second version of it. And thus to be able to solve them. --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Tail looks a bit too short on yours. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Short comment: shouldn't the dorsal scales be more square-shaped like those of other hadrosaurids? [20] [21]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, though its closest relative with skin impressions of the corresponding area, Corythosaurus, seems to actually lack feature scales atop its vertebrae, although Saurolophus seems to indicate that the presence of this ornamentation was variable even within a genus (although so far it hasn't been found outside Saurolophinae, as far as I know). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow that's super weird. I thought this trait was widespread among hadrosaurs. Still, I would favor more square-shaped scales since Corythosaurus appears to be an unusual case of exception.PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Plateosaurus Size Comparison

Our current Plateosaurus size comparison does not include P. gracilis, so I've created a size comparison for this species ([22]), based primarily on Yates (2003), with Mallison (2010) being used to fill in some missing information for the fingers. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this instance, should I upload a separate size comparison for P. gracilis to complement our current one or should I try to add P. trossingensis to this chart instead? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity - is there any specific reason that the dinosaurs are on the left side of the diagram as opposed to the usual right? SlvrHwk (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Not in particular, though P. trossigensis will probably go on the right if I do add it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After discovering that some adult Plateosaurus trossingensis were more than twice as long as other adult Plateosaurus trossingensis, I decided to add P. trossingensis to my chart. Mallison (2010) was very helpful for figuring out how to realistically pose the animal. I've uploaded the chart with the added species, any comments? Creating the head for P. trossingensis was a bit tricky, as pretty much all skulls of this species seem to be more or less crushed somehow. Pinging Jens Lallensack (who was the lead author of one of the referred papers) for input. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Skull looks good to me! But note that this variation in adult size was not restricted to P. trossingensis, but probably applies to early dinosaurs in general: [23]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking of possibly overhauling my Massospondylus size comparison sometime soon, so I'll definitely keep that variability in mind. This would unfortunately seem to make it very hard to provide good estimates of adult size for more poorly known early dinosaurs (which is nearly all of them, given the sample size needed!). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tail length and size estimates

A new paper, entitled New data on tail lengths and variation along the caudal series in the non-avialan dinosaurs has recently been published in the PeerJ. In it's conclusion after an analysis of a dataset of dinosaur caudal series is that "there is little or no consistent relationship between tail length and snout-sacrum length". This has clear implications for size estimates as used in Paleoart reconstructions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what all can be done here, other than taking length estimates more cautiously and being more lenient regarding caudal length in taxa where the tail is unknown or nearly so, such as Baryonyx, Euhelopus, and Talenkauen. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus sibircus

Edited version

New model of Psittacosaurus sibircus. In my opinion, it looks much better than the old life restoration by Nobu Tamura. HFoxii (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The size and distribution of feature scales is quite different from P. sp. is this intentional? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the distribution of feathers / feather-like structures of ceratopsians. In any case, it is obvious that these structures were not the same in all members of the genus. Considering the large body size of P. sibiricus, it is unlikely that it could afford such a big "bristle", as in P. sp. HFoxii (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean the quills. I mean the nodule-like scales. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: I'm sorry for the long response time. Now nodule-like scales distribution matches it in P. sp., right? HFoxii (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bajadasaurus size comparison

This has been added to the article without review I think. Problem is that there is, to my knowledge, no size estimate published in a reliable source. So I think it has to be removed from the article because of WP:OR; what to do with it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the references listed shows it is original research/synth.~Still, strange no estimate has been published, given it's publicity. Has Holtz stopped updating his list? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I only know the 2012 update, is there a newer one? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, wasn't sure if he kept updating it. We can always wait for the next edition of Gregory Paul's field guide... FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did I think this was by @Slate Weasel:? Atlantis536 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, though it may be more realistic in context (and more humorous), I wonder the effectiveness of a human silhouette in a non-neutral pose for a size diagram as well as the appropriateness for an encyclopedia. SlvrHwk (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be thorn-like projections on the neck spines, but I was under the impression that they were encased in more of a hornlike structure. Has a rougher surface been proposed in the literature for this or Amargasaurus? Also, the author of this size comparison, Megaraptor-The-Allo, has uploaded some other size comparisons to Commons, which I've added to a gallery below. While the anatomy of the animals generally looks pretty good, one problem I see in the megaraptorid chart is that the animals are scaled to match the estimates without taking into account the curvature of the vertebral column. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch with the projections. I don't know what's up with those. I don't doubt that the keratin sheath could have been textured like bovids, but those are just too much. They look like lobopodian legs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, the Purussaurus looks alarmingly similar to the silhouette in randomdinos' chart (practically identical tail, legs, posterior back, and arm on the ground). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, i am the owner of these charts, to start with what i know there are no estimates for Bajadasaurus, so I used the size of the dicraeosaurus, but thanks for letting me know because I forgot to put it in the references. Regarding the other charts, I had not noticed the errors mainly in the megaraptorids, but I'm already working to improve this and many other things in several charts. --Megaraptor-The-Allo 11:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe, unfortunately (correct me if I'm wrong) that it would still be considered original research to create a size comparison diagram for Bajadasaurus, even if you were referencing another closely related dinosaur. That's the mistake I made on my first diagram. Also, as a side note on the Megaraptoridae diagram, you should adjust the location of a couple of the dinosaurs, especially Orkoraptor. SlvrHwk (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we have come to the conclusion that size charts without an estimate in the literature are OR, unfortunately (I must admit that I've violated this myself with Choconsaurus). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Megaraptor-The-Allo: @SlvrHwk: @Slate Weasel: Gunnar Bivens (aka Bricksmashtv) just uploaded a Bajadasaurus skeletal on Deviantart: https://www.deviantart.com/gunnarbivens/art/Bajadasaurus-pronuspinax-Skeletal-881610664 This can be used as a reference for the size chart; he estimates at 10.14 meters long. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Deviantart is not considered a reliable source, so no, it cannot be used as reference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

For size estimates, we rely solely on academic papers and books cited by academic papers (i.e. Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Holtz's Dinosaurs). While the above skeletal could be used as a reference for drawing a Bajadasaurus (from what I understand), we need a size estimate in a reliable source in order to have such a chart in the first place. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Asteriornis diagram

I guess neornithine birds come under the purview of dinoart, so I thought I'd put it here. Been meaning to do this one for a while. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Menefeeceratops Size Comparison

I'm far from an expert on ceratopsians, but I figured I'd give one a try with the recently described Menefeeceratops. Here is the size comparison diagram I made for the dinosaur. Comments or concerns? Thanks, SlvrHwk (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks pretty good (definitely better than my first attempt to draw a ceratopsid!). Perhaps the neck could use more flesh? It also looks like manual digit IV might have a claw (which shouldn't be the case). It also looks a bit larger than the estimated length of 4m. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes—as far as the length goes, the paper says "around 4 to 4.5 m long." The skeletal diagram in the paper shows it at somewhere around 4.1 to 4.2 m. I scaled my silhouette to the skeletal, but due to the curvature of the tail and angle of the skull, it shows up closer to 4.5 m. Hope that makes sense. SlvrHwk (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I just went off the article for size when I posted my comment, I wasn't aware that the estimate stated there was wrong (I've corrected it now), so the size depicted should be okay, as it matches the skeletal diagram. I'm not super familiar with ceratopsids, but I don't know if the dark arm could have been held that straight. It might not be bad to bend it a bit more. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Finally got around to updating the diagram. I bent the arm a little more. Does it look better now? SlvrHwk (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Skeletal Diagrams by Daniel Barrera Guevara

Daniel Barrera Guevara recently uploaded two dinosaur skeletals and added them to articles.

Sinotyrannus
Velafrons

I'm far from an expert on skeletal anatomy. Any problems with these? SlvrHwk (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt Velafrons had such high spines. They look even taller than Greg Paul's Hypacrosaurus altispinus. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored the thoracic spines that tall, because the conserved sacral and few lumbar vertebrae in "Velafrons" start at a high position posteriorly, only getting taller, which means that the thoracic vertebrae would've had tall neural spines, getting smaller once it reaches the posterior dorsal vertebrae, as the preserved vertebrae shows. This decision was also encouraged by "Magnapaulia laticaudus"' tall neural spines. Which both apear to be sister taxa of eachother (Prieto-Márquez, Chiappe & Joshi, 2012). Once comparing with "Hypacrosaurus altispinus" by Gregaory S. Paul, his H. altispinus does have taller thoracic vertebrae than my Velafrons, also Magnapaulia has proportionally taller nerual spines. This skeletal diagram was also made with the supervision of H. E. Rivera-Sylva. Hopefully this has provided an insight on my skeletal, although it may still be outdated since it is from 2019 after all... Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2021 (GMT)

Yes, but I don't think the vertebrae would've formed such a prominent hump. Yes, Magnapaulia was restored by Prieto-Márquez et al. with tall neural spines, but the height of the spines only gradually dipped until dramatically dropping at the end of the end of the tail. Additionally, most reconstructions show Velafrons with less of a prominent hump, or have the rest of the vertebrae be the same height as the sacrals, such as the mount at the Museo del Desierto. Miracusaurs (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I took the time to compare some similar lambeosaurine hadrosaurs, and it appears that the high sacrals that keep raising anteriorly at the thoracic vertebrae do indicate them getting higher, as seen in Hypacrosaurus altispinus, which my skeletal was based on partially, I also did ask Rivera-Sylva, head of the department of paleontology at the Museo del Desierto, who guided me through the elaboration of the skeletal. Although I am planning on doing a second version, although I don't know when will it be ready, so we'll keep in touch until then! Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2021 (GMT)

I thought I should say something about the Sinotyrannus, as nobody else has. From the other skeletal reconstructions and photographs of the fossils that I've seen, it looks pretty good. The shape of the naris is correct, and the amount of material appears to be correct. Now, it looks like Daniel Barrera Guevara also uploaded a skeletal reconstruction of Paraxenisaurus. I don't know enough about this taxon to comment, but I was hoping someone else could? The only real comment I can make is that, unless some other related taxon was different in this regard, deinocheirids didn't possess a hallux. Borophagus (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't have any reconstruction of Paraxenisaurus, given the low quality of the describing paper and that the specimen is likely a chimera, as noted by Andrea Cau. That isn't to knock the quality of the restoration though, which is pretty good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind compliments of the Sinotyrannys skeletal, I always read the article describing the animals and also use all the available photos of the fossil remains to restore as accurately the creatures as possible. Daniel Barrera Guevara (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2021 (GMT)

Meanwhile, regarding Paraxenisaurus, to answer Borophagus, Paraxenisaurus did have a hallux, the skeletal was made by commission and collaboration with one of the authors, and I have seen the fossil remains personally, Metatarsal II has the anchor point and point of attachment for the hallux, it is quite intriguing as it is a Ornithomimosaur with a hallux, which no Ornithomimid has this indicating it cannot be an Ornithomimid, and other pedal and manual characteristics do indicate it being a Deinocheirid, like the Metatarsal III, the pedal unguals, the manual ungual, and the prescense of said hallux, or at least the anchor point. And I would like to ask Hemiauchenia, what makes you think Paraxenisaurus' article is of low quality? I have seen the material personally, and it all indicates an Ornithomimosaur or a Deinocheirid. Cau's blog suggests a Therizinosaur, which the holotype does not suggest because of the small hallux anchor point and the pedal phalanges are too long. And thanks for the kind comments regarding the skeletal, I'll soon be doing a new one, Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2021 (GMT)

You're welcome for the comments! I'm interested to see the next skeletal. It's certainly interesting to hear about the hallux. Was its presence implied in the paper or is this based on undescribed remains? Borophagus (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If it was not stated previously, I'd prefer it if a version without the hallux could be made - Wikipedia is not intended as a venue for publishing new ideas. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The presence of a hallux would indicate it wasn't as odd as Deinocheirus itself, none of the other supposed deinocheirids had its most conspicuous specialisations, so I wonder if this one should really be humped, or more generic, like for example Garudimimus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer Borophagus, the article describing Paraxenisaurus does indicate the presence of a Hallux, as seen in Figure 9 and Figure 20. Thank you for the comments, my next skeletal will probably be Tlatolophus. I'm half way done. To answer Lythronaxargestes, I will not make a version without the hallux, why? because the article and fossil remains clearly state and indicate the presence of a hallux, it would be an unaccurate depiction of the animal. And to reply to FunkMonk, that's right, it wouldn't be as crazy or specialized as Deinocheirus itself, it was restored with a small hump and Deinocherus-ish skull. You do have a good point, the hump and skull are merely speculation. My reasoning to restore Paraxenisaurus like this is because both lived in the campanian, thus being almost contemporary animals, Paraxenisaurus and Deinocheirus both living 70-ish million years ago, while Garudimimus lived 20 million years prior, approximately 90 million years ago. Only more remains will tell if Paraxenisaurus had a hump or what the skull looked like. Greetings to all! Daniel Barrera Guevara (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2021 (GMT)

Glad to hear it! Tlatolophus needs a new illustration after ... recent drama that I'm glad I wasn't involved in. Keep up the good work! Borophagus (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Udanoceratops new imagery

Lately I've been taking interest for this obscure taxon, so I decided to make new files for its article. Now that I have spare time I uploaded the skeletal and life restoration; any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason for the Protoceratops-like tail hump? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yess, take a look on the high caudal spines. Also, it is a sail-like structure. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A very minor thing, but shouldn't there be a gap between the jaws in the size comparison silhouette like there is in the skeletal? Otherwise the jaw ends up looking much deeper than it is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, probably got distracted and colored over it. I'll correct it soon. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus Skull

My current Brachiosaurus skull diagram is almost a direct copy of Carpenter & Tidwell's skull diagram in this paper, thus, I'm working on an update to not only implement new data but to also make it more original (for copyright reasons). The new skull paper went OA awhile ago (here's a PDF), so now seems like an optimal time to do this. Here's the current work in progress image: [24]. I'm probably going to have to redraw the braincase and fused elements (as I didn't realize how much that unit incorporated when I first drew it). Once I finish this up I'll update the skeletal diagram, it looks like there are some more postcranial bones to add & update as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, looks good, I don't know if you already took this into account when we last talked about it, but I thin the last skull paper concluded that one of the skull bones didn't belong to Brachiosaurus after all? FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It was the quadrate that was removed (the loose tooth also was considered to be from something else, both of which are accounted for here). I've done a bit more, work, producing this image: [25]. It looks weird, but the tips of the jaws actually are level with each other when shut, as in Abydosaurus. I'm also realizing that both Giraffatitan and Abydosaurus are reconstructed without a quadrate visible in lateral view externally (I don't plan on showing endocranial bones in the final version), so I may actually remove that quadrate in the end. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is my current progress: [26]. This is pretty much what the final image will look like (unless anyone points out any major issues, of course), all that's left to do really is to smooth out the bones a bit (to account for weathering), ensure that all the measurements check out (using a scale bar it comes pretty close to the estimate length of 70cm), and double check the extent of the maxilla and squamosal. Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you plan to add a soft-tissue outline like the current image? That probably has some bearing on the (minor) issue of white teeth vs black teeth in skeletals. IMO there are reasonable arguments for both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I plan on having something more like my current Peloneustes skull reconstruction (without the soft-tissue outline) in the end. Also, silly me, I now realize that I just blindly went ahead and marked all the teeth as known! Since none of the preserved teeth are fully erupted (whereas I've shown them as such here), I should probably actually make all the teeth gray... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the diagram. Is anyone else getting rendering issues where the stroke width is inconsistent? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the white overlaps the black lines to me? FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the stroke is being placed above the fill, as opposed to below it (where it should be). I'll see if I can fix this later today. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to fix this by making the fill and the stroke separate objects, which I think has done the trick. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems better, yeah! FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Garrigatitan Size Comparison

File:Garrigatitan size.jpg

This image was uploaded and added to the Garrigatitan page by Dr Tututh. The image could be a higher resolution, and the grid doesn't continue to the edge... Any other comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that the silhouette may be derivative of some other work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I found this image from Dinodata marked as "© Robinson Kunz" which is a crop of this image from DeviantArt. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Garrigatitan was estimated as being between 4 and 6 meters long in its original description, so this is inaccurate. Additionally, it's extremely fragmentary, so this depiction is rather speculative and not terribly informative. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Garrigatitan is known from fragmentary remains, but we do have size diagrams of equally unknown dinosaurs. The 4-6 metre long estimation was for sub-adult specimens; adult specimens were estimated at 12-16 metres, so the diagram should be fine in that sense. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's misleading to not also show the subadult size. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"As the histological analyses indicate that no juvenile individuals were sampled, we tentatively suggest for the adults of Garrigatitan a body length of ca. 4 to 6 metres." With such fragmentary material, I think it would be best practice to show the preserved bones in the silhouette. I don't really see the value of depicting both adults and juveniles unless we're showing skeletals of individuals. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, having read the paper thoroughly I now see they provide an additional estimate of 12–16 meters based on a tentatively referred ulna. In my defense, the claim that nearly histologically mature individuals would have roughly tripled in length before reaching maturity is absurd. It's especially absurd given that the only specific piece of evidence provided for the claim that the specimen belongs to Garrigatitan is that it's too big to belong to Atsinganosaurus. Anyhow, those issues are beyond the scope of Wikipedia to deal with, so I guess I'll leave that there. I guess the best solution would be to show a 4–6 meter subadult/adult alongside the 12–16 meter individual suggested by the tentatively referred ulna? Bear in mind that one of the "subadults" is HOS 13–14, with HOS 14 representing maturity. Ornithopsis (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Elmisaurus edits

I'm modifying my old Elmisaurus drawing from 2011[27] to make it more in line with the new skeletal[28] that combines it with Nomingia. That means upwards tilted tail and larger crest, here's a WIP:[29] Any thoughts? Looks like the jaw should also be deep~er. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you plan to incorporate Nomingia into the image, you might want to make the tail shorter and the tail fan bigger. Although I'm not sure if it also means you have to make the tail point upwards; has it been suggested to be the position it was held at in life? If my assumptions are correct, Funston's skeletal's tail position is only aesthetic; other caenagnathid skeletals, such as Hartman's Anzu, has a tail pointing downwards. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, all other Nomingia images seem to show an upwards curve to the tail, even the way the fossil seems to be articulated:[30] As for the fan, not sure how big it should be, the only one we have direct evidence for is that of Caudipteryx, and Funston's silhouette doesn't show it so big. I think our old Nomingia image might be just a bit over the top in that regard... FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The specimens of Incisivosaurus preserved with feathers (formerly assigned to Similicaudipteryx) appear to have relatively larger tail fronds than Caudipteryx. In any case, there's evidently variation in tail frond morphology within oviraptorosaurs (as would be expected of a likely ornamental feature), so I wouldn't consider it an essential edit either way. Albertonykus (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I will see if I can give the tail a bit more love, though, as now it's just the tail of the original version upside down... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Now updated. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Bagaceratops skeletal

Been planning to finish this one for a reeeeeally long time, and now it just happened. With all the growing research about this taxon, it has become quite clear that both Protoceratops and Bagaceratops were very similar, so a skeletal reconstruction seemed prudent. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Very pronounced overbite. Is that a genuine feature? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be true at least in IVPP V12513 and ZPAL MgD-I/126. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of Bagaceratops, I thought it may be worth pointing out that the article's restoration has very lumpy feet, short toes and an oddly-shaped beak. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Well these issues are a common occurrence in most Nobu Tamura ceratopsian illustrations. Also, the frill looks rather "alien" as it appears to be based on incompletely preserved specimens missing a good portion of the parietal and squamosal bones. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

New restoration

Current

New

Got some spare time and managed to finish this restoration. I'll leave it here. Looks like a Protoceratops, but certainly not the same. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks great! Also, this may not be an inaccuracy since I'm probably out of the loop with this topic, but has the consensus changed on whether ornithischians would've had "cheeks"? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Nabavizadeh muscle reconstructions [31] it is not very likely. Fig. 11 also contains a muscle scheme for the overall Protoceratopsidae. I personally favor slightly exposed jaw muscles (snout shut in this case, though) [32]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Note he has elaborated in a tweet or similar that his study only ruled out muscular cheeks, not any kind of soft tissue filling the gap between the side of the jaws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that there is no support for those muscles, I find it even more hard to expect such mammalian trait in an ornithischian. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

While muscular cheeks are out of the question, don't the cheek scutes of Panoplosaurus imply that it had some sort of cheek tissue? I'm not sure what, if anything, that implies for ceratopsians, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok but if we are going by specifics, armored nodosaurids (or even ankylosaurs in general) are most likely not very good tissue-examples for the basal protoceratopsians. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Propanoplosaurus

I uploaded a drawing of Propanoplosaurus today, unaware of the painting by "Danny Cicchetti" (which I think have some issues: head should be more like that of a horse in shape, the manual unguals should not be so long and sharp, etc.). Any objections to my little guy? Conty~enwiki 20:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely it would have large spikes as its relatives? FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether we want to restore the juvenile or the adult...... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have learned that a good paleoartist should base his or her restorations on information from known fossil specimens. Propanoplosaurus are currently only known from a hatchling that only have armour on its head (indicating that bony plates and spikes developed at a later ontogenetic stage). Conty~enwiki 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion a good paleoartist could also speculate using what they have, while there are clear anatomical innaccuracies with this reconstruction, a speculative adult should be fine if it's labelled as such, especially if a reconstruction of the specimen at its current age is also present on the article which I could provide myself if needed. Sauriazoicillus 1:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hats of to "Sauriazoicillus" for giving paleoartists the freedom to speculate (though we should take into account the looks of closely related dinosaurs...), but I have been rebuked in the past for my speculative restorations (like my guessed size of an adult Scipionyx back in 2010...). Conty~enwiki 07:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, due to Wikipedia's strict original research policies, we should probably refrain from making hypothetical adults/juveniles unless reconstructions of such are provided in the literature, unfortunately. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Various dinosaur scale diagrams by Gallimimus wikipedista

I was obligated to create this section parallel to what is currently being discussed on the paleoart review page. Basically, Gallimimus wikipedista. has been tracing over other copyrighted art to make silhouettes for all of their unreviewed scale diagrams. Furthermore, several of them have substantially unlikely anatomy, such as the long arms of the Indosuchus and the overall allosauroid-like form of the Fukuiraptor. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistakes. I am still a beginner in doing this. Just point out the mistakes and the improvements that should be made. I can also delete the files. Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2021, (UTC)

I hope there are no hard feelings about this. It's just that Wikipedia has some strict copyright policies and that even silhouettes count as copyrighted material that cannot be reused without permission from the original creators. I'm not sure if there's a special procedure for getting permission, but you are welcome to reach out to the original artists to see if they would be fine with this kind of transformative work (and that their response is acceptable to Wikipedia's procedure). If not, then I'm afraid deleting the diagrams is necessary. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Gallimimus wikipedista., if you plan to continue working on size comparsions, then you could use the free silhouettes available on the PhyloPic. HFoxii (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Protoceratopsidae life restorations

Protoceratops andrewsi
Protoceratops hellenikorhinus
Breviceratops

With the topic of Bagaceratops it has become clear that other members are also in need of updated restorations. Comments about these? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the eyes are too large for some of these. The visible part of the eye should only correspond to the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Both Protoceratops are based in what is known from the sclerotic ring of AMNH 6466. After all, there's a specific paper focused on the large eyes of this taxon, so they should be fine. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also mainly thinking of Breviceratops. But I wonder if there is anything to base it on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, Breviceratops is basically known from juvenile material (so far) and the type skull has a notorious orbital ratio, as expected of a juvenile. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Could protoceratopsids really run on two legs? I feel that's a little too speculative. Miracusaurs (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Ceratopsia as a whole originated from bipedal ancestors, as well as this specific reconstruction you're refering to being of a juvenile. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to juvenile protoceratopsids, it's not speculative. Facultative bipedality (shown here) in juvies and quadrupedality in adults [33]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Australotitan Skeletals

Kingmeatballs and Sauriazoicillus have both uploaded skeletal diagrams of Australotitan and added them to its article. One thing that strikes me as odd about both of them is their very long necks and tails, a characteristic not usually shown in diamantinasaurians, as far as I know. The scapulocoracoids should probably be more vertical in both. The first seems to have an unusually large head, the second seems to have an unusually tall ilium.

Another thing of note, unrelated to the accuracy of the skeletals, is that a size estimate is given in the article, cited to the description paper. However, I cannot find this estimate in it, and it is even stated that: "although it is tempting to produce an estimate of body mass for A. cooperensis based on the preserved and reconstructed stylopodial circumferences we consider that this will not add significant interpretative value to our main purpose of describing this taxon, and comparing it to other members of the Titanosauria from the Winton Formation and semi-contemporaneous faunas", which indicates that the authors were hesitant about estimating overall size. I'm going to go ahead and remove the estimates, though please revert it if I've missed something. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 30 m estimate is parroting the press, as usual. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the critique, Im currentally in the process of revising the diagram accroding to this advice. I'll post it here once i think my mistakes have been corrected. Kingmeatballs 1:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for critique and information, I will revise my diagram as well according to the critique given. I will also post it here once I'm happy with it. Sauriazoicillus 1:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the left diagram has a substantially shorter humerus than femur, while the right diagram shows the humerus somewhat longer than the femur. J. Spencer (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated my reconstruction, I have removed the size estimates, resized the humeri and updated the shilouette, is this good? Sauriazoicillus 12:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks better, but there are still some things that need to be fixed. This paper: [34] indicates that the scapulocoracoid should be roughly perpendicular to the dorsal column. It may just be my imagination, but there still seems to be quite a big space for the ilium (between the lower pelvic bones and edge of the silhouette). I'd also recommend basing the skull on that of Sarmientosaurus, if that's not already the case (it's a bit hard to tell in silhouette form). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with the scapulocoracoid as it looks perpendicular to me, would it be possible to send me an email or send an image here showing me what you mean? In terms of the ilium, when compared to the ilia of other Titanosaurs it seems that there really isn't too much space. Also yes, I did base the skull on Sarmientosaurus. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a rough diagram explaining what I'm talking about with the scapulocoracoid: [35] (keep in mind that this is highly simplified and generalized). Here's a link to the paper arguing for more vertical scapulocoracoids: [36]; the skeletal diagram with the juvenile and the giraffe in the Spinophorosaurus article also depicts the newer scapular angle. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah alrighty! Thank you, sorry about the inconveniance I have a hard time visualising without refrences, I'll get right to work! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the size chart by readjusting the scapula and changed the shilouette to fit it, is this better? Any more critique? (Also I'm very sorry about the long wait life got a bit hectic) Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The scapular angle definitely looks better, no worries about the wait! I don't see anything else amiss with your reconstruction (though I must admit that it's been a while since I last worked with sauropods). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty!!! Thank you so much for your help! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hadrosaurid Size Comparison Updates

Gryposaurus

Corythosaurus

Many of my hadrosaurid size comparisons were made before I fully understood hadrosaurid anatomy, and frequently show aberrant midline feature scales. When I made (and then re-made) my Gryposaurus size comparison, I was unaware that skin impressions were known for this genus, so I've updated the chart to show this (although they're from a different species, so I'm aware that this may prove to be totally inaccurate in the future). I've redrawn the entire animal, and unfortunately it appears to look a bit more awkward now, I'm not totally sure what's up with that. I plan on adding G. notabilis, G. incurvimanus, and maybe even G. latidens to the chart soon, and then going on to update most of my other hadrosaurids. Any comments on this update or reccomendations for any others? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would look less awkward if you added the other two limbs? Or flexed the limbs more? Also, there appears to be a small red speck over the hind limbs of the animal. SlvrHwk (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've flexed the hindlimb a bit more (and added more flesh to the tail base), it does feel a bit more natural now. Good job spotting that red speck, that was part of a mockup of the femur I meant to delete after getting the leg in place! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are the silhouettes for the two Dinosaur Park Fm. species, G. notabilis is the darker one and G. incurvimanus is the lighter one, G. monumentensis is at the right for comparison. I think that I can throw in G. latidens, though it will take some time to draw, as there are no pre-made references that I know of for it. Any comments on G. notabilis and/or G. incurvimanus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added the DPF species to the image, any comments? It seems like the validity of G. incurvimanus is pretty unstable, so I've put a "?" after it in the key. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The humpback on G. notabilis looked weird to me but it looks like that's a genuine feature. Any reason to think that the other species would or would not have had it? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

G. notabilis' hump is formed by the posterior sacrals & anterior caudals, which are known in G. incurvimanus. These neural spines of this species(?) are a bit elevated, but it's pretty nondescript: [37][38]. The postcranial remains of G. monumentensis haven't been described in detail yet to my knowledge, but UMNH VP 12265 is claimed to have preserved "most of the dorsal, sacral, and caudal series", so I'm guessing Hartman's skeletal takes this into account (again, there's a litte bit of a rise, but not as weird as in G. notabilis). I think that the feature scales also mask this feature a little. Oh, I forgot to mention that I excluded G. latidens as its vertebral material isn't well described yet and I got weird proportions when I tried scaling it, so I'd rather wait for more information in the literature. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've updated Prosaurolophus. Any comments? I do quite like the old feature scale shape that I used, but unfortunately, no known hadrosaurid has such a shape, so they had to go... I've replaced them here with scales based on those of Saurolophus angustirostris. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've almost finished updating my Corythosaurus size chart, but I can't seem to find any bone measurements for C. intermedius, does anyone know of any? Also, are there any images in the literature showing the mildine feature scales of Brachylophosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Various measurements are given in the appendices of Dave Hone's tail length paper: [39] Figure 1 provides a scale bar too. Note that ROM 845 is C. intermedius. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, the measurements listed match Paul's skeletal pretty well, so I scaled the silhouette to femoral length. I've updated the chart now. Next up will probably be Shantungosaurus (I've already updated Saurolophus and Magnapaulia behind the scenes, hopefully I'll be able to update the giant ornithopod size chart soon). Any thoughts on the Corythosaurus update? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I find myself noticing the very different dorsal profiles, but I assume that's genuine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be genuine, the shape for C. casuarius definitely matches the fossils, and all C. intermedius mounts and Paul's skeletal seem to show a more gradually sloping dorsal profile of the torso. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Before I can get to Shantungosaurus, I should probably work on overhauling my Edmontosaurus silhouettes. E. regalis will probably just be based on Hartman's skeletal, but E. annectens is a bit more complex. I've thrown together this schematic for the paratype specimen (with a little help from the "Trachodon" mummy for part of the hand), which I'll probably use to draw the silhouette in the end (though I'll probably rely on a less crushed skull). Aside from the trainwreck of a ribcage, it feels like something's slightly off in terms of anatomy, though I can't quite place my finger on it. Any recommendations/comments? I'll also likely have to take a break from most to all of my wiki activities for a while, starting tomorrow and lasting for quite some time, so I probably won't complete this update too quickly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The head looks a bit small compared to this E. annectens skeletal by Danielle Dufault: [40] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be correct, here's an updated version with a larger head: [41]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't finished E. annectens (or even progressed on it at all, to be fully truthful), but here's an updated E. regalis. The comb paper stated that there were no midline feature scales preserved, and since the preserved area covers a great deal of the back, I've omitted them from this update. How does this new silhouette look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've finished assembling a schematic for YPM 2182, but from what I can tell, its proportions are somewhat different from those of AMNH 5730 ("Anatotitan"). Does anyone know of any publications that show the AMNH mount in lateral view (or even just a set of measurements for it)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A number of measurements for AMNH 5730 here: [42] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll be useful when adjusting to the proportions. Is there any measurement of the specimen's tail length in the literature? (Also, sorry for the really late response). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Colbert gives some measurements for individual caudals here: [43] Can't find anything else at the moment... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've updated my Charonosaurus silhouette in the background. Since, unlike Magnapualia and Saurolophus, its anatomy may be quite controversial, I'm posting a link to it here: [44]. That crest is a combination of Tlatolophus and Parasaurolophus tubicen, which seemed like the most neutral method of reconstructing it. I'm still somewhat unsure of it, though, any comments on it? Is anything else amiss? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Restauração da vida de Yangchuanosaurus

Image by user Nobu Tomura. I think the file was put on wikipedia with no revision, according with my quick check on the last revisions of this project. I think the skull is too thin and elongated. And maybe the legs are too big? Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 15:07, 22 July (UTC)

It was actually put up for review here[45] (and maybe elsewhere), and I did some adjustments to it. You can click on an image and see if it is used in the review archives. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth having someone create a new Yang reconstruction from scratch at this point, as Tamura's rendition here doesn't seem to hold up to our current understanding of the animal. It seems like Yang had oddly short legs and a proportionately much larger and shorter skull than depicted here (as well as a much more... crest-y skull, as opposed to Tamura's reconstruction which appears to understate the keratinous elements to the point of inaccuracy, the nasal ornamentation especially appearing all but absent). --TKWTH (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tarchia size

There have been some issues when it comes to the size of Tarchia (see the Tarchia page here on Wikipedia and the description of my new size diagram of ZPAL MgD I/113 for some background). What do you think? Conty~enwiki 17:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I find the lack of osteoderms on the large silhouette to be problematic (that specimen does preserve osteoderms on its back: [46]). Shouldn't it also have a more prominent neck? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I can add visible osteoderms (I took for granted that people could imagine them anyway...). I actually started with a somewhat longer neck, but thought it were too long... but that can be fixed as well. Conty~enwiki 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue I had wasn't with the length of the neck, but with the lack of differentiation between it and the shoulders/torso. Now that you point it out, though, I do think that elongating the neck probably would be a good idea, since (as far as I know) all known ankylosaurines have necks that are longer than their skulls. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hulsanpes Life Reconstruction

I've illustrated a Hulsanpes running as per the suggested behaviours based on the metatarsals, is this good?

Thank you in advance. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It is probably related to the perspective, but I think the overall anatomy is quite bulky for what is known from Halszkaraptorinae. Probably a lateral restoration could be more effective. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's mostly the shaggy feathering and perspective yes, however the image description does say that it is running, as well as the wikipedia page having a skeletal already. So is it really nessesary when this is a life reconstruction? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Uncertain bones near M. fragillimus vertebra

According to the caption in the article Maraapunisaurus, this is "Illustration of M. fragillimus fossils, with an alligator femur (A) for scale, drawn in 1884". However, only the neural arch is attributed to M. fragillimus, so the reader may have a logical question: whose big bones it is next to the M. fragillimus vertebra? HFoxii (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical reconstruction Walgettosuchus

I'm not sure this is a useful image, it's 99% speculative... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

My main issue with this is that, regardless of the speculation, the silhouette looks like an allosaurid, not a group that Walgettosuchus has been assigned to (as far as I know). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it is excuseable in this instance: most of the illustrations of Walgettosuchus online depict a very allosaurid-like animal, so I suppose it makes sense for someone to use them as references. Borophagus (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally perfer it if the silhouette was a megaraptoran, as considering it may be synonyms with Rapator, which has been classified as a megaraptoran. Additionally, allosaurids are dubious from Australia, and to my knowledge none have been discovered within the Griman Creek Formation, so making it an allosauird makes no sense to me. Kingmeatballs 6:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about dinosaur anatomy, but the mechanics look wrong: unless the tail is much heavier than it looks and/or the torso and head are much lighter than they look, I have to wonder how it keeps from falling forward. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Taurovenator

New life restoration of the carcharodontosaurid Taurovenator violantei. How appropriate is it for use in the article? HFoxii (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The background flora is distracting and unnecessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The plants can be removed, but wouldn't the image be too blank then? The flora depicted was indeed found in the Huincul Formation[47]. HFoxii (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hypsilophodon models

Here's some unreviewed models of Hypsilophodon. Right off the get go I can tell there's multiple issues with the singular model with the tail in the air. Monsieur X (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the model from Australia is bad, I can't see any issues with the Dinosaur Isle one. Dinosaur Isle is the local museum near where the fossils were found, so you can't expect them to be too bad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hands aside, the Dinosaur Isle one seems to line up pretty well with Greg Paul's skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Art by Miracusaurs

Miracusaurs, a relatively new Wiki user, has been recently uploading restorations of various dinosaurs. You can see all of them here. Here are just a few:

I'm wondering about the accuracy of several of these... SlvrHwk (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The osteoderms on both thyreophorans look dodgy. Also, I think the foot anatomy of Bayannurosaurus has been misinterpreted, it appears to be walking on its claws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: Just corrected the foot anatomy.

I don't mean just the pedes, it's all four extremities including the "hands". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It's supposed to be slightly rearing, so the hand claws are extended. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not obvious to me. A repose might help? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. What do you think of it now? Miracusaurs (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The osteoderms of the Horshamosaurus and Lusitanosaurus are speculative and mostly based on Polacanthus and Scelidosaurus, respectively. Without more remains, they obviously can't be very accurate. And besides, thyreophorans aren't exactly my strong suit! Miracusaurs (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The ones dangling from the end of the tail bother me a lot. I don't know if it's an attempt at perspective, but I'm pretty sure neither Polacanthus nor Scelidosaurus have them. They are just too large overall. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the side spikes on Horshamosaurus' tail with bumps and made the tail spikes of Lusitanosaurus smaller, because Scott Hartman's Scelidosaurus has small spikes until the very tip. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

While I'm guilty of using patterns of living animals in restorations myself, the Bonapartenykus looks just a little too close to a modern chicken. It's very conspicuous. What are the chances the exact same configuration of wattles would evolve independently twice? At least the colour could be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Done. What do you think of it now? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The wattle is still a bit conspicuous, hmmm, what if it was for example bluish? FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. How about now? Miracusaurs (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Less obvious, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Draconyx

Any thoughts on this one? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Very skinny tail? Could need some shading. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Kurupi Skeletal

Recently an user uploaded an skeletal of Kurupi, initially created by "clumsystiggy" on Twitter (note that the initial creator has allowed people to use it as long as credit is given). Personally I see a few problems with the silhouette. The head looks a little odd especially with the enlarged osteoderms on its neck and the tail seems really fat and way to bendy. Kingmeatballs (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the tail either. That's one thing that definitely can't be chalked up to soft tissue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that may be intended to be a 3D bend into the background (+z axis) which is probably not a very helpful graphical metaphor in a 2D silhouette. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the tail looks like it is meant to represent a bend in the z axis, so I don't think it's quite as much an issue as it would be if it were bending upwards.Di (they-them) (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanatotheristes

, made this on procreate, added lips, eyes may be a bit too small--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This was made after I found how the one made by the other guy (forgot his name) was slightly in accurate in the eyes being to big and strange lip tissue--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to defeat the purpose of showing its anatomy by shrouding it in darkness? FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay fixed--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The single projecting tooth is extremely strange. Lips would probably not cover that much. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

wait, but mark wittons blog showed thishttps://twitter.com/markwitton/status/956915850560376832--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not anti-lip, I'm saying that the lips look unnatural. Look at any lizard with its mouth open and you can see that the lips don't fully enclose the tips of the teeth when the mouth is open. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Linhevenator

New life restoration of troodontid theropod Linhevenator tani (compared with cat). HFoxii (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the second toes be more raised? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this looks pretty good and there's only a few things I have a problem with. I think that the arm's and legs should be spaced out a little more, the legs look a little big and I don't like how the tail is cut off half way, I'd recommend including the entire animal. Also I don't see a reason why the second toes need to be raised. Kingmeatballs (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The illustration looks good, I only suggest including the entire tail. Having the legs spaced out a bit more would be good but it doesn't look like it's possible given the medium the art was created with. We don't know how high the sickle claws would have been raised in most species (retraction in many specimens may just be artifacts of preservation), so they look fine as they are. Luxquine (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Mahakala omnogovae

Here I've made a life reconstruction of Mahakala omnogovae using the skeletal that is currently in the article, is it up to standard?

Thanks in advance for your help Sauriazoicillus 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it meant to be sitting? The posture feels a bit unnatural. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem I think: [48]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Good to see more of these guys out here. A minor issue: the watermark/sign is probably too big, not even sure if Commons agrees with watermarks. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that watermark is distracting. You should be aware that, since the image is under a free licence, anybody could simply create a version without it; making the watermark much smaller and non-distracting would, I think, make it much more likely that this will not happen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, I agree. Good examples could be those of Fred Wierum. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have shrunk the watermark and moved it to a less distracting place, is this better? Any more things I could change? Sauriazoicillus 6:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks very nice as it is. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

One thing, the first finger looks like it is very far removed from the second, feather bearing finger? FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's probably just the way I've drawn the feathering. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks fantastic, actually. I wouldn't change anything; the watermark is small enough that it isn't distracting from the image so I wouldn't change it. Luxquine (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Recycled raptors

In the name of just getting more genera illustrated, I pulled out some old drawings for a school project, from where I have also reused other illustrations for Wikipedia before, and modified them so they could perhaps be used for dromaeosaurid articles here that lack restorations. I was thinking this one [49] could be Kansaignathus, and this one[50] could be Variraptor. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Kansaignathus could perhaps use a much longer, more Velociraptor-like jaw given its preserved mandible. Probably lips for the Variraptor. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, also I should add if anyone has other contenders for their identities, feel free to suggest, it certainly isn't firmly decided at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would even make sense to swap the identity of the two? Because the darker individual looks more robust and generic perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Modified the second one to be more in line with Kansaignathus instead. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes:, any further comments on this one, before I star modifying the other one? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the upper jaw is a bit too robust? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A good deal lower/narrower here[51], is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, now updated, and will add it to the article, though any other comments are of course welcome. Any issues with making the other one Variraptor? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Make sure that you have the manus embedded into the wings. The fingers as they are now look like they're added on/that the remiges are connecting to the wrist and arm instead of the second finger. Luxquine (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess the angle of the primaries on the closest wing make it look like that, I'll try to rotate them or the finger. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've modified the wings of the Kansaignathus. I've also done some modifications to the other drawing[52], but I'm not sure if it would work for Variraptor if it, as the article indicates, belonged to some of the more gracile lineages. And there aren't really many other large bodied, "generic" dromaeosaurs illustrated. Any ideas for what it could be retooled as? Perhaps Shri devi if the snout is modified further? FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I modified the second one (added above) to match Shri devi better. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly looks fine, but is it missing halluces? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, you're right, will fix! FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've given it a hallux and some white bars on the tail. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yuanchuavis kompsosoura

I forced myself to not spend very much time on this (working on getting faster at producing art) so I'll admit this is a rush job. Feel free to critique. Luxquine (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the animal can be brightened. It's hard to see. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe tone down the background somehow, but yeah, it could need some contrast to make it stand out more at thumbnail size. As for accuracy, the "official" restoration[53] shows the shorter tail feathers overlapping the long ones, but you have the opposite, any reason for that? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I’ll see about fixing the contrast on that. As for the tail feathers, if you read the study the R1 rectrices are the longest feathers, which would make them the top pair at this angle. The study never mentions the feathers being any different in order than all other known feathered theropods, so I’ve reconstructed it based on what I know rather mimicking a possible mistake on the part of the paleoartist who did the reconstruction you’ve linked. If I missed anything important in the study that says otherwise please let me know so I can fix it. Luxquine (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve lightened the background and added some more contrast. Let me know if anything else needs changing. Luxquine (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Fukuiraptor size chat

After my failed attempts at making animal size diagrams, I return with an update on my Fukuiraptor kitadaniensis, this time with a more megaraptoran look Do you approve? Gallimimus Wikipedista (talk) 15:15, 28 November (UTC)

Dakotadon restoration

Dakotadon restoration, how accurate is it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it missing its ear? Luxquine (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It shouldnt be, unless I published the wrong copy--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Now can you see it?

Er, is the ear that tiny black speck behind the eye? That's not where the ear goes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

So where does it go?--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ozraptor

Recently I was able to find time to reconstruct my older (and pretty garbage) Ozraptor reconstruction. That's about it any thoughts? (left and right ones are the updated pair). Kingmeatballs 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are some really odd, Gon-like proportions on the small one. What are they based on? I'm not sure it's serious enough to use here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you further detail why you think the proportions are gon like? Kingmeatballs 1:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The trunk seems to be extremely short and deep, the hips skewed in relation to the body (there would probably not be much flesh between the pubic boot and the skin surface), and the head is proportionally huge for a supposed abelisaur. The one on the right looks more natural, the proportions differ greatly between the two, especially if you scale them with the same head-length. Also, blood splatter (or drool?) is not really appropriate for a silhouette diagram, it just makes it look confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Kurupi itaata

The topic was created by Путаниум. − HFoxii (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Very competent restoration, but a few things look off about the legs. The right foot looks too gracile and the visible musculature on the left leg (particularly the caudofemoralis) seems lacking. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ubirajara Skeletal by Maurissauro

This skeletal restoration by Maurissauro could be used on the Ubirajara page. It would probably be best under "Discovery and naming." Any thoughts before it is added to the page? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the skeleton fails WP:V as the paper itself is withdrawn and technically inaccessible. The paper isn't even accessible on sci-hub, only the first page is preserved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The images from the paper, including a skeletal have survived though, see this novataxa post. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

To make this skeletal I have a pdf copy of the paper when it was published. However, as the paper was recently withdrawn, it is unclear if the name Ubirajara jubatus remains valid under the ICZN. --Maurissauro (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The full paper is available on sci-hub.ru . HFoxii (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Spinosaurus skeletal by Gunnar Bivens

Bivens uploaded this file in May 2020 and apparently it has not been reviewed. I was thinking that this reconstruction might be placed in Discovery and naming, as it has elements of different Spinosaurus specimens, but I think the hand is a bit odd. What do you think? Gallimimus wikipedista. ((talk)) 12:59, 12 September (UTC)

I agree that the hand looks quite odd. Perhaps it would be best to ask the creator about the reasoning behind it being reconstructed this way?TimTheDragonRider (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of different, similar shades of grey is confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Herrerasauridae size diagram

I made this size diagram of herrerasaurids. Thoughts? Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

This hasn't been reviewed yet but is already illustrating the Spinosaurus page. Any comments? Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The arms seem to have patagia? Which is maybe a bit too OR. But otherwise seems ok, the scales on the fish need foreshortening, though, but I doubt anyone cares about that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the 'patagium' is just the lighter coloration of the belly and the outline of the hind leg as it passes behind the front.Hiroizmeh (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you can see the other arm is also shaped like a flipper. If it used its tail for propulsion, I think arm webbing would just increase drag and slow the animal down User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Xuanhuaceratops niei

The old illustration used for the Xuanhuaceratops article seems like it could really use an update, so I made this reconstruction to potentially replace it. Mettiina (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, I don't even think the old restoration has ever been reviewed, and it does seem kind of wonky. Do we know if its teeth would be exposed like that when the mouth was closed? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The premaxillary teeth overlapped the toothless predentary that is usually interpreted as an exposed keratin-covered beak. So unless the predentary was wrapped in lips instead, it's unlikely the teeth would have been fully covered. Maybe it was a display feature, like boar tusks and chevrotain fangs. Mettiina (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Request: Dinheirosaurus life restoration

This seems to be the last of our Good Articles that needs an adequate life restoration, which should make it a high priority. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus magnicristatus

New 3D model of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus. In the future, I, together with Peter Menshikov, want to make an animation of the possible social behavior of lambeosaurines. How do you like it? HFoxii (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the color scheme looks nice, but one fix on the body proportions could be to lower the shoulder girdle a little further towards the ground, since among hadrosaurids the most elevated areas along the vertebral column are near the sacrum, and the torso is at a downward slant with them having some of the most disproportionately small forelimbs among quadrupeds. And maybe some small aesthetic details around the skull, but other than that, it looks good.

And i apologize for the massive run-on sentence Hiroizmeh (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hiroizmeh: The position of the shoulder girdle has been corrected. Also, what would you like to change about the details of the skull? HFoxii (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@HFoxii:Nothing major, just some more definition like ridges around the orbit etc. But that's pretty much optional and it's fine how it is. The more important thing could be to make the crest a distinct color from the rest of the animal, especially if you want to entertain the hypothesis that the crest serves a visual purpose in social behavior. Hiroizmeh (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hiroizmeh: It is planned to accept the hypothesis that the crest was intended for sound interaction. HFoxii (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW those options aren't mutually exclusive. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that the hind feet were slightly rotated inwards; at least, this is what the trackways show. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you check out the new version? Any other comments? HFoxii (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hiroizmeh, Lythronaxargestes, and Jens Lallensack: Do you have something to say? HFoxii (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@HFoxii: I think it looks nice. Hiroizmeh (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this is foreshortening but the tail length and musculature look off. Seems too short with too sharp a transition in tail thickness. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: This is probably due to the angle[54]. HFoxii (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus arm action

I am planning to make a series with illustrations of the ideas how tyrannosaurids might used their arms and have published my first one. At the beginning of this year, Caneer et.al. (2021) described a fossil track of Tyrannosaurus that would make Lawrence Lambe (who were the first one to propose the hypothesis that the arms were used like this) leaping for joy and declare that "God is a palaeontologist!". Jokes aside: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

looks good--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bahariasaurus new restoration

--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is genuinely a huge improvement from your previous artwork. Given how limited the material of Bahariasaurus is, not much can be said about it's accuracy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks. But I would like to note this drawing is to replace that earlier one. The earlier oen in my opinion being too lumpy and outdated--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the Bahariasaurus article having a life restoration at all—or, if it must have one, it should have multiple comparable life restorations showing it restored based on different hypothesized phylogenetic positions. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In agreement here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The rounded half-circles on the snout, are these the teeth? If so, I would remove them assuming the presence of lips. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

They strike me as large, epidermal scales like that inferred for tyrannosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No they are not teeth, they are lips, those are superlabial scales seen in lizards and possibly some basal archosaurs--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Its the Epidermal scales Lyhtro is refering to.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, though I think they don't look like scales, because too strong … maybe make them much more subtle, more like those you have on the trunk? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, i have taken into consideration, what Ornithopsis said earlier and I am working on a ceratosaur version as well as Charcarodontosaurid version--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay Jens, have you seen the mouth of a lizard?--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In the case of dinosaurs, I wouldn’t use lizards as reference for how dinosaurian scutes work. Plate-like overlapping scales are one of the diagnostic characteristics for squamata, while dinosaurs had non-overlapping and likely much smaller scutes. Luxquine (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bubblesorg means this: [55] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I still think they don't look like scales because they are too strong, to salient, lines too thick – and possibly they are too large as well. The reconstruction in the blog post Lythronax linked above shows how such scales could be drawn more naturally. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My original point being that they are too large and too defined. I wasn’t saying that they shouldn’t exist, only that the scutes aren’t as obvious or pronounced as the scales in lizards as they don’t serve the same function. I second Jens’ opinion that they should be as pronounced as the scutes on the body in terms of line thickness and definition. Luxquine (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Pine in Nanuqsaurus habitat

The image File:Nanuqsaurus NT small.jpg is used on the page Nanuqsaurus, and it has pines and other conifers in the background. I know that these trees coexisted with Nanuqsaurus in terms of timeframe, but contemporary pinus are not native in Alaska. Did pine exist in the Prince Creek Formation during the Late Cretaceous period? Di (they-them) (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Prince Creek Formation was dominated in at least one area by Parataxodium wigginsii. Pinus has not been observed in the formation from what I understand. This study covers a number of plants found in the formation, with no mention of pinaceae. Luxquine (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, how correct is the depiction of a feathered Nanuqsaurus in general? In my opinion, it might just be a paleoart meme. At least according to phylogenetic bracketing, Nanuqsaurus was scaly. HFoxii (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's just a palaeoart meme considering how many palaeontologists championed the idea of feathered large tyrannosaurs for years, and many still do. In any case, I don't think we know enough yet, it's not as if "completely scaly Tyrannosaurus" is a settled idea either. As for the background, perhaps we could just remove the trees? Or isolate the dinosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I vote to isolate the dinosaur. If anything, the most “meme” like part about the reconstruction is that it’s pure white, when in reality it lived in a more temperate environment where that kind of colouration wouldn’t have been particularly useful as camouflage. Still possible, nonetheless, just far more likely for it to have been brown or even black. Luxquine (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a shot. In the meantime, there's also a free illustration of Nanuqsaurus in this colouring book PDF (page 31) if we want it:[56] FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth the effort to remove the background on that image, it doesn't even have feet either. But I've uploaded the colouring book illustration in case we just want to replace it, how does it look? And does anyone want to colourise it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Request: Duriavenator size comparison diagram

I'm currently expanding the Duriavenator article (with the end goal being WP:FAC), but oddly enough, it's one of the only megalosaurid articles without a size comparison diagram, so any help would be appreciated. Most sources give a 7 metre estimate. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a draft for Duriavenator. Scaling the Duriavenator holotype material to Megalosaurus skeletals by Slate Weasel and Scott Hartman resulted in a length closer to 8 metres, but Torvosaurus brought it to almost exactly 7 metres. Thoughts? SlvrHwk (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool! Only thing I'm thinking is that when the foot is lifted that high, the toes would be curled downwards? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here is the uploaded version. Does that foot look any better now? SlvrHwk (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll add it to the article in my next round of edits, thanks! And of course, if anyone else has something to add, feel free. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Eotyrannus restorations by Nobu Tamura

Without any decent singular depictions of Eotyrannus, I decided to upload Nobu Tamura's restorations of the genus. I think the last one is a speculative depiction of a adult Eotyrannus, it also depicts Hypsilophodon. Any thoughts & criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Some sunken fenestrae that could be fixed, but otherwise ok? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I smoothed over the sunken fenestra in the middle one. Might have a look at the others too at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What a coincident, I started to draw a new version of my Eotyrannus this summer, now uploaded. Is it more "decent"? :-) (regarding the the depiction of the pair, I am planning to replace the one in running pose (a bit too large, I know) with one sniffing in the air). Conty~enwiki 20:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The tail seems a bit short even with foreshortening. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Short tail? Which one of them? Conty~enwiki 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The standalone one. Or is that supposed to be unedited? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I can fix the tail a bit. 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

New Thanatotheristes

Thanatotheristes new head--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Anatomically, the eye seems many times too small. But what's up with that huge, empty space? It makes the dinosaur even smaller and harder to see at thumbnail size. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fylax restoration by Savage Almond

Restoration of the head of Fylax by Savage Almond, added to (and since removed from) this page. The outline seems particularly rough. SlvrHwk (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with that assessment. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I know we like to take what we can get but surely we must old ourselves to at least some standard of basic quality. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 13:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The better question is, why has nobody bothered to rip the figures out of the Polonica paper yet? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that while some images probably can't be used due to, let's say, artistic inadequacy, I've seen some artists here improve tremendously over a short time, so if an image is excluded, that of course doesn't mean that later works by the artist in question can never be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My artistic skills are crap so I restrict myself to technical drawings. This drawing isn't even half as bad as some I've seen, it's definitely better than the horrors seen in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lazarussuchus_life_restorations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Qianzhousaurus life restorations

FunkMonk's restoration, now Alioramus altai
PaleoGeekSquared's restoration

Since 2020, the Qianzhousaurus article uses an illustration by PaleoGeekSquared instead of an restoration by FunkMonk that has been there since 2015. Although both life restorations were reviewed, it was not explained why one should replace the other. Perhaps now is the time to discuss this? HFoxii (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of space. To be honest, my version was a bit sloppy, but if the article is expanded, they could probably both be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since our only restoration of Alioramus altai has been tagged as inaccurate, I should perhaps remake this into that species, since we don't have other restorations of it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about that idea, HFoxii? FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. HFoxii (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've now modified my restoration into being Alioramus altai instead, and took the liberty to bump this section to get it reviewed. Any thoughts, and HFoxii?FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks fairly good, I assume the lacrimal horn is intentionally exaggerated by keratin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually superimposed the skeletal from the paper over it when I modified it, but felt the lacrimal horn of the outline seemed a bit conservative... FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Brighstoneus

This restoration by Ohdear15 was added to the Brighstoneus article without review. It seems to have several strange anatomical features, but I'll let others with more experience in this field critique it. SlvrHwk (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yeah sorry about that. I knew there was a system to get people to review palaeo-reconstructions but didn't know where that system was and couldn't find it. Any feedback would be appreciated so that I can re-make and improve the illustration if need-be :) DJK (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The hands are pronated (rotated inward) and the left hand looks particularly broken. Here is an example of correct hand orientation in Ouranosaurus: [57] Perhaps the back can be smoothed out as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Brighstoneus should probably be reconstructed on the basis of other high-spined iguanodontians such as Ouranosaurus and Hypselospinus. This appears to have overly-long, questionably-muscled forelimbs and isn't high-spined enough. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections! Apologies, all of the iguanodont reference images I'd used when drawing the hands had them pronated in that manner. I'll do a re-draw with these in mind DJK (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the legs are spread way too far apart, and the forelimb seems extremely thick and massive. Digits were probably not completely flat on the ground as shown, but their top surface was slightly rising (less than digitigrade). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The legs look a bit awkward--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I've re-drawn it, this time coloured with markers due to issues I've had with Photoshop crashing every time I try to zoom in. Any feedback would be greaty appreciated :) DJK (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using markers! Anatomically, the main problem is that the spines, and thus the crest, were longest over the tail base. Possibly, the tail projected more horizontally.--MWAK (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do another version in the coming days DJK (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Shanag skull reconstruction

Skull reconstruction of Shanag ashile. Missing elements are based on Sinornithosaurus. Wondering if this is good enough for Wikipedia. P2N2222A (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The superior temporal fenestra area looks like it could use more detail, but other than that, it looks pretty nice. It would be cool to see more skeletals like this from you. Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 02:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a few more that I can submit for review, and others that I intend to illustrate later on. P2N2222A (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Liaoceratops reconstructions

Reconstructions of Liaoceratops yanzigouensis. Currently the Liaoceratops page only has life reconstruction, no figures of the fossils. Wondering whether it would be better to use skull only version or the version with the outline. P2N2222A (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the full body outline would look nice in the taxobox for Liaoceratops, but of course that's just preference. And something I forgot to note, refrain from adding a copyright symbol to any reconstructions, since when you add a work to Wikipedia you agree to release it under Creative Commons 4.0. Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

removed copyright symbols on both versions of Liaoceratops plus the Shanag skull (I had originally posted these on my social media before uploading to Wikipedia) P2N2222A (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Riparovenator reconstruction

First image up for review in a while! Decided to upload a drawing I did of Riparovenator per FunkMonk's suggestion. Note: was only meant as a casual quick sketch so there may be errors. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks spiffy, are you going for lip covered teeth? Seems a bit in-between now, since the kink in the upper jaw is showing. The "official" artwork has the teeth covered, but with the lips seemingly being uniform in depth even over the kink. Perhaps the thumb claw looks a bit thin considering the angle? And the underside of the feet look a bit flat, with no toe pads, but maybe they're sinking into the substrate? FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What is with the image's description on Commons? It says this is Qianzhousaurus... Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are the legs so short? Baryonychines had longer legs than spinosaurines. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Given Riparovenator is more closely related to Baryonuchus, why does it have a Spinosaurus tail? Is that a paddle or feathers? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Request: Updated Tethyshadros images

A new paper formally describes the larger, more robust "Bruno" specimen of Tethyshadros and also disputes Dalla Vecchia's conclusions about tail length. Slate Weasel - if you could update your size comparison to show both the holotype "Antonio" alongside "Bruno", that'd be great. There are skeletals here and a cleaner version in Figure S20 of the supplementary material. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the really long delay... I'll look into updating this either today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes, I've updated the diagram. How does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Mostly looks good, thanks. Maybe put the forelimbs on the ground? Looks a bit unbalanced. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Switched to quadrupedal mode. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Splendid. I'll let others chime in. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Homo sapiens VS Vectiraptor greeni size comparison.svg

The new page Vectiraptor has no image, and I made File:Homo sapiens VS Vectiraptor greeni size comparison.svg. The image uses this image from the paper as reference for the sizes. I made sure that they were to the same scale. Is it ok to use the file on the page, at least until a better piece of paleoart is made? Di (they-them) (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

it looks good as far as I can tell. I would put it in the article but wait until we have something better for the infobox. P2N2222A (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The entire precaudal part of the dromaeosaurid silhouette seems to be an almost exact trace over File:Deinonychus-scale.png (only modified to be longer anteroposteriorly). This should be credited. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Stegouros restorations

Restoration by Luis Enrique Pérez López
Restoration by Mauricio Alvarez

Any comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice they uploaded them, I think at least in the first one, the eye might be too big? It seems to fill up the entire orbit, which would be unlikely. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So frustratingly tall, going to be a bitch to make fit well into a body of text... LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A cropped version of the first one with a smaller eye could be made, for example. Then we can leave the original alone. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a size chart would also be useful? It might be useful to visualize just how tiny it is, just from the scalebar and text even many palaeo enthusiasts such as myself failed to at first put two and two together. Could even do a size chart including Kunbarrasaurus and Antarctopelta as well, both given rough size estimates in the paper and I'm sure in some previous literature too. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've actually started a Stegouros size diagram for use outside of Wiki, so I could upload that here. As for a Parankylosauria chart, Kunbarrasaurus shouldn't be too terribly hard, but I couldn't find many decent sources for Antarctopelta. Anyone know of any? - SlvrHwk (talk)

@SlvrHwk: The Stegouros paper gives an estimated length of 4 metres for Antarctopelta. Given that Antarctopelta is only known from 15% of the skeleton, you can probably just scale the silhoutte of Stegouros accordingly to make one for Antarctopelta. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Stegouros Size Comparison Diagram

Stegouros
Antarctopelta
Kunbarrasaurus
Parankylosauria

Here is a draft for Stegouros and Antarctopelta, using the same silhouette for both animals. The scaling is approximate. The osteoderms on the back might be a little too square? I copied them directly from the skeletal diagram. Kunbarrasaurus is still on its way. Comments? - SlvrHwk (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good; I assume there will be a human for scale in the finalized version? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This is just a silhouette draft. SlvrHwk (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here is the size comparison diagram for Stegouros! Antarctopelta should come shortly. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Antarctopelta diagram uploaded. I altered the pose and osteoderm shape/arrangement to make it more distinct. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Kunbarrasaurus finished and all three dinosaurs added to one chart for Parankylosauria. Comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks. Good. Puts into perspective how small they really are. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Tyrannoclaus rex"

Time to use this again... :-) Conty~enwiki 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Conty~enwiki: Merry Christmas!Di (they-them) (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And happy new year! FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Ayo, happy 2022! Kingmeatballs (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Liaoningornis

I have updated my old restoration of Liaoningornis, which became inaccurate back in 2012 as the genus were reclassified as an enantiornithe (see image description for details). I want to draw the holotype fossil stone slab and put it along with the life restoraton in the future, but for now: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks good, certainly one of the better enantiornithean restorations on the site. I will say that the bright yellow head coloration is unlikely, considering most yellow pigment is derived from carotenoids, which did not become widely utilized in bird feathers until much later. An equally vibrant iridescence such as green, blue, or even metallic red would be a suitable replacement. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Green and red (that is - true red, not ginger like that seen in red pandas or other "red" mammals) are also derived from carotenoid pigments, at least in part. Carotenoids can be sequestered in species that eat lots of insects (sturnus starlings come to mind with their yellow beaks coloured by lutein), but not nearly as vibrant. Looking at the fossil, the tarsometatarsus seems to be too long in comparison to the rest of the leg, no matter which position the leg is held in, to be accurate. I would also change the wing - if the species is indeed the size of the sparrow, the wings seem to be too small to provide enough lift for flight; the secondaries should be covering the pelvis and stopping at the base of the tail. The discovery of Chiappeavis and Yuanchuavis have supported tail fans in some members of Enantiornithes, but from what we know now it seems to be more likely to have had a single pair of rachis dominated feathers or simply nothing but body feathers covering the tail. In other words, I suggest removing the brown flight feathers on the tail and just leaving the fluffy grey body feathers. Good work with the plumage pattern, I like it a lot! Luxquine (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that I will get time update it during Christmas holiday. But what colour should I give to the head? Dark reddish-Brown? Conty~enwiki 12:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That would work! Red pandas would be a good reference. :) Luxquine (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As you wished. Conty~enwiki 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Great work! The only suggestion I have left is to make the orange more muted. Like a ruddy brown instead of vibrant orange. Luxquine (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will consider it. Conty~enwiki 07:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

These corrections look good, though I personally have no problem with vibrant colors on the head. It is true that bright matte yellow and red pigments are carotenoid-based, and would be unlikely in enantiornithean feathers. But I was under the impression that iridescent green, metallic red, etc. are structural colors, not based on pigments. Enantiornitheans are known for certain to utilize iridescence, so they probably relied less heavily on pigments for coloration. And some modern birds can achieve quite a lot without feather carotenoids. See Nicobar pigeons, Himalayan monals, golden pheasants, etc. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

So what colour would you prefer? Conty~enwiki 17:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to either change it or leave it as is, whichever you’d prefer. As of now we don’t know the range of iridescence for Enantiornithes due to the fact that it’s difficult to discern the exact hue of iridescence from most fossils, so you’re welcome to get creative with it. on the other hand, if you want to be more conservative to what we explicitly know then I suggest a ruddy brown. 50.126.125.209 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot I wasn’t logged in. Luxquine (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Reconstructions by Entelognathus

Velociraptor mongoliensis
Microraptor gui
Microraptor zhaoianus
Yanornis martini
Yanornis martini
Archaeoraptor

User Entelognathus has created some very nice dromaeosaurid reconstructions and it would be good to see them on the Wikipedia pages for these genera. The Microraptor zhaoianus was posted in the non-dinosaur image review section where some corrections were suggested. I would add its right forelimb doesn't look right for two reasons, 1. the second and third manus claws should be visible, and 2. the alula should be covering the first manus claw. The Microraptor gui reconstruction is better at showing the animal's features, but it is missing the alula, its tail is too short and the tail fan doesn't match what is known of Microraptor's tail fan. The Velociraptor reconstruction has the inaccurate palaeoart template with inaccuracies listed. I would add that red shouldn't be visible on its lower jaw. There are also two reconstuctions of "Archaeoraptor" where the Microraptor appear to be the same as in the reconstructions of Microraptor on its own and so they have the same inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:e847:a500:988f:6760:4f6c:9854 (talk • contribs)

As I understand, the legs and feet on "Archaeoraptor" did not belong to Microraptor, but some unknown other animal. Research on the Jehol biota has moved on substantially since 2001 and I don't known if this has been referenced since. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the tag to the Velociraptor image. I think matching the proportions of the head, eye and teeth with for example Hartman's skeletal would be enough. The first Yanornis is odd in that the teeth look like they're pseudo teeth, part of the beak. You should make them clearly distinct from the beak, as they were true teeth. The snout and teeth of the Microraptor zhaoianus don't seem to match skeletal either, too upturned snout and robust teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added two reconstructions of Yanornis by Entelognathus to the images above. They appear to be the same as the Yanornis in the Archaeoraptor reconstructions. The first one is being used on the Yanornis Wikipedia page, but based on FunkMonk's comment it looks like the second one is more accurate. Oddly, it was on the Yanornis Wikipedia page before getting replaced by the one with pseudo teeth. Similarly, Entelognathus's older Microraptor gui has more accurate teeth than their newer Microraptor zhoainus. Regarding the second "Archaeoraptor", it seems to be stiched together at the halfway point which I don't think is appropriate, and it appears to have one forelimb wing from Yanornis and the other from Microraptor. If I'm not mistaken both of its wings should be Yanornis's. 2A02:C7D:E847:A500:8D8D:650F:8970:BCC9 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just an update on this - a reading of the "Archaeoraptor as Yanornis" paper suggests that the legs belong to Yanornis as well. So the whole thing should be Yanornis except for the tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thank you for your critiques, they were really helpful! I've updated both reconstructions of Yanornis to have true teeth rather than pseudoteeth, and the reconstruction of Velociraptor to be more consistent with Hartman's skeletal. I'll get to both Microraptor reconstructions tomorrow. :) Hopefully these updated versions are a little better! Entelognathus (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections! There's a few more I'd like to suggest. For the Velociraptor, its teeth appear to extend too far back in the jaws and it would also benefit from more teeth in the rest of its lower jaw too. Also the keratin would extend the length of its sickle claw more than you've shown. All these feature's can be seen in Scott Hartman's skeletal. Looking at fossil specimens I wonder if the Yanornis would need more teeth, at least in its lower jaws? Finally, the Yanornis and Microraptor appear to not have nostrils? 2A02:C7D:E847:A500:49C5:710A:C55F:CFD (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! Still haven't gotten around to the Microraptor reconstructions, but both Yanornis recons and the Velociraptor have been fixed, I think. Entelognathus (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

One thing to remember (which is often ignored in palaeoart), and which looks off in at least the Velociraptor, is that the visible part of the eye should be able to fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, not take up the entire space. So the eye here seems to be twice too big. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest doing a revision on the wings for all of these illustrations. In all of the fossils of paraves we have as well as in modern birds, the secondaries don’t decrease in length the closer to the body they get. Keep in mind too that the secondaries only attach to the lower arm, not the upper arm which is held almost parallel to the body and has very few tertiaries that act to provide a seamless transition into the body feathers. The shoulder in your microraptor pieces in particular should not be visible, as they’d blend into the body with the feathers. Luxquine (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! Sorry for dragging my feet so much on this, it's been a busy semester. I ended up completely redoing my M. zhaoianus piece since I couldn't get it to look right as is--the "Archaeoraptor" piece has also been updated. (Save for my old one, which I nominated for deletion since I mistakenly uploaded a duplicate a few months back. Whoops!) I also edited the eye on Velociraptor, so it should be consistent with the fossils now. I haven't reworked my M. gui reconstruction since I've been told it's a dubious taxon, and might also nominate that for deletion as well. Hopefully now these recons are a little more up to snuff! Thanks all for your helpful criticism! :) Entelognathus (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if M. gui is dubious or a synonym, it would be based on a real animal, though. So not sure why it would need to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be redundant since my other Microraptor piece is already on here. Entelognathus (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I love the new M. zhaoianus restoration! The iridescence is very well done. But I'm pretty sure it should have longer primaries than secondaries, like your M. gui. See this fossil: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-representative-Microraptor-zhaoianus-fossil-showing-body-wing-hind-limb-and-tail_fig2_256102089 Miracusaurs (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Entelognathus, I'm happy to see you back with updated reconstructions. I was admiring your Edestus the other day and it made me wonder if your dromaeosaurid reconstructions would be used one day. On your Velociraptor the visible second toe doesn't seem to be the right shape, comparing it to Scott Hartman's skeletal:https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/velociraptor

Hi all, sorry it’s been so long! Velociraptor and Microraptor have been updated with better claw anatomy and longer wing feathers respectively. Entelognathus (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Majungasaurus Scale Reference Update

An updated Majungasaurus size reference using a skeletal by Franoys.

Primeval Artist (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Majungasaurus Scale chart

I Just saw the chart above, this was not intentional. But regardless, a scale chart of Majungasaurus' largest specimen, based on Franoys' skeletal. Eotyrannu5-Returns (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Both this and the above image look to be accurate enough to me. My preference for inclusion as a size diagram would be this one, with its clearer background and easier to interpret layout, but the other may also suffice as an illustration. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tlatolophus size comparison diagram

A happy New Year to all of Wiki's paleoartists! Here is a size diagram of one of last year's most iconic dinosaurs: Tlatolophus. Scaling using the paper's skeletal diagram results in a length of just over the estimated 8 metres (26 ft). Comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the lighter leg has a much thinner metatarsus than the darker one. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slate Weasel: How does this look? -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

SlvrHwk, Slate Weasel is on break. But I think it looks better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Lectavis by TinyLongwing

An awesome piece by TinyLongwing (talk · contribs), however there are a few inaccuracies I would like to bring up to hopefully correct. While the fossil of Lectavis only shows a single bone in the leg, other Enantiornithes with toothed muzzles are shown to have the nostril farther towards the tip of the muzzle rather than closer to the head as was illustrated here. I'm also curious about the the rectrices illustrated in this piece; they look either like a fan of rectrices which Enantiornithes as a whole normally do not have, or even unusually short RDFs not seen in any of our current fossils displaying soft tissue preservation. Other than that it looks fantastic and I hope to see more work from TinyLongwing on Wikipedia! Luxquine (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! I only just now saw this for whatever reason. I can definitely correct the placement of the nares - this is the first in this series that I did and with no skull to reference and with a greater familiarity with modern birds, I obviously goofed on that one. Thanks for pointing it out!

Several of the Enantiornithes had a tail fan, while others preserved a pair of very long central rectrices. You're right that none so far show a short pair of central rects, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be possible. Perhaps this species had no tail fan at all, but I opted for a short pair of rects as speculation that this group could be nested within one of the many branches that evolved the longer pair, but that their estuarine/wetland habitat made having long feathers trailing on the ground a hindrance and so the rects became reduced. A guess, but I'd like to think it's a reasonable one! TinyLongwing (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Panoplosaurus

Although Wikipedia already have a nice restoration it (together with some ceratopsids) I recently decided to update my drawing of Panoplosaurus. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I do like the improvements, and a piece for the taxon would definitely be nice for the page, but there are a few things I should note. Regarding the skull, the holotype is the only definitive specimen, and it displays a different osteoderm pattern than you show here. The snout scute should be a bit larger, and framed on the side and rear by a much thinner two bands than you have, with the frontal osteoderm being the largest by a significant margin, and separated from the supraorbital boss on the side and the thin parietal boss to the rear. For the first two neck bands, the middle scutes should be completely contiguous, and they had keels that were a bit lower and curved outwards to the rear. The remaining armour looks good, as does the proportions of the skull and body, but the shoulders should look a bit wider (maybe connect the black line defining the underbelly), and the hands and feet have a few changes to make. Its quite possible that Panoplosaurus only had three fingers in the hand (probably diagnostic feature per carpenter), they would be more separated than you show, and while the metacarpals were held subvertically like you have them, the phalanges were subhorizontal, so about about half the total length of the hand below the wrist should be the flattened digits. While not preserved there would be a similar situation with the feet, the metatarsals are a bit too long in yours, and the horizontal region of the toes too short by about half. That should be everything though I hope its not too much an ask. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you IJReid. I will consider your suggestions when I get time to fix it.Conty~enwiki 05:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now updated the details that were pointed out (new soil and shadow might be added). What do you think? Conty~enwiki 07:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no other comments I can see right now. Looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Conty~enwiki 07:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominating Longchengornis Fossil Image For Deletion

I would like to nominate this photo for deletion. Longchengornis only has one fossil specimen, the holotype IVPP V10530, which this image incorrectly asserts itself as. Images available in the literature for the actual fossil look nothing like this photo. Luxquine (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If it wasn't such a poor quality photo, I'd suggest the better solution would be to instead identify what it actually shows so the file can be renamed accordingly. Looks like some sort of Longipterygid? Maybe the uploader just read the museum plaque wrong? Happens often. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found a few more images of the fossil in question and/or its casts: [58][59]. Seems like it's been identified as Longirostravis hani, though seemingly an undescribed specimen rather than the holotype. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've put in a renaming request. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the detective work! Luxquine (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Coelophysis models

Peculiar integument, strange hands
This was cropped to hide the hands

Unreviewed images. As usual, the hands look bad but the second image was already cropped. The first one seems unusable.Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the second one is essentially unusable as well. Blue is a structural colouration and is only found in pennaceous feathers. Luxquine (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just need some inaccurate tags slapped onto them. The hands of the first one are baffling. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about the color now? Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The thumbnail is correct but it is still blue when I click on the image. Honestly both are so inaccurate that I would just give both an innacurate tag as funkmonk suggests. Luxquine (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a bit iffy to modify pictures of real life models like that, what if we wanted to use the image in an article about the park it is from rather than to illustrate the dinosaur? Then we would show something that doesn't actually exist. So at the least, I think such modifications should be uploaded as separate files. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Enantiornithes Reconstructions

Sazavis
Kizylkumavis
Alexornis

I made a few quick drawings of some fragmentary Enantiornithes (as they don't really warrant any more effort than that). All are drawn with similar patterns in reference to the fact that they used to be considered in the same family (Alexornithidae). Let me know what needs changing. Luxquine (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see much incorrect here considering the taxa are known from next to nothing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess their hand claws wouldn't necessarily be visible? And do we have any indication they would have had tail ornamentation? Seem a little stumpy here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The angle of them all would have made the hand claws hidden in fluff, assuming they even had large enough hand claws to be able to be seen. Tail ornamentation is pretty variable amongst Enantiornithes and females don’t have the rachis dominated feathers anyways so I opted for just not including them. Luxquine (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Megapnosaurus by @Wikipteryx:

Its nothing major, but I just realized that in File:Coelophysis rhodesiensis.JPG, the ear is in the wrong spot. (it's forwards in the inferior temporal fenestra instead of behind the quadratojugal). Its a cool illustration though, so what do you guys think should be done? Maybe have @MonsieurX: fix it, since they've edited the image convincingly before. Hiroizmeh (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, perhaps @Monsieur X: could have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the ear back, if it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Eoalulavis

I finished this illustration of Eoalulavis a while ago and thought it is time to get it checked. I often find fossil bird restorations more difficult (given how much the plumage can vary in "thickness" and therefore also the body outline) and have been thinking that it wculd be a good idea to start restoring them together with their fossils. What to improve? Conty~enwiki 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The coloration of the fossil is off. This is what it looks like: [60] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will think about the colour of the fossil. Anyone having issues with the life restoration? Conty~enwiki 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If the fossil is creative commons I suggest photoshopping the image of the fossil into the actual piece, though if not this is a really good idea for an alternative! I suggest doing a vague outline for the feathers instead of adding texture to it, as it may confuse readers that are interested in drawing the species themselves. Also keep in mind that the alular feathers attach to the thumb; the fossil shows that there are no feathers above the thumb bone, whereas you drew the alular feather above the thumb (I assume to attach to some sort of soft tissue above the wrist?). As for the restoration: remember that Enantiornithes have nostrils! I also recommend changing the colour of the feathers; green is a colour that involves sequestering carotenoids in feathers, something that is very difficult for carnivorous birds as insects and vertebrates generally don't have a lot of it in their tissues. The eye also seems to be fairly far back on the head, and a bit small for a species roughly five inches long. I would also lengthen the wing, as it seems to stop at around the hip instead of at the base of the tail. Remember that Enantiornithes as a general rule don't have a folded tail fan! I also suggest removing the teeth you've drawn. Great work! Luxquine (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Lythronaxargestes and Luxquine. Before editing, I would like to explain some of the details you point out, to see if you will still have issues with them: the fossil drawing in my illustration is carefully drawn by hand from the fossil photo in the original paper (I have tried to imitate some of the light/dark parts and "outline" in the photo as well: perhaps I should just make the skeleton in my drawing grey instead of beige?). Regarding the life restoration (which is partly based on kingfishers and fippers, see image description), I can remove the tail feathers if you wish. Regarding the head, I think your feeling that the eyes are place far back on the head is because I imagined the skull to have been a bit elongated preorbitally (like this Sulcavis skull restoration), as that would be beneficial to a bird feeding like modern kingfishers and dippers. If you think the eyes are too small, compare it to a kingfisher. I am aware that Enantiornithes had nostrils, but would they have been visible? If we look at modern birds, their nostrils are usually surrounded by bare skin) or (as I tried to create with my Eoalulavis), covered in feathers. The wings in my life restoration does not stop around the hip, but are meant to stop at the base of the tail. Conty~enwiki 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I may have been confusing in my wording in the critique of the fossil. The bones itself I don't have much of an opinion on, it's the soft tissue preservation specifically that I was trying to point out. In most fossil drawings there are only outlines of the soft tissue preservation (see the figures of this paper for example) coloured in flat grey rather than textured as you have done to give the illusion of rachis and vanes. Make sure to get the outline exact, as again the alula in your illustration isn't connected to the thumb bone as it should be. Most if not all of the line illustrations I've seen in studies of fossils have the bones in white and the soft tissue in grey, but I don't really think the actual colour really matters. The illustration's pattern is perfectly fine, but the colouration is not. Dippers themselves are grey and occasionally ruddy or white, while kingfishers are a little more colourful with iridescence that gives the illusion of green in certain lighting in certain species (primarily the green kingfisher). Even then, they still don't have vibrant greens as you have illustrated; the only green is what shows up in highlights in bright lighting, so even if the light is bright enough it is still never as vibrant as the illustration and will only show up on parts of the body. In other words, greyish plumage with muddy green highlights are probably the closest that (carnivorous) Enantiornithes could get to that vibrant green. Also keep in mind that tail fans seem to be generally absent in Enantiornithes, and should be omitted barring any evidence to the contrary for that species. Plumage aside, I still do suggest moving the eye more forwards on the illustration. Sulcavis is a pretty unique species skull-wise among Enantiornithes and I don't suggest using species unique in their form for reconstructing a generally unrelated species. Moving the eye to be closer to the muzzle would be a better bet; try positioning it so the yellow ring of the eye touches that long free line you have (the closest of the three black "eyebrow" lines) which will make the eye be above the "lip" line of the mouth as is seen in modern birds. The eye still needs to be larger, as this is a small species that weighed maybe half an ounce at most; common kingfishers are twice the size and not a good reference for eye size because of that. Enantiornithes are unlike modern birds in that their nostrils are not at the base of the unfeathered portion of their skulls, but rather near the tip as can be seen in dromaeosaurs. You can look at fossils of Enantiornithes where their skull is well preserved and use that for reference. Given the ecology of the animal, simply making the muzzle thinner but not shorter would be a good idea for their niche. I may have also been confusing in my explanation of the feathers. The secondaries are the ones that stop at the base of the tail, not the primaries which can vary in length. Common starlings are a very good reference for understanding where the secondaries stop as their wing feathers are rimmed in brown in adults. In your reconstruction, you had the primaries stop at the base of the wing, and the secondaries stop at the hip. Let me know if I missed anything or if you'd like a better explanation! Luxquine (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous points: green back and yellow belly are very unlikely, since enantiornitheans probably could not utilize carotenoids. And Sulcavis is a fairly big enant with chunky teeth, it probably had an odd or specialized diet. In all likelihood, Eoalulavis may have been a standard insect-eater with a thin snout. Also, your Sulcavis reference is a David Peters skull reconstruction!!! He is a pseudoscientist who literally makes up observations to create his diagrams and should not be referenced for any reason whatsoever. Avoid any and all diagrams or arguments stemming from reptilevolution.com or pterosaurheresies.wordpress. I would also recommend looking for a wider variety of images of the holotype fossil. Your fossil illustration is pretty good in most areas but also misrepresents the fossil a few times. For example, in the actual fossil the left wrist area is cut off by the edge of the slab, at least in dorsal view. May I suggest re-tracing it in ventral view? That shows the shape of the pectoral area better as well as the complete left forelimb and alula feather. There are some good diagrams of the fossil in figure 9.15 of this source:[61], and a very large crisp color image of the specimen in figure 1 of this source:[62]. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have actually learned that Eoalulavis does have gut content with crustacean fragments,[63] so a robust muzzle is not out of the question. My strong words of warning about Peters and his products still stands, however. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! I will start to edit my drawing. I am aware that arguments made by David Peters are problematic (perhaps I should have told you that from the start…), but his skull drawing happened to resemble what I imagined for my Eoalulavis. And yes, the fossil hit content of crustaceans were also part of my inspiration. Conty~enwiki 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the shell fragments are very small, and that there are many small species of crustaceans even just in the formation, such as shrimps, that don’t require crushing power. I would defer to the professionals in reconstructing them akin to wading birds (such as Wikipedia’s comparison to turnstones, who have thin straight bills similar to that of some Enantiornithes), rather than making assumptions that it had a more specialized crushing niche that is fairly rare in Enantiornithes. This study recommends that they likely had longer limbs like modern waders, so I additionally recommend following their suggestions for that as well. Luxquine (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good to also have a version without the fossil, it can be distracting at small size, and I don't think it would be useful if the restoration is used in cladograms and such. And if we get an actual photo of the fossil, it will be redundant anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I decided to follow the advice of FunkMonk and create a version without the holotype fossil (if FunkMonk think an actual photo of the fossil would be better than a fossil drawing, we first have to find one that we are allowed to publish on Wikimedia...), and tried to create a more Charadriiform-like appearance. I have edited the plumage appearance and colour, the eyes (size, colour), shape of the snout (the same length as before, but much thinner. The feathers are now covering the whole antorbital fenestra. If you think it would look better with more extensive covering of the snout, please tell me), length of the legs (made longer) and the tail feathers (removed). If you want to compare to yourself, look HERE. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 06:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks fantastic! All I suggest is moving the eye forward a bit more. The head looks a little long compared to most generalist Enantiornithes. Luxquine (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Luxquine! I will consider shortening of the snout. Conty~enwiki 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Carnotaurus

This image was added to the Carnotaurus page in November 2021, surrepetitiously replacing the old restoration by User:Fred Wierum. While I have no objections about the anatomy (it's perfect and realistic), I am concerned about how the artist's socials are clearly displayed on the bottom right corner. It makes it feel that it was added in the spirit of self-promotion. What do we do about this? Miracusaurs (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual evidence that the image was uploaded to commons by the artist, or that the image is labelled as being under a compatible creative commons license on Artstation. I think the change should be reverted and the image nominated for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Such licence washing is extremely common. But it does raise the issue that we don't have any restorations that reflect that newest paper about its skin texture. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mystery titanosaur: Neuquensaurus

I dug up an old titanosaur illustration[64] I had done for another project and tried to improve the anatomy (sauropod anatomy is not my strongest point, and it's still very much a WIP) so it could be used here. But it was drawn pretty generically, so it could be a number of genera that we don't have illustrations of yet. Any suggestions/requests for what it could be? Looking around what needs illustrations, perhaps it could be Atsinganosaurus, Lirainosaurus, Mendozasaurus, or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mendozasaurus certainly doesn't have the default basic body shape of the one you've illustrated here, it looks far more like a basic Opisthocoelicaudia or Nemegtosaurus, which we do already have illustrations for (one by you). Lirainosaurines are not a bad shout, given that they are close to opisthocoelicaudiines in some studies, and tend to lack extravagance. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well-spotted, I had originally based it on one those genera, just kind of forgot hehe. I guess by extension it could be any member of Saltasauridae? And any pointers as to osteoderm arrangement? Just the usual on the tail which has become fashionable? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Neuquensaurus? One of the oldest titanosaurs with the most history, could be pursued as an article for improvement. A good skeletal of it here, showing a reasonable arrangement of osteoderms on the flanks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice idea! I guess it would also have to be a bit more slender, with a proportionally larger skull, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Skull size is a bit hard to determine without a skull, but yeah both your suggested changes will probably make it more in like with the general trend of small animals having larger heads. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I still don't have much of an idea what I'm doing, but did a few updates[65] to make it more in line with the Neuquensaurus skeletal above, mainly a bigger head and some better defined limbs. If that looks ok, IJReid, I'll try to finish it up and add osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me I think. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Now uploaded to Commons and added above if IJReid or anyone else has comments, made the osteoderms pretty faint so they can remain ambiguous, as it seems their pattern and functioning is still very hypothetical. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Linhevenator tani

I added this life restoration of Linhevenator tani to the Linhevenator page. FunkMonk pointed out that this should image should have been reviewed. I am not sure it this should be taken down from the Linhevneator page until the review is finished, but FunkMonk did not take it down. I'm also not sure how long review should take, but I don't really care (even if the page will have to go without a restoration for a while); I just want to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks FunkMonk for pointing this and that fossils are preferred in the taxobox (which makes a lot of sense thinking about it).

In terms of feathering: the angle of some of the primaries looks a bit odd, and I'm not sure what's going on with the longer hindlimb feathers - are those supposed to be pennaceous or filamentous? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

To answer the questions, the reviews pass whenever a consensus appears that it looks accurate. And I usually don't remove unreviewed images from articles unless I see obvious errors at a glance, but they should always be reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I edited the primary feather angles so they anchor more proximally along the second finger because the angles of some of them looked as if they were attached more distally than the claw. I am not sure if this is what Lythronaxargestes meant, but this was definitely something that needed improvement. I also made the longer hindlimb feathers look more pennaceous. Right now the image is not updating to the new version in some places. I am not sure why, but if you can not see the new version you can see it under the current version in the file history at the [Wikimedia Commons file] until I find out what is going on. I'm not sure if this is the result of some sort of lag or if it is something on my part. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Usually you just have to refresh the page, by hitting f5 or similar. The old version is showing due to cache. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That looks better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Mislabeled skeletal

This skeletal, labeled as Camarasaurus, is in fact of Brontomerus. It's modified from a Camarasaurus skeletal, but if you compare it to Hartman's Camarasaurus skeletal [66], you'll note that the shapes of the scapula and ilium have been modified to match Brontomerus. Either it needs to have its name changed or it should be modified to have a Camarasaurus-shaped ilium and scapula. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, well, I think it would best if someone could modify it so it matches Camarasaurus, because we already have the Brontomerus version. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Isisaurus size comparison diagram

Here's a size diagram of Isisaurus using Scott Hartman's new skeletal diagram as a reference for proportions and size. Isisaurus is quite a bizarre animal! Apparently, it has been notoriously difficult to scale and reconstruct because of inconsistencies between measurements and scale bars. Hartman's diagram results in a length of ~12m, but Greg Paul's estimate in the Princeton Field Guide is significantly higher (18m). The current life restoration is marked as inaccurate, so the page could benefit from a more up-to-date depiction. Comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I compiled all of the length estimations that I am aware of here. I'm sure some are more reliable than others. An "upper estimate" of 18m is also shown. The fossil material seems much more in line with the 11-12m range. Should the "upper estimate" be included in the size diagram? Any thoughts regarding scaling Isisaurus? -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Those varying estimates are presumably the result of varying interpretations of the proportions of the missing parts of the animal. The silhouette should be scaled to match the known sizes of the bones; including a silhouette of an 18-meter size estimate using the same proportions as the 12-meter size estimate would falsely imply the existence of bones 1.5x larger than what actually exists. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Iberospinus Life Reconstruction

Just checking if this is accurate or not, I decided to give it more "basal" traits (deeper skull and shorter neural spines) based on the phylogenetic analysis. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure we have the liberty to hypothetically decide what's basal traits within the group, as no spinosaurs with deep skulls are known. Shallow skulls seem to have started appearing already in wider megalosauria. The skeletal in the paper is even a reused Baryonyx skeletal (which we could probably use here for that taxon too), and we should follow published precedents. Also note the paper has a free restoration[67] we can use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely forgot that the article was open access! That is 100% on me, also that's a good point, I'll be more conformative to literature, I've taken far too long a break from Wikipedia art hahaha. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Gannansaurus skeletal reconstruction

Skeletal reconstruction of Gannansaurus sinensis

The skeletal currently on the Gannansaurus page is accurate (as far as I know) but very crudely drawn. I have made a neater skeletal based on the figures in the paper that described the genus. Outline is based on related Euhelopus by Gunnar Bivens (CC-BY). Feedback/corrections appreciated.

I think you have the caudal vertebra backwards. As far as I can tell, the end of the specimen with the badly cracked rim is anterior, not posterior. The silhouette also looks rather too small in proportion to the vertebrae. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed backwards.... Not sure how I missed that when I was illustrating it. (Probably because I was extremely sleep deprived) I will fix this and check the scaling/silhouette size. P2N2222A (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Flipped the backwards caudal vertebra and fixed scaling. Remind me not to make skeletals until I've had at least 4 cups of coffee. P2N2222A (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks better now. The image currently has a lot of white space; it should be cropped and rearranged to focus more clearly on the skeletal. Also, visible watermarks and the like are strongly discouraged on Wikimedia Commons (see Commons policy on watermarks and this guide). As such, you should probably remove the "2022 Skye M @P2N2222A". One last note—for my Draft:List of sauropod species, I'm flipping all right-facing skeletals to face left to facilitate comparison at a glance. Do what you will with that information. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Cropped and rearranged, per your suggestion. I put my name and handle on skeletals because I have had my work reposted/reused without credit before, but I removed per your request. I also flipped to make a left-facing version, which I uploaded as a separate file. P2N2222A (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Pyroraptor

This life restoration was added to the article without review, replacing another restoration that was drawn in MS Paint. I would say that the head looks rather strange. HFoxii (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also seems the eye is way too large and the primary feathers don't seem to come from the second finger. And it's pretty rough... FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It also seems to be lacking the outermost toe Armin Reindl (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Vectiraptor size comparison

Vectiraptor size comparison with human. Anything I can change about the composition? 86.12.246.246 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is by me, sorry Wikipedia keeps logging me out. Eotyrannu5-Returns (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Would the tail be able to twist its dorsal side to the screen like that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m also worried about how the tail is twisted. Why is the body so sparsely feathered? I can see the skin outlines on the arms and legs and the outline of the pubic boot. There’s also no “cheeks” in your illustration; modern birds don’t have their lips going all the way back to the point of connection where the jaw hinges. The feet seem to be somewhat skin wrapped, especially on the right leg where there is a thick line going up the leg that segments the “dewclaw” and the sickle claw. Luxquine (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The body is not sparsely feathered, that's just a product of the lineart. The entire body is feathered, but if I were to line in every feather it would not look good. Legs are in no way shrink wrapped, look at bird feet. I can change the cheeks. Eotyrannu5-Returns (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The only part I am uncertain about is the torsion of the tail, but the base of the tail isn't limited by motion the same as the tendons of the distal tail are (I think Hartman has a skeletal showing its flexibility) so it should be good? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The body appears sparsely feathered because anatomical features that shouldn’t be visible are lined, it isn’t a matter of not drawing every feather. The propatagium is lined to be clearly visible and distinct from the arm, as is the ear. And again, anatomical features that would most likely flow into each other (such as the lack of fluff on the neck, which all feathered dromaeosaur fossils show to be fluffy enough to hide any transition from the head into the neck and the neck into the body, and the aforementioned pubic region) are visible even with the feathering you’ve done. Birds have significantly less muscle in the foot compared to mammals, but that doesn’t mean that they have nothing but skin on bone. Ratites and other large terrestrial birds are your best comparison. Passerines are not a good reference for a comparatively large terrestrial dinosaur; the back foot is too segmented with the lines separating the sickle and dew claws from the rest of the foot and leg. Luxquine (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Eosinopteryx

Hi, I have updated the Eosinopteryx restoration I made in 2013, updating some proportions (in particular, head and forelimbs) and the position of the wings. The paper describing the genus and containing images of the fossil is referenced in the file's description page. Also, since this dinosaur is now considered an anchiornithid I tried to add a couple of extra details, such as a more irregular wing feather distribution and a more fluffy plumage (though I'm not sure I've properly achieved that). --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is adorable, good job. If it is an anchiornithid the legs need to be completely feathered (I believe with the exception of the underside of the feet, barred animals being a good example) and the contour (body) feathers are not rounded as in modern birds - there is a v shape missing from the tip which is what makes anchiornithids look so scraggly. Is there any reason for not having a "fan" of feathers on the tail as is inferred in Anchiornis? Is there a reason for not having covert feathers on the wings? If this species is a dromaeosaur, where is the sickle claw? Luxquine (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Some things you mentioned are in fact characteristics of Eosinopteryx: lack of a tail fan, sickle claws and feathered feet. As for the coverts, I depicted them, though they may not be clear enough. They seem not to be very defined in Anchiornis though, with a more irregular feather arrangement (ref), that's the reasoning behind this restoration. Regarding contour feathers, I tried to depict them as more fuzzy than the previous version, though it may not be enough. If that's the case I could try to improve on that, although there may be a limit as this is a traditional drawing instead of digital.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The only thing that really needs to be changed is the shape of the feathers, in that case; erasing the middle tips of the dark bands and making them a v shape instead by heavily building up colour would work. If it would be helpful I can digitally alter any residual darker colour that you might not be able to hide :) Luxquine (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, or alternatively you could just add on more dark colour to the bands and add that V shape to the ends. The bands will be a lot thicker but you (probably) won’t have to erase anything. Luxquine (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to go with the 2nd option, seemed more easy to implement (although the result may not be optimal). Now the body feathers are longer, with more marked bifurcations. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. Great work! Luxquine (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)