This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
The problem with drawing something like Archie is that its one of the most well-studied fossils of all time, so aside from tiny details, color, etc, we know pretty much exactly what it looked like with no room for artistic interpretation. A few of the most prominant errors in your image that jump out at me--I may be wrong here, but I don't believe Archie could raise its arms that high. The arrangement of feathers is also incorrect--like all maniraptorans and birds, Archie had primary feathers, the long flight feathers anchored along the second finger. There would be no visible "hand", as all the fingers except possibly digit 1 would be feathered and bound up in the wing. Digit 1 may have been held pointed forward as a sort of proto-alula (the small flare of feathers modern birds have of digit 1 to help with flight stability and breaking which, oddly enough, Microraptor etc. do have but Confusciousornis and Archie do not). The several layers of color you use in the wing look cool, but are a bit misleading as they do not correspond with the actual layers of feathers present. Like modern birds, Archie and other maniraptorans had a few layers of short covert feathers that extend from the hand/arm about a third of the way down the primaries and secondaries. Speaking of primaries and secondaries, there should be a more apparent distinction between these (primaries being the very long flight feathers of the hand, secondaries being the slightly shorter, more 'rounded' part of the wing anchored on the fore arm). Feathers anchored to the upper arm, tertials, were not present in Archie, so the wing should end at the elbow, except of shoulder coverts that would give the wing/body a nice smooth form when folded. The overall shape of the tail is ok, I think, though the remixes should probably be longer. The breast feathers gave the belly a more rounded appearance, and the upper leg would probably not be distinct, as you've drawn it, since the knee was held prettym uch parallel to the ground and was totally covered by body feathers. The lower leg should have longer, hawk-like feathers as recent studies show, though not as extensive as Microraptor et al. You may also consider making the second toe slightly 'retracted' as in dromaeosaurs, shown by the Thermopolis specimen.
Now keep in mind these are all incredibly common mistakes. Not many people actually bother to look at feather anatomy etc. when doing paleoart, which is why when somebody does, people call it a "puffin" and think it looks unrealistic ;) In my opinion, the best reconstructions of Archie ever done are those by Reichel from 1941. I'd have loved to use them in the article but I don't think they're public domain yet. If you use them as a guide, you really can't go wrong. They don't seem to be online anymore, but I can upload them if you want. Dinoguy205:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand too much your explanation but you can show me that images of Reichel. My problem is that always I change a few my version based on another. And is difficult to draw feathers too, often they don't look very good in any image like Huaxiagnathus, that's why I did them colorful. But the image that I use as "base" is correct? --Dropzink06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see the link to your source image. It's not very accurate, unfortunately. I did a Google image search, and of the life restorations, maybe 1 out of 10 are actually decent. It's bad out there for Archie! 8O Anyway, I've uploaded all the Reichel drawings I have onto my server.[1][2][3][4][5]Dinoguy206:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the scale diagrams: Styracosaurus is about right, it measured 5 m in length and should be as high as the human. Gallimimus is about right too, although I would say 6 m is a little too much for the average gallimimus, make it more 5 m-ish. There is a problem with Staurikosaurus, with a length of 2 m it should be just as long as the human is high. In your diagram, stauriko looks way too big. I will let the experts comment on Zuniceratops and Plateosaurus, but at least Platy's pose is certainly wrong. The very reason why Bonnan et al's recent paper rules out the possibility of an usual quadrupedal pose for Platy (and Massospondylus) is because their study showed the forelimbs don't have the degree of motions for the hands to be pronated (i.e. no "bunny hands"). Forelimbs appear a little bit too long too. Besides, with this horizontal pose, platy will likely tip over ;-). ArthurWeasley01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that Plateosaurus was incorrectXD A new version (and also of Archie) will come soon. And... I uploaded the new version of the scale diagram of Staurikosaurus, and also the biggest dinosaur of all, Amphicoelias fragillimus! Dropzink07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enigmosaurus[here] is my 2D digital image of E. mongoliensis - an adult male attempting to impress a sub-adult female with his colourful display. Skeletal inset provided for comparison. Bring on the criticism hehe. Mistyschism00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks really great, though at first it reminded me a little too much of Dan Bensen's therizinosaurs [6], so I had to double-check ;) But obviously this is your own work. Only two things concern me a little bit: One is the green background, which seems a little too dark. You've also left the nostrils unshaded, with the green showing through (I know one or two paleoartists, such as Demitrios Vitale, who use the open-nostril interpretation, especially for beaked forms, but even then I don't think they'd be that large, the open area would be a small fraction of the bony opening). The other is the inclusion of the skeletons. I love the way you've managed to pose them, i'm guessing with Illustrator? The problem is a) they look very similar to Oyvind Padron's, which is ok but you should give credit and a link in the description if you used those as a model, and b), Enigmosaurus is known only from a partial hip, so the inclusion of complete skeletons may be misleading. Overall, though, good work! Dinoguy203:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback, yes Bensen and I have quite similar styles, even worked together on one occasion (Liaoxiornis). Yes, that is the skeleton I based it on and have updated the Summary to indicate as much. As for techniques - not Illustrator, but Flash, then Photoshop for the shading. Am away until monday morning so will update the picture then. Until then, have added a "to-do list" section to the summary as a reminder.
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Nice, but there are too many dinos and pterosaurs do not belong there. The size of the icon would be much smaller so you should not put too much details in it (watch out for the small dinos). Note that your theropod profile is way too big compared to the others, especially the sauropod (or is it a prosauropod?). I would suggest not to put more than two representative dinos (one saurischian and one ornithischian for example)in the icon. ArthurWeasley23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a prosauropod (riojasaurus). Pterosaurs don't fall under the administration of this project? And why would it have to be smaller? The template could appear that way. Debivort23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pterosaurs have a separate wikiproject, as do the marine thingies (descendant projects listed on dino project page). The idea is that the icon on the left would go in a userbox as well so thus owuld be a fair bit smaller. I do like it though, but I quite like the one we've got too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a second icon to go in user boxes, or is this against some userbox rule? Debivort00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, there's no hard-and-fast rule really, just style really. OTOH you could really flex your artistic muscle and play around with a userbox to complement it.. :)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Pterosaurus aren't dinosaurs. Otherwise, I absolutely love this icon: it's dynamic and has a lot of movement. The smallest dinosaur is hard to see, but I like having all the rest: it demonstrates how different they all were. Very neat! Firsfron of Ronchester00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me its not very good. The pterosaurs don't have to appear, and the tail of that siluete of Deinonychus make worse the image. I think that the siluetes have to be better illustrations of dinosaurs, even I don't prefer a group of siluetes as icon but a great representative dinosaur like in the WikiProject Birds is . But if you want a group of siluetes as icon you better do a more accurate version. --Dropzink01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know what you're looking at, since the current version has none of the flying dinosaurs. That said, all the silhouettes are from scale diagrams that made it through image review, including one yours, I might add.. That said ... I am getting to the "shrug...meh" level of enthusiasm regarding this, so if anyone else wants to put forward an alternative, excellent otherwise I'm happy sticking with the skull. Debivort01:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but better change this Deinonychus for another dromaeosaurid (I can do the siluete of it) and change the colors of each siluete. Dropzink01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the guy behind the guy (behind the Deinonychus), any specific input on what's wrong with it? Too puffin-like? ;) Dinoguy202:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original photo of the T rex skull was just a temporary pic when I rebooted the project & created a bunch of templates. It was the clearest picture by far, so I decided to use. I personally see no problem with the old picture, but a clear consensus agaisnt it has arisen, so out he goes. Anyway, I like the pciture you've got there now, with the different coloured dinosaurs. My only complaint would be the raptor thingy, (Deinonychus?). If it is Deinonychus, then it's tail is wierd looking - a bit to spindly & long for my liking. Maybe a slightly thicker tail & at a more horizontal angle should be in order? Other than that, the picture is simple & clear - we should try to keep it that way as too many bells & whistles spoil everything. Thanks, Spawn Man03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of see what you mean... in the outline (it's modified from [this] drawing), the fact that the tail is extended by a Microraptor like feather fan can't really be seen, making the later bit look like it has a 'kink' and then gets very thin. But overall, dromie tails were unusually thin for dinosaurs--they were basically long, stiff dowel rods, used like those poles highwire walkers hang onto for balance. Beef it up if you like, so long as it remains within the realm of accuracy... Dinoguy204:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not the user box! - I like the user box, Cas, & I'd prefer it stayed with the skull. Maybe you could make another userbox, with alternative words & pictures like, "This user is mad for dinos" or something. ;) Spawn Man03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should keep the skull for the user box, I kind of like it too. Otherwise Debivort's nice picture could be use for the wikiproject banner. I do not see any issues with the raptor, looks fine to me and the unconventional pose makes it the more interesting. Overall the picture is fine and well balanced but it should not be reduced further than it is now, otherwise the small dinosaur on the bottom right (is that Heterodontosaurus?) won't show up and the rest will look too crowdy (i.e: can't be used for user box!). Cheers. ArthurWeasley04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone agrees with me. Indeed, the image shouldn't be reduced any more. Spawn Man04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC). P.S. Hmm... I thought that little dino was an Archie on foot? Obviously not lol...[reply]
I like the selection of outlines. Diverse and not always the obvious choice. However, and I'm not sure if you can do anything about it, some of the boundaries between the colors appear a little jagged. The upper and low jaw, spine, and upper tail of the larger theropod and the tail of Deinonychus jump out at me more than the rest, but that may be because of the contrast. I like the original skull, but I think it works better when it's larger. It's actually a very good picture, but it's too dark and lot of the detail is lost when it's that small. | Pat20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Nah, I don't like that skull pic - I really like the different dino picture looking back on it now. I say we go with that, but keep the user box the same. Agreement...? Spawn Man08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might look better if the background was transparent, instead of white. It also looks like the background should be visible through some of the gaps between the teeth. | Pat16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
here's a version with fewer jaggies. As a .png it scales much better. See the various sizes above. I actually like the transparency masked skull too! How does it look in user boxes? Debivort02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good but as said above do not scale it down! This would be perfect (the last one) to be used as the wikiproject icon to put on each dino talk pages but not really suitable for user boxes. Cheers. ArthurWeasley05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Debivort's query above, the more transparent image i made... looks like:
This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Grrr!! Who's replaced the template image with that hideous image? What happened to the idea above about the new coloured dinosaur picture? No true consensus has been made as far as I can see. Can we please remove the new image in favour of the one suggested above? 203.184.60.3509:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either flip the image so that it faces left or make its body more central as the amount of room taken up by the tail is disproportionate. Cheers, Spawn Man04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. One thing you should double check is the orientation of ornithopod hands. I know many ornithischians could pronate nd face their palms down/backward, just not certain this applies to ornithopods. I'm sure there's plenty of data from footprints. Dinoguy204:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice but I am afraid Dinoguy is right, I had the same issue conerning the hands position with my Iguanodon and LofH with her Nanyangosaurus. Cheers. ArthurWeasley04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The coloring is very well done, and I think the head looks terrific. Brachylophosaurus, an ornithopod, is depicted at the Paleo Graveyard with similar foreleg stance, so I'm not worried about pronation. One thing that does worry me is that the rear legs appear about as thick as the front legs, while generally ornithopods had rear legs that were still significantly larger than the front legs. You can sort of see here what I mean. Also, the front legs almost appear to be growing out of Probactro's neck instead of further back. Your image of Brachylophosaurushere shows the legs further away from the neck. Firsfron of Ronchester04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, I think that the leg is too slim and... the skull didn't have a beak? You seem to have drawn a horse snout:-D But generally the image have good coloring and posture, the unique problems are the head and the legs. Dropzink06:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
v.3
Here's v2. SM: Can't do much about the crop - it's already biased toward the head. Flipped though. DG, AW:keeping the hands, per Firs. Firs: Thickened the back legs, thinned the front and redid the shoulder placement. DZ: Now with extra beak!. Some other shading fixes too. Debivort07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! However, I have one concern - the neck & head. They look as if they are very uncomfortable or not natural. If you look at the join of the neck & the back & then rotate the head & neck downward so that they would be at relaxed position, then they'd be touching the floor, not how I'd expect the dinosaur to be when relaxed & walking. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't look right having the dino raise his head like that, & the relaxed version would look even worse. This probably makes no sense; congrats to anyone who can make sense of what I've just written... Spawn Man07:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to say! Thanks God, someone understood me lol! Yes, the forearms are too short & if you followed the line of the spine downwards, the head would hit the floor - suggesting the neck is a bit too long or the spinal angle isn't correct. Thanks AW :) Spawn Man08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the extreme downcurve of the spine is natural in iguanodontians, though the head/neck do look a bit disproportionate (you could always label it subadult...). Dinoguy212:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DG - do you still think the head is too big? This is easily adjustable, and I already shrunk it a bit in going from v2 to v3. Debivort17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The images look great. Look on google images theres a bit of imformation there. This site has a skeletal recontruction [7] it might help nail down the proportions. Asuming the skeletal is that of this animal and it's adult the head seems about right. Steveoc 8618:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too much better now, but, althought the beak is correct, the teeth also can look but black, and as we know the hadrosaurs have cheeks. Also I think that the nasal cavities are too big and the beak is too short but these are not important problems. --Dropzink20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hay, after reading posts on the Dino mailing lists on this animal I thought I’d draw one to get an idea of its size. This drawing is Highly Speculative and based of a leg bone measurement and other Titanosaurs. Other leg proportions based of suggested measurements by palaeontologists at the DML. Neck and Tail proportions are completely speculative. The head design is completely speculative, I’ve seen a few reconstructions for titanosaur heads but I don’t now which is most likely. It might not make sense to include a picture of this animal due to it’s incomplete state, but I thought it would be alright if its made absolutely clear how speculative any reconstruction of this animal is. Anyway what do you guys think? (The final image would be neater of course with out the other clutter.) Thanks.Steveoc 8617:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent drawing. Interesting that using those proportions, it came out a little on the large Argentinosaurus size... (just eyeballing it, it looks only a bit bigger than the mounted skeleton in Georgia). Doesn't look anywhere near Amphicoelias after Carpenter size. Dinoguy201:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruhathkayosaurus have to be more robust if is a titanosaur and probably the heaviest dinosaur. The legs, neck and tail are good for me but the belly or the abdominal area not. Dropzink02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that Amphicoelias paper (2006)………it may have redefined my sense of scale for dinosaurs. Its makes seismossaurs look tiny. I’ve drawn sketches of it before but not until now has it kicked in how big it might have been (assuming its real). Argentinosaurus is about 6 -6.5m to the top of the back bruhathkayosaurus reconstructed like this is about 7.5m. Looking at the titanosaur reconstructions in the paper, they are drawn with much more level backs. That might just be down to shoulder placement. I’m not sure about the really short necks? Are those based of Puertasaurus’s possible neck length? The necks in the pictures seem too short, it looks like they would have struggled to reach the ground. I’ve done a really rough thickening of the body. Does that look better proportionally? Also ive added a rough end to the tail. longer, shorter? (I’ll redraw the final version from scratch.) I was wondering about the size of the head. Maybe a little larger? Thanks Steveoc 8611:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to go too far with a new version without some imput. looking at the Amphicoelias paper, it has whats known of argentinosaurs and paralitian, so i used that as reference. the pelivic boot? is based of repetosaurus. The back is more level in this version. ive also drawn some of the bone so you guys can get an idea of whats going on inside. They wont be visible in the final version. thanks Steveoc 8620:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought about the odd-looking titanosaurs in Carpenter's paper. I'm told they resemble the Saltasaurus in Dinosaur Planet. They look like they were modelled on hatchlings! Dinoguy201:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the new sketch looks fine to me. It's not as robust as I'm sure its describers thought, but it looks far more realisitic and proportionate this way than as some kind of giant meat baloon, which I guess it would need to be to approach those very high weight estimates... Dinoguy201:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version, sadly i dont have access to the paper however the femur according to the dinosaur mailing lists was 75cm accross so the pic above, with the bones showing, should have a thiker femur. oh well Steveoc 8614:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, i have read that shangtungosaurus has a really deep lower jaw,[8] a skeletal drawing on this page [9] shows that (assuming it correct). Also look at the hight of the spines over the hip. Other than that it looks great. I like the colouring nice and subtle. Steveoc 8609:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the snout looks a little too flat and "duck-billed" (the only hadrosaur that actually had a duck-like beak was Anatotitan). This reconstruction [10] is a good representation of the Shantungosaurus skull. It was much more like Edmontosaurus, quite deep in the jaw. Also, watch the front feet. The fingers look seperate in yours, while hadrosaurs had all their fingers bound together in a hoof. Dinoguy213:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and something was bothering me about the hind legs. They look a bit skinny, and I think it's because they're not coming off the hip quite right. You can see the front part of the hip bone curving down in front of the leg. This should actually by the top of the leg, and that line would continue down to the knee, forming the front of the thigh. The hip was incorporated into the top of the leg, but since you have your leg stem from the middle of the hip with the hip bone protruding on both sides, it looks a bit anorexic. Dinoguy213:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep piling on.. these are just little details, because overall I think the drawing looks great. Regarding the pose, without the hoof, and with two limbs off the ground, it looks a little "light on its feet". Shantungosaurus was a small-sauropod-sized animal. I think the drawing would improve a lot with a little re-adjustment to the pose to convery the animals enormous size. Dinoguy213:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - Thanks for all the good tips. Please don't apologize for them - dinos aren't my field and I need you guys to ensure the accuracy - and especially if I am going to make an array comparing different hadrosaurs, I need the subtle details right. But this case actually illustrates another problem I am having. When I just go to google images, there is so much inconsistency, my first attempts always need revision, so I think from now on, I'm going to have to ask you guys for a definitive reconstruction before starting the sketch. Fixes: jaw thickened, hip spines lengthened (and the shoulder ones a bit too), snout beakified, fingers fused, and front leg is now planted to convey heftiness. Was there really no visual way to distinguish the digits? As for the hip attachment, I didn't really understand your description of the problem, but after fixing the hip spines, I tried to just do some general tweaking to make the leg attachment look more natural. Hopefully it looks better now and has addressed your concerns. Debivort22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your completely right about the inconsistency, its always annoyed me. My mentality is to look for skeletal drawings and mounts first, as there more likely to be correct. That said they don’t always show what’s known. I’ve always liked Scott Hartman’s skeletal drawing site as he shows both what’s actually known and a reconstruction. Have you heard of the Skeletal Grave Yard site [11], its dedicated to skeletal drawings. For mounts try Flickr.com photo sharing, sometimes there’s mounts there. Sadly there’s nothing for this animal. May be your first versions should be rougher, You draw these beautiful drawings, it then becomes hard to change it if there any errors, don’t think too much about pose or colour at first. On the new version, I think what dinoguy is saying about the hip is that its not long enough.? This makes the thigh look thinner, extent the top of the thigh and hip a little futher into the chest. If that makes sense. The only think I can think of, is minor, but maybe raise/rotate the tail so that its more level. thanks Steveoc 8610:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, doing the kinds of "smooth transformations" required by the above comments isn't really that hard to do to a drawing that is somewhat finalized. And they only result in minor quality reductions. That said, it's obviously more efficient if I can get it right the first time. I did know of paleograveyard, thanks. Right... v3:Tail leveled, and hip widened.Debivort20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks much better! As far as distinguishing the digits in iguanodontians and hadrosaurs, I think each finger's 'claw' (more like hooves) would still be seperate. Sort of like in early horses. If you look at the Shantung reconstruction I posted, a good front view of its hand is visible between the legs of the (outdated, prosauropod-like) therizinosaur. And of course, the little outer finger of each hand was free. These pics are very good for seeing some hadrosaur limb anatomy [12][13]. It also shows what I mean about the hips a bit better - the hips and the leg should be one "unit". It would almost look like the legs have a well-defined "top" with the shelf of the hip. Little easier to see in this sketch [14]. It's hard to explain, but yours seems a bit mammal-like in that it's a little too narrow and rounded off near the top (though the new one is a bit better). The thigh should get wider and wider and attatch to the hip in such a wa that it's almost closed off at the front save for a narrow little bridge of hip bone. Dinoguy223:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another thing to keep in mind if you're doing a lot of hadrosaurs for comparison is soft tissue. I know that at least Brachylophosaurus had a soft tissue ridge along its back, basiacally a thin ridge made up of a series of squares, like the ramparts of a mediaeval castle. Of course I can't find a single reconstruction that actually shows this on Google, but here's a pic of the fossil where you can see them (along the back, above the ossified tendons/striations).[15] Oh, and here's a model of Leonardo showing them clearly [16]. I've seen things like that on older hadro reconstrcutions (especially lambiosaurines, for some reason), which leads me to believe they may have been present in mummies of other species, so you may want to include some kind of corrugated ridge in all your drawings, at least of hadrosaurines or maiasaurins. (I notice your previous Brachy image doesn't have them. Its right wrist also appears broken ;) )Dinoguy200:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The all should be crenelated eh? Well, not exactly what I want to be hearing in terms of forward progress, but what can you do. I'll try to get crenelated versions of brachy and shantung up tonight. Did probactro have crenelations, or since he will be the outgroup of the poster, should I leave him without them? Debivort03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking around a bit about this on other boards. Apparently all the hadrosaur mummies have the "crenelated" ridges, however my theropod bias is showing since I don't know which tribes are represented by mummies! It would be nice if some "iguanodontid" mummies were known to get a good bracket going. I'll check on this, but I know at least Edmontosaurus also had them, so it would be a a good bet they were common to at least Hadrosaurinae. Dinoguy204:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I'm trying to find more stuff to nitpick... but not coming up with much. I guess the perspective of the toes on the hind feet is a little wonky (technical term), especially the rear foot of the Brachy, where the proximal part of the toes seems to droop straight down. Dinoguy207:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, im happy with shantungosaurus now, the only thing with Brachylophosaurus is the thigh and hip, maybe lengthen it a little bit to make the thigh thicker (like you did on shuntungosaurus).[17] Other than that its great.Steveoc 8610:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps your hadrosaur project Debivort, Scott Hartman just sent along this skeletal of Leonardo showing known soft tissue impressions [18]. I hadn't seen it before--some interesting things to note are that the crenulations run one for each vertebrae, so it should be easy to figure out how many to put on (other specimens show that they run on to the tail as well). Also the width of the neck: GSP had started drawing hadrosaurs with crazy neck muscles that ran in a straight line from the rear of the skull to the spine above the shoulder, and while less extreme, Leonardo shows that this is partially right. The soft tissue was disproportionately thick along the back of the neck. Dinoguy213:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great link.. some really usefull stuff there. I had always waondered about he really thick necks of GSP, i never liked them. Does GSP have a site, as the only site i have come a cross has a few reconstuctions? [19] I have heard that GSP has done a shantungosaurus and maybe Glut's New Dinosaur Dictionary has one. ive been looking for any more information or pictures of this supposed 14.70m skeletal mount in beijing. You'd think that an animal that large would have loads of pictures of it. theres nothing, even on photosharing sites, (you'd think tourists would take picture of such an impressive mount. does anyone hear have any info??Steveoc 8614:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
v5v4
about shantungs size, that link i posted with the skeletal drawing has a small photo of i asume is the shantungosaurus mount. if that is the large mount then its definatly not 14.72m long unless those women in the picture are over 2m tall. The mount is probably more like 12-13m. The link then sais that shantungosaurus is 17m long and has a femur that is 1.70m. Interestingly scaling that skeletal drawing to have a 1.70 femur the animal comes out at roughly 14.5m long. What i think the person has done, is said that, the mount is (asumed) 14.7m and it femur is x long (probably around around 1.5m)and this other femur is 1.7 which is a certain percent larger so scaling the 15m monut to be that percent larger come out to 17m. Then i read the book that the skeletal reconstruction came from is The Complete Dinosaur M... K. Brett-Surman (it can be read at google scholar) he sais in one chapter 'shantungosaurus (the longest hadrosaur at 15.5m long)' later he then goes on to to show the skeletal drawing with a caption saying 'shantungosaurus about 17m long.' A few pages down he then says '....while the late cretaceous shantungosaurus is into sauropod size range (more than 20 meters long) errr ? Steveoc 8617:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the GSP Shantung skeletal, i'll post it up for a bit if anyone would like to download it: [20]. Unfortunately GSP doesn't hav a web site, but there was an "unofficial" site floating around for a while with most of his life restorations. Dinoguy202:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know this is a bit of a one man disscusion, but i think i solved one of my problems with the shantung mount length. I managed to find a better picture of the skeleton [21] and scaled it so the features match GSP skeletal. It apears the mount probably is about 15m long, however, it has a longer tail than the GSP reconstruction (how much longer i dont know the end is cut off). If it had GSP tail length it would be more like 12-13m. I found a paper that showed whats known of the skull[22]. It shows that the skull would be about 1.6m long. The 12m size comes from scaling GSP to have that size of skull. I dont know if theres a bigger specimin, but scaling it to the 17m size it would need a 2m femur, interestingly i may have found a possible foreign sorce that i think talks of one. [23]Steveoc 8619:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know too much about what specimens there are, but it's possible that mount is from an incomplete specimen reconstructed with guesswork/other hadrosaurs for proportion. It's not exactly the most up-to-date mount, with a bipedal pose and broken/dragging tail... I know that, for example, the AMNH Apatosaurus gained quite a bit of length in the tial after the early '90s renovations and re-posing, based on newer evidence at the time. Dinoguy200:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the only other GSP hadrosaurs I have on my computer are Corythosaurus and Kritosaurus. I'm not sure which ones he has done, but you should check out The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs, which has almost every single one of his skeletals (many of them updated from the originals) in the back. Dinoguy201:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both look really good, the only extremly minor thing, i think the tip of baryonyx's snoat should be slightly more angular? (squared off) if that makes sence) [25], great work Steveoc 8614:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to discount my comment but: the base of the tail and neck of tenont look sort of droopy, like they are hanging limply off vertebrae in the body... The skeletal has that to some extent, it looks a bit exagerated in your rendering though. Debivort17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded a new version of Baryonyx with a shape of the snout slightly corrected. Masiakasaurus is based on the skeletals here. As for Tenontosaurus, I am not sure I have understood Debivort's remark. ArthurWeasley05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They all look fine to me, except possibly the tenontosaur tail. I often see reconstructions where the tail is much larger than that, almost disproportionate-looking. A recent post on the DML asked about this, and the response came back that the tail was about 2/3 of the body length. I'm thinking the skeleton on that page may have been incorrectly reconstructed. I'll see if I can dig up more on this. Also, to Debivort's comment, I think ornithopods in general had that sort of "droopy" neck going on. Looks in line with other reconstructions I've seen. Dinoguy207:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a skeletal: not as off as I thought, may just need to be a bit broader at the base, and maybe a tiny bit longer.[26]Dinoguy207:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the first draft spino skull based of the Del Sasso reconstruction. The final version will have a bit more of the neck showing. Steveoc 8615:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great in terms of skull anatomy, but I probably wouldn't demarcate the fenestrae so clearly. In modern crocs and birds, those holes are barely visible through the skin, especially those towards the back of the skull which would have been full of muscles and muscle attatchment points, tendons, etc. Actually, your drawing seems to lack a jaw muscle all together. May want to take a look at [27] for a good muscle guide. Dinoguy200:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spinosaurus Skull
thanks, When i go back to the origanal i'will tone down the frenestrae. About the jaw mussles im not shure were they attach on this animal, Hartmans spino skeletal showed them starting about half way along the antoribital fenestra. Whilst one on at the graveyard shows them starting close to the teeth. Also the mouth isn't that open in this pose. This version has some photoshoped areas, so you can see if this is going in the right direction. (the muscles wont be so obvious, its just to demontrate were theyed be)Steveoc 8611:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by jaw muscles I didn't mean that thing inside the mouth that connects the upper/lower jaw (though it did need that, that... what is that thing called anyway?), but the muscles that wrap around the rear margin of the skull. The part that wraps up from the base of the neck past the ear should be a smooth round curve of muscle. As you have it now it follows the line of the skull. If you don't mind, I've sketched this out a little on your drawing. The solid line represents the back margin of the head.[28] Ignore the dashed line--was trying to figure out the extent of the jaw muscle but on double checking it found I was wrong, heh ;) Dinoguy213:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i see what you mean know :) ive been drawing my theropods with out the ability to open their mouths.(no wonder they went extint) Feel free to draw on the drawings, it will help speed things up. Could you please draw where the ear should be. thanksSteveoc 8614:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The muscle in the jaw is called the jaw adductor muscle. It was probably partially visible in theropods because they didn't need cheeks to grind down plant material. The ornithischians had cheeks, so their jaw adductor muscles wouldn't have normally been visible. Firsfron of Ronchester05:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is really good! The only thing I can think to suggest is maybe adding a bit of depth by drawing in a little of the back/inside of the jaws. Great job otherwise. Dinoguy212:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hay, looks good, but which species is it osborni or angustirostris? as i think they have slightly differect skulls. (s. osborni's crest curves more upwards, i think s.angustirostris curves more backwards? also i think it has a longer skull?? but im not sure) if its osborni then this is the holotype [29], the only problem i can see is maybe slightly longer forearms. Steveoc 8611:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks close. I'd make the neck-chest transition more defined, and turn the right foot so it's closer to a profile view. From what I've seen, there's very little difference between the two species, and the crest shape will also be influenced by individual variation, so I think you're safe if you want to leave that alone. If you'd like to assign it to one species or the other, feel free. J. Spencer14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foot looks better. What I meant with the neck-chest transition, which I didn't really explain, was to put a "step" between the bottom of the neck and the bottom of the body, such as with the Tenontosaurus above, but I think the shading helps too. One other little thing I just caught is that the loose finger on the right hand is in the thumb position, when it should be in the little finger position; all you need to do to fix it is to put it "behind" the hand. Otherwise, it's very good, and I particularly like the way it's colored. J. Spencer20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newest version looks great! The one thing that still bothers me is the raised foot... I think it may be the curl of the toes. I'm not sure what studies have been done on this, but based on other reconstructions, I think most dinosaur feet, especially onesl ike this with big, thick toes, would have splayed their toes out and down and forward when walking, not curled them back. Hooking the toes back like that was probably anatomically impossible, from the look of it. The feet weren't prehensile as in perching birds. Take a look at the raised foot of the Brachylophosaurus skeletal I think I posted above to see what I mean. Dinoguy202:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, much better! One more nitpick (sorry to keep harping on the feet!), but on to the closest foot, it's a bit odd that it's in the process of lifting the foot off the ground while the other is already in mid-stride. Looks like it's about to jump... I'd expect the ball of the foot to remain on the ground in that pose. Oh, and very minor thing--the line dividing the toes on the back foot seems much longer than the front. On the front, the toes end where they should, at the "ball" of the foot. On the rear foot they seem to extend almost to the ankle. Just a matter of erasing a bit of line there. Dinoguy205:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New version with shorter toe separation. I don't think the foot posture is inconsistent with other reconstructions. This brachylophosaurus shows the planted foot on its toes while the other foot is lifted. Debivort05:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new versions look good! On the Zuniceratops, you may just want to alter the top of the leg/hip a little, as it should form a big "V" shape as it is in Plateosaurus, not be rounded like that. Also, the hands of the Plateosaurus could not rotate to face the palms toward the ground like that (which is why it couldn't walk on all fours). The palms should face each other, like it's holding a basketball. Dinoguy210:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Parasaurolophus diagram is very incorrect in my view. The frill/head join is too thin & angular (I believe there was a skin flap between the two in the join...?), the body is way too big & bulbus & the forelimbs are much longer than the hind limbs. In fact, most of the leg features are off. I don't mean to be critical, but the picture needs a redo. 203.184.60.3510:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
err......the parasaurolophus is based of a skeletal drawing... so it will have a reasonable degree of accuracy....also the skin flap is speculation, theres no evidence for it. The only thing maybe is the size of it the diagram says 10m but looks only about 6-7m. Steveoc 8611:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Parasaurolophus is pretty much perfect from what I can tell. Not sure what reconstruction the user above has seen but it's probably old or outdated. And yes, there's no evidence whatsoever for a skin flap or "frill", it was artistic license that caught on at some point. The forelimbs aren't longer than the hindlimbs, but they do "start" much lower on the body. Hadrosaurs were primarily quadrupedal. Dinoguy202:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that that reconstruction is outdated because was made in 2004. And if you see the skeletal, the forelimbs and hindlimbs have almost the same length. Dropzink17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)P.S.: I didn't understand this: "On the Zuniceratops, you may just want to alter the top of the leg/hip a little, as it should form a big "V" shape as it is in Plateosaurus, not be rounded like that."[reply]
I didn't mean your reconstruction, which is fine, but was trying to figure out why the anonymous IP user thought yours was not accurate. As for the hip... You can see the two lines that make up the side of the legs curve towards each other at the top, making a rounded shape, almost like what you would see in the leg joint of a toy dinosaur. In reality, the lines should not curve towards each other, but stay far apart at the top, as in the Plateosaurus. Just copy the top of the Plateosaurus leg and you should be fine. This more closely resembles the shape of dinosaur hips. Dinoguy201:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded the new versions. I did also the skull of Plateosaurus smaller after scientific illustrations and mounted skeletons. Dropzink22:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the feathers! Though it is a bit odd that the underside of the neck appears to be featherless, is this to imply the presence of a gular pouch? Some of the proportions also seem a little off, especially the tail, which appears way too short, especially given the long feathers on the end. The feet look a bit too small, the toes should be almost as long as the fingers. Something about the jaw is bothering me too, it seems like it should be angled more if it's open, as it is it looks a bit disarticulated. But aside from the short tail those are all minor nitpicks. Dinoguy209:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i agree the feathers look great, I also agree about the length of the tail. This book is full of skeletals from GSP[[30]] (go to the next page) Its great amazon let you prview the appendix :) . I was wondering about the skull as i have seen two types, the more angular one like you've drawn and GSPs more veloceraptor like skulls, which is correct? Steveoc 8610:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The head seems a bit too big for the body based on other site's pics as well as some of the body dimensions which seem too short... I don't particularly like the bald eagle style colouring however - from a quick glance it seems too bird-like in that regard & kinda cheesy... 203.184.60.3510:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the color is that bad, many modern birds have contrasting head/body coloration (and it can't be too bird-like, since Deinonychus is a bird under any traditional definition, just possibly not a member of the clade Aves...). As for the skull, all known skulls are badly crushed. GSP's newer skeletals re based on his interpretations, which I presume are more rigorous. His newest one leaked a few years ago but has never been published, but it's similarly long and Velociraptor-ish. I personally wouldn't count using the older model, like in the deleted taxobox image, as an inaccurate, just a difference of interpretation at this point. Dinoguy213:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a scientific fact that raptors were the coolest dinosaurs, and puffins are the lamest birds, so this makes more sense. ;) Dinoguy202:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded. Tail longer, jaw more open, feet enlarged, neck all feathered. Also altered slightly the coloring behind the head so that head does not appear too big. How is it now? Also added Mapusaurus. ArthurWeasley04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just sick of everyone adding feathers to all the dinosaur pictures. Feather's aren't always present & it just makes really cool dinos like Deinonychus look lame... 203.184.60.3506:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks good, as is the Mapusaurus. I think what was thrwoing me about the tail is the length of the feathers. The tail of Deinonychus was a little longer than the rest of the body and head combined. Doing an eyeball measurement and accounting for perspective, this appears to be the case on the new version, if the feathers on the tip of the tail are half as short as the ones on the side appear to be. I was assuming all the tail feathers were uniform length, which makes the bony part of the tail appear too short. I think in other frond-tailed birds the feathers are equl lengt or get a bit longer towards the tip, but since the tail feathers of Deinonychus aren't known, you can do whatever you like really :) And, to the anonymous user, reality isn't dictated by what's cool looking. All maniraptorans had feathers. Sorry if that means they're lame now. Maybe your new favorite dinos can be noasaurids, they kinda look like the old fashinoed ideas about raptors did. Dinoguy209:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mapusaurus looks awsome. i only know of one skeletal by Ville Sinkkonen at the Dinosauricon and im not shure how correct it is. i agree, Deinonychus still needs a slightly longer tail. good work. Oh and egles are cool, just wait until one swoops down and plucks out your eye :o Steveoc 8610:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually used Sinkkonen's skeletal as a general guideline except for the skull that seems to be off. This picture shows a profile of the skull. As you can see, it appears more elongated and slender than in the skeletal. Thanks for all the inputs, I'll make the Deinonychus' tail a bit longer later this evening. Cheers. ArthurWeasley15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of these are fine, I for one think they're ready for use in the articles. Before this slides into the archives, just want to point out something I forgot before--GSP's most recent published Deinonychus skektal from DoA is online at [31], if anyone wants it. The only unpublished modifications since then have been some minor changes to the skull shape. Dinoguy205:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like it, well done. Also cool in that it's a nice medium between an Archie-style or Sinornithosaurus-style full tail frond and Microraptor or Cryptovolans-style partial frond. Dinoguy209:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, off the bat, I'd say the hands are way too small with incorrect finger proportions, the neck is too short and stout, the head's a bit too big, and the tail a bit too short. It looks like you copied this drawing [32] pretty faithfully, which isn't the most accurate in the world, and would also require credit to the original artist. Dinoguy201:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book, and they have some great models, but their model of Herrerasaurus isn't one of them: the neck looks weird (like it's connecting from underneath the skull at almost a right angle), the hands are odd-looking, etc. I'm also uneasy about drawing a picture of a model so closely that even the coloring is identical to the original. I'd prefer an alternate coloring scheme, without using the exact same striping motif. Firsfron of Ronchester02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really know much about this animal, however i have a 1993 National Geographic and it has a GSP skeletal in it. Asuming its correct maybe a longer tail and a little longer in the body. However this site has one that looks different. [[34]. Looking around at skulls they all seen to have a more squired off tip.Steveoc 8610:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue. I was pretty sure the hands were wrong, but I kept on finding newer and conflicting reconstructions. As for the coloring, I've got separate layers with different variations I haven't tried yet, but I'm more worried about anatomy to start with. The biggest thing I could tell was the skull; I'm going with the more squared off one for the final version because most places appear to have that (and it's definitely the version Sereno found, so I guess I'll stick with that). David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!)11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the GSP skeletal, I'll upload it in a bit. I assume it'sm ore recent than the one in that link, since its hands are not pronated. Dinoguy211:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. But if you want a group of siluetes as icon you better do a more accurate version. --Dropzink 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
.png)
![[1]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Reichel_archie5.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Reichel_archie6.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Reichel_archie7.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Reichel_archie8.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Reichel_archie9.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/images_jtc/river_ran_dry.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2002-10-25/features/art/dino_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/050627_Issue/050618_Dinos_xtrawide.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://skeletaldrawing.com/leonardo/brachy_leonardo.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/shantungosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](http://www.geocities.com/dinowight/barrysnout.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/Images/Tenontosauridae1.gif){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/spino1.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19302/19302-h/images/fig034.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://personal.kyoht.com/Tutorial/Raptor/skeletal.gif){kind=link}
![[32]](http://earth.fg.tp.edu.tw/learn/dino/images/herrerasaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/herrerasaurus.jpg){kind=link}