Was running FIST and came across File:Prototocyon life restoration.jpg for Prototocyon. It seems hinky to me, and didn't see it in the archives. It says it's based on: Werdelin, L.; Sanders, W. J. Cenozoic Mammals of Africa. University of California Press, 2010. ISBN9780520257214. It also says it was AI generated. I don't have a dog in this fight, but thought it should be looked into. @Leptictidium: do you have more information to share? awkwafaba (📥) 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it's not the first time this user has dwelved into AI usage. Considering their past uploads, this image probably comes from them. Most interestingly, this is seemingly the same fur coat than the reconstruction of Prototocyon by Roman Uchytel - same grey mask, same darker limbs, same reddish chest, a tail darker on the bottom, reddish on the top. AI models have definitely improved a lot since last time we discussed it, and it may become harder in the future to identify those kind of images. Larrayal (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. The prompts I fed to the AI were based on the following description in Werdelin and Sanders (chapter "Carnivora", by Werdelin and Peigné): "[Prototocyon], known through material of several individuals from Olduvai, Bed I (Petter, 1973), is only doubtfully distinct from the modern genus, Otocyon. The main differences lie in the somewhat more primitive dentition of P. recki. It is a typical bat-eared fox and probably had the same ecological habits as its modern counterpart". So basically, considering the main difference —the teeth— is not displayed in the picture, I asked it to draw an anatomically correct picture of "a typical bat-eared fox". Since Werdelin and Peigné stress the extreme similarity between Prototocyon and Otocyon, I think this gives us a very close approximation of what Prototocyon must have looked like and is significantly less speculative than all the whole-body palaeoart we have for palaeospecies without known postcranial material. If you have information that contradicts Werdelin and Peigné or otherwise suggests this life restoration meets the criteria to remove an image, please provide it and I'll gladly update the picture.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm no expert on canid anatomy, but we should always make sure that AI generated paleoart is sent for review here before being added to articles, just like any other paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so is this image acceptable upon its merits? It seems that AI generated imagery is not automatically invalid, so is this an accurate representation? awkwafaba (📥) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on with the hindlegs, though, and the tail looks a bit weird - and, again, same pattern than the Roman Uchytel reconstruction. I'm opposed on principle on the use of AI generated images on mainspace, at least because it is impossible for now for an AI to reconstruct anything based on litterature and skeletal remains, and because it could very easily scare away actual artists. Regardless, the anatomy of the hindlimbs don't make sense, and the exact copyright is unsatisfying. Larrayal (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Please provide your scientific references for "the anatomy of the hindlimbs don't make sense" and "the tail looks a bit weird" so I can use the exact description to improve the picture. Thank you. I based these parts of the body on pictures of the extant species (e.g. hindlimbs, hindlimbs, tail).--Leptictidium (mt) 07:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
That is exactly the issue. First, the left hindleg looks dislocated. Second, the right hindleg simply doesn't exist, it's just a foot. Thirth ; if this is meant to be related to Otocyon, then it only vaguely resembles it, and looks much more like a vague idea of what a fox would look like ; the legs are very short, the ears are more reminding of Vulpes than Otocyon, and it simply looks like a juvenile. Fourth, this is not a reconstricton of Prototocyon. This is a mashup of characteristics of extant dogs and foxes, because your AI model is not able to properly infer from the known material, current relatives and ecology and put those informations accordingly. This is just a relatively coherent (except the hindlimbs, which, I repeat, don't make sense), aesthetically pleasing mashup of various foxes and fennecs, meant to look like a generic, probably juvenile, fox, with a vague color scheme evocating both Otocyon and Urocyon, and hitting a bit too close to the only known representation of this genus. For now, it is completely impossible to tell if this is a relatively accurate representation of this genus for the simple reason that there is litteraly no sources easily available online about this genus ; so my interrogation is : what sources on Prototocyon specifically did the AI used to get to that result ? Larrayal (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I was in the middle of writing a similar comment when Larrayal posted theirs:
How did you base the body parts of the image on other images, considering this was made using AI? How does an AI accurately reconstruct a fossil organism in the proper environment? Would this kind foliage be present in the ecosystem it inhabited? Does the color pattern align with its inferred behavior?
The hindleg(s) are indeed quite strange. A "scientific reference" is not needed to explain how to fix them—only one seems to be visible, and it is growing from the midline of the body.
Furthermore, ignoring any anatomical issues, we have to consider the complications arising from a photographic representation of a long-extinct species. While we don't necessarily discourage photorealism in paleoart, it can be very misleading to an average viewer. The obvious question that comes to my mind is "why is there a "photograph" of this Pliocene/Pleistocene mammal?"
To echo thoughts voiced by other editors in past discussions, Wikipedia is not an art gallery. The style in this image evokes something one might see in a wildlife photography contest, not an informative encyclopedia. The image's "aesthetic" qualities (i.e. narrow depth of field, high contrast, etc.) should not overshadow its informational value and the necessity of a clear and accurate portrayal.
@Larrayal: You seem to be under the impression that I told the AI "Draw me a Prototocyon" and called it a day. What I actually did —based on Werdelin and Peigné's description of Prototocyon as being fundamentally identical to Otocyon except for the teeth— was ask the AI to draw me "an anatomically correct typical bat-eared fox in its natural environment". Then, I sifted through the many pictures the AI generated, comparing them to pictures of Otocyon, and selecting the one that seemed closest to it. I repeat, at no moment did the word Prototocyon feature in the prompts fed to the AI. The AI presumably based its creation on pictures of Otocyon, of which there are plenty. On a different note, it's not entirely surprising that it ended up resembling Roman Uchytel's reconstruction —of which I was unaware until you mentioned it earlier in this thread—, assuming that he also based his representation on Werdelin and Peigné and/or similar sources. As for the allegedly missing hindlimb, that is purely a matter of perspective. Look at these real pictures of real bat-eared foxestaken from the front; the perspective also makes it look like they're missing a limb, which is obviously not the case.
@SlvrHwk: To sum up what I replied to Larrayal, I based the body parts of the image on images of Otocyon. There are plenty of those to go around on the Internet, and if Werdelin and Peigné's description of Prototocyon as basically Otocyon with somewhat more primitive teeth is correct, that shouldn't be a problem in this reconstruction. That being said, I understand your concerns about the implications of a photographic representation with aesthetic qualities. If you all agree that this picture is more trouble than it is worth, I will request its deletion from Commons.--Leptictidium (mt) 20:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok so you're telling us this isn't Prototocyon but "fundamentally identical to Otocyon except for the teeth", so you told the AI to "draw" Otocyon instead, and basically pass it as Prototocyon. And that the AI didn't even knew she was drawing paleoart in the first place. It doesn't even look like Otocyon - again, it's more on the sides of a typical Vulpes, maybe specifically a fennec. Otocyon is tall, lanky, has distinctly shaped ears, and a typical jawline. The missing limb is not an artifact of perspective, and even if it was, as SlvrHwk said the one that is here doesn't make sense. Secondly, even if Prototocyon bones look like those of Otocyon, nothing tells about its soft tissues, which can vary wildly between species of foxes, let alone genera. Finally, this is not paleoart. This is, at the very most, a cool gadget that is somehow unable to do what it's meant to do. And it will never be able to portray a never illustrated taxa, because it is reliant on already existing human art to exist. And it still can't even put the forelimbs right. Larrayal (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Not really, @Awkwafaba:. When generating AI art of Prototocyon, I compared the output of the AI to pictures of extant Otocyon and specifically kept an eye out for the snout and ears, which seem very similar —and only vaguely fennec-like— to me. Secondly, if scientific sources describe Prototocyon as "a typical bat-eared fox [that] probably had the same ecological habits as its modern counterpart", then it is a very reasonable extrapolation to draw it with the same coat pattern as Otocyon. The fact that an experienced palaeoartist such as Roman Uchytel independently reached the same conclusion only bolsters my confidence in this approach. On the other hand, the remark "even if Prototocyon bones look like those of Otocyon, nothing tells about its soft tissues" smacks of double standards, considering that this page is packed with palaeoart of species without known soft tissue remains or even postcranial material. To be entirely frank with you, the impression I got from this exchange is that some users fundamentally disapprove of AI representations, as Larrayal has made abundantly clear. It appears that, even if I were to try and improve this image (for example, to make the animal taller and lankier, which I take as valid criticism), I'd be fighting a strong bias against AI restorations. As a result, I've requested the deletion of this Prototocyon illustration and will put my Wikipedia time to other, more productive uses. Thank you to @SlvrHwk: and everyone who provided constructive criticism, have a nice day and see you around in other palaeontological discussions and articles.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Volaticotherium
Hey folks, here's a reconstruction of Volaticotherium antiquum and a size chart for fun. The tree is Sequoia jeholensis, which I think is from the same part of the Daohugou beds as Volaticotherium but the strat is confusing so if anyone knows paleobotany or mid jurassic chinese strat better then me lmk!
Don't forget to italicize the genus name in the size chart. Right now, it almost looks like the specific name is "holotype". -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
When I have time, I make line drawings of holotypes of species known from isolated bones when there is no free-to-use image of the species. No speculation involved, just an interpretive illustration of the fossil, so not much that can go wrong, but putting up for review anyway. Yes I know I haven't been very active on here or uploading much but I've been busy. Notably Samrukia was originally described as an ornithuromorph bird but subsequently reinterpreted as a pterosaur, possibly an Azhdarchid. Skye McDavid (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I just finished this reconstruction of Astraspis desiderata and I was wondering if it would be a good upgrade to the already published reconstruction on the page? Also, I have several versions and I don't know which one would eventually be the best there?
Štamberg, Stanislav. “New data on the osteology of the actinopterygian fish amblypterus and the relationship between Amblypterus and paramblypterus.” Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis / Sborník Národního Muzea Řada B, Přírodní Vědy, 2013, pp. 183–193, https://doi.org/10.14446/amnp.2013.183.
Ill repose it and I can draw the scales if needed/preferred as well. The main thing I sort of need to know is if the the head recon is right now is good or if I should show the individual segments more. I’m a bit new to boney fish in general, much less earlier ones. SeismicShrimp (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Neopteroplax
Hello. Sorry for bothering again, but may I get another review for my reconstruction? This time I tried to restore Neopteroplax from several angles. The skeletal sketch and photos that I am using for the reconstruction can be easily found on the internet. I tried to make the ventral scales according to Holmes (1983) illustration of Proterogyrinus scales that are also said to be similar in Archeria. Hence I presume Neopteroplax mostly have these scales too. I am not adding any scales on the dorsal side becaus the aforementioned paper said that no dorsal scales or osteoderms have been found (until that paper that is, I don't know about present time).
Sorry if my ranting is taking too much of your time again, but is my reconstruction good enough for Neopteroplax page? Thank you in advance...
It's good to see a depiction of this species. The jaw looks a bit narrower than depicted in Romer's 1963 description (fig. 6), but that may be chalked up to perspective. I should note that most prehistoric amphibian "scales" are thin dermal ossifications that are more closely homologous to gastralia rather than reptile-style keratin scales. It's unclear whether they would even have been externally visible. NGPezz (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the input.. Ah I see, so it is not a keratin scales and it is still unknown if it can be seen externally. So for now is my reconstruction still quite inaccurate to be uploaded for the page? DD (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
You can edit it if you feel like it's necessary. Personally I think the scales are subtle enough that they can be passed off as just skin texture. Besides, just because the fossilized "scales" aren't keratinous doesn't mean that other non-fossilized keratinous features are impossible. Take Seymouria, for example: a tetrapod with no evidence of dermal "scales", yet also a decent probability of having some kind of toughened skin structure due to its lifestyle. NGPezz (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see, I am quite relieved if it is subtle enough to be not seen as scale that are found in reptiles.. I will try to see what I can do make the scales on the ventral side less obvious then. I think I have to start learn using digital drawing because editing scanned images from paper based drawing is quite difficult..
Hmm. You are right. It is reasonable for seymouria judging from the body adaptation and classification if it is really some kind of reptiliomorph DD (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
ah that remind me. This is just my own curiosity while learning about neopteroplax and other "embolomere". How to describe them quite imply to people? Are they amphibian? Or should i say some kind of amphibian-ish thing because they are sometimes considered reptiliomorph too, aren't they? DD (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
You could just call it a tetrapod; most people who care about embolomeres will understand what that means. The term "amphibian" can be a bit misleading, since embolomeres had little in common with modern amphibians like frogs and salamanders. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
ah i see, just tetrapod is it then.. Yes, i am a bit reluctant now to use amphibian term beside describing lissamphibians..
Thank you for the advice then!
And if the scales problem are deemed not to intrusive, I will upload it to the Neopteroplax page then. I am sorry but I couldn't find a way to edit the scales. But as always, please take it down if the rest of you guys feel my image is too misleading.. DD (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The eye seems very large and long. It should fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, and the closest guide would probably be that of a monitor lizard. Likewise, the teeth would probably not be that exposed, as teeth are barely visible even when modern lizards open their mouths. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I have uploaded a new version of the file where I have made the eye smaller (to fit within the sclerotic ring) and made the lips cover the teeth more. Thanks for your feedback. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Di (they-them): I'm not sure if the highly derived, "barrel-chested" Mosasaurus hoffmannii is the best reference for the postcranium of Jormungandr; given that it was found to be the sister of Clidastes (which it's closer to in size and jaw shape), and even more derived, larger mosasaurines like Prognathodon seem to have shallower torsos. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I've never illustrated a mosasaur, so if I messed up on anything, just let me know. Scaling using (the much smaller) Clidastes results in a length similar to the ~7 m estimate given in the press. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes you are right about the Delphyodontos that it was only known form larval remains. But I added it to my collage of Holocephali just to show the variety of Holocephali body shape. But if it is unacceptable and can be misleading, I would not mind if the image is taken down. I am sorry for not reviewing it first here since I just know that I have to review it first here. Sorry for my bad English DD (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
No you are totally fine, did not even catch the spelling mistake the first time. I think it is okay to have it here, as you already show a great deal of holocephalan body plans. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, I am sorry if I have post my image without reviewing it first. I still don't know the procedure of uploading paleoart to Wikipedia page. So the next time I want to upload something, I should post it here first? DD (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for telling me this beforehand. And thank you for your appreciation. By all means please take down the images that are considered can be misleading or inaccurate about the animal DD (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Don't have much to say, they look good to me. I mean on the general note names and such are best added afterwards digitally, but the art itself looks good. There is of course the hypothesis that notosuchian osteoderms may have been covered in soft tissue, but its a recent paper so until additional studies come out in support of it I don't think there's need to immediately rework everything. Undue weight and all that. Armin Reindl (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion and appreciation.. Ah okay, I will keep that in mind about the attachment of the name on the images.
Ah it seems so according to the paper. I am sorry for the mistake. I am not paying enough attention to the details back when i drew those years ago. Thank you for the correction.. I will try to correct it if I got some time. Please take it down if necessary.. DD (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Leiocephalikon
Hello again. I am sorry for keep bugging you guys for review. But may I get another review again? This time I tried to reconstruct Leiocephalikon. I find it quite difficult to reconstruct it since there are almost zero skeletal reference on the internet as far as I am aware. So I mainly used skeletal drawing from Rise of the Amphibians (Carroll, 2009) that I own [4] (that is the link to the reference that I used)
I am basing the general looks from Sparodus which are said to be primitive Gymarthridae like Leiocephalikon (or not even an gymnarthrids). For the scalation, I tried to apply modern fossorial lizards scale pattern since early microsaur are said to be fossorial if I remember correctly? And I also using Gabriel Ugueto drawing of Pantylus that show big scales on the head. As for the body, I made it to look similar with the description and reconstruction of Joergumandr scale. So if I may ask again, is my reconstruction good enough to be uploaded? Thank you in advance and sorry for my long ranting (again)..
I would remove the skull drawing if you can. I see the point of filling in the dashed lines for differentiating it from the original but I feel like that implies an undue level of confidence in the reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
ah I see, make sense about the dashed line.. But so that means the rest of the reconstruction are passable to be uploaded? DD (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
ah ok. Thank you very much.. How about other? Can i have other opinion from someone that is familiar with microsaurs? DD (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I guess for now there aren't any major issues except for the sketch? If I may, I am planning to upload my reconstruction and adding a little bit of information for the Leiocephalikon page. But as always, feel free to take it down if it is deemed too inaccurate. And sorry for make a move again before there are any major agreement.. DD (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Tullimostrum
I've created this image of Tullimonstrum based on Mikami et al, 2023. The only inaccuracies that are potentially present that I see are the fin shape, and the presence of the circular gills, which don't seem to be present in the 2023 restoration. Any problems with this though?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually gill should not be exist, Mikami et al. 2023 just denies its appearance. I have holiday for 3 days so maybe I can take on this possibly but not sure. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
So I finished three reconstructions based on Johnson (1969)[5], McCoy et al. (2016)[6] and Mikami et al. (2023)[7]. It is currently only black line and white color since not sure how its texture would be like. Are there any problems? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ta-tea-two-te-to Not that I can see, One thing to note is that the restoration of Mikami et al. (2023) looks somewhat translucent, so that could help if you ever decide to add color to it. BTW what did you use to make these?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I used Paint.Net, traced over my analog art mainly, and proportions adjusted based on paper figures. For body texture, I don't want to copy original work too much, in addition because it is not sure how it would looked like, I'd like to keep simple style for that. Fin texture or segment is also simplified. I'd put grey color anyway since white is hard to see in white background. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll add these to page, I posted this to Twitter (or something) and retweeted by Mikami himself, I think accuracy of that would be fine, though if there is problem, feel free to remove that and comment. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a subspecies of Italian wall lizard that went extinct probably in 1914. As far as I can tell, there are no photographic or artistic depictions of this subspecies to date. I was wondering if there could be a reconstruction, plus a size chart based on the measurements given (all appear to be in millimetres). Here's the description given by the naturalist who first described it (Google translated from the original German): A melanotic Lacerta sicula with a very intensively developed. deep black markings, but with the basic color not darkened or only slightly darkened. Belly bluish to blue in life. More detail: Habitus consistent with Lacerta sicula sicula Rafinesque: head pyramidocephalic. Signage and scales generally do not show any features that fall outside the range of variation of the typical sicula; only the dorsal scales are slightly smaller (71-75; in the Central Italian sicula usually 55-69, rarely more) and the number of gular scales in a longitudinal row is larger (35-37, in the sicula 24-31). In the type I have, the nostril abuts the rostral: the nasals touch each other in a short suture; Frontal shorter than its distance from tip of snout; 5 (right), 7 (left) Supracilaria; 9-12 supraciliary grains. Occipital slightly wider than interparietal. 4 supralabials in front of the subocular. Temporalia and masseteric small, tympanals narrow; only one enlarged supratemporal on each side. Collar all over. In addition to the type, there are 3 examples of this form in the British Museum. [...] Dimensions of the type: head and torso 70.0; Head length: 14.8; Head width: 8.0; Head height: 6.1; Forelimb: 37.2; Tail: 90 mm (tip regenerated). The drawing is very intense; In terms of the formation of the individual elements, it is less reminiscent of Lacerta sicula sicula than of some striped pieces ofLacerta pityusensis. In the type, three very wide black longitudinal bands run along the middle dorsal zone - the occipital stripe and the two parietal bands - which partially flow together, especially on the back. The basic color - apparently blue-green in life - has only been preserved as individual spots and on the foreback as two very narrow longitudinal lines on both sides of the occipital band. The supraciliary lines, which are no lighter than the ground color (hence the similarity to Lacerta pityusensis), run continuously. The temporal band is again very wide, deep black and has a few light spots. Subocular line indistinct, broken up into individual spots. The maxillary ligament is almost as strong as the temporal ligament. Pileus and temporal region very heavily spotted with black; Forehead and lip shields darkly pigmented. underside gray (blue in life?); outermost ventral rows of scutes each with a black spot. Remnants of the parietal ligaments still run on the top of the tail; Underside of tail dark gray. It should be emphasized that this new local form in life has a bluish to blue belly and apparently also a blue-tinged dorsal side.Mariomassone (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The image looks oddly blurry. Also, not familiar with petrels but the reconstruction of the beak looks very flattened especially considering it's not one of the preserved portions in the holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean the lower beak in particular? Because the upper beak is preserved and I did directly use that figure in making the cranium part (edit: I seem to have misremembered, it doesn't seem to be preserved but there is a figure in the paper restoring it). Olmagon (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Request: Vishnufelis illustration
I would like to request a depiction of the Vishnufelis fossils, based on this image (Figures 1, 1a, and 1b). Alternatively, a cleaned-up version of the linked image would be nice. Please and thank you. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Dihoplus schleiermacheri skull
Based on the photo labelled D in this figure [8] in "Earliest occurrence of “Dihoplus” megarhinus (Mammalia, Rhinocerotidae) in Europe (Late Miocene, Pannonian Basin, Hungary): Palaeobiogeographical and biochronological implications". Only photo of the skull I could find, but unfortunately the photo is not very high res, so trying to find detail in the teeth was difficult, so I hope what is present is acceptable Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Boverisuchus
Hello. Sorry for bothering again, but may I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to draw a Boverisuchus vorax based on this paper [9] For the body and posture, I made it according to the image from the Wikipedia page and here [10] I also using Nix Illustration as a reference since not many good image outthere depicting Boverisuchus with digitigrade/unguligrade posture. As for me, I am kinda divided when trying to make the feet so I go into kind of digitigrade or unguligrade... Ah yeah, and also I tried to make the feet upclose based on the fossil in the paper because I think many peoples sometimes confused the claw as a real hoof?
That's from me. So if I may, is this image good enough to be uploaded at the Boverisuchus page? Thank you as always...
Right off the bat I'd remove the bipedal version, its not a hypothesis thats all that solid, at least to my knowledge, and would probably do more harm than good to be included here. I'll look over the finer anatomical details later when I've got more time. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
ah okay, thanks for the input. I will remove the bipedal posture then.. And thank you once more for the time to checking the image DD (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok so some brief other notes, the skull seems much longer and acute than fossils of Boverisuchus, so I'd recommend double checking those proportions. To my knowledge we don't have good fossils of the osteoderms in articulation, but I think it might be good to cut back on them a little bit. You seem to draw somewhere around 6 double rows that are distributed pretty evenly across the body, sorta like in Nix's illustration, showing no breaks around the neck and no big differences in size. Personally I'd recommend looking more at modern crocodilians (even if the placement of Boverisuchus in regards to them is a bit mixed at times) and take more inspiration from them. Oftentimes you'll see distinct nuchal (neck) shields that aren't immediately connected to the armour of the trunk plus some differences in osteoderm size plus fewer rows. I know its kind of a nitpick but looking more into the patterns we see in modern taxa goes a long way to polish fossil croc reconstructions (and makes it easier to draw them too). The scales on the tail also tend to be more angular and larger than those of the trunk and are much more organized. While I generally advise against using specific art pieces as reference (the line between research and artistic license is often blurry) I think that Boverisuchus by Corbin Rainbolt is one of the best depictions of the taxon to date and shows some of the stuff I was talking about in regards to the potential osteoderm patterns. I know this is a lot of text, but I hope it helps. Keep up the good work. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
sorry for my late reply. Aah I see. That means I still have to redraw many things from boverisuchus drawing. I will try to rely more from the modern crocodile then and cut down the osteoderm.
No, it is fine and not a nitpick. Thank you very much for the precise correction and suggestion.. Now i know which parts i have to fix when i revisit this species next time. Thank you very much for the correction and time! DD (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Dacrytherium
Here's a bust of Dacrytherium ovinum for the new page, alongside some scaling of Dacrytherium and Anoplotheriidae all together.
This image is also reviewed in assorted unreviewed palaeoart above, but I feel this is worth to discuss separately. I feel like these are oversized. That is because, Spheniscus megaramphus, which skull is about 20 cm long,[11] is scaled here about 40 cm. That is probably because it was just scaled larger than other penguins, which are probably scaled based on "height" and not length. As I said multiple times, it is so common that "height" and "length (tail to beak)" are confused. For living species, in Wikipedia aside from Humboldt penguin, size is descripted as "height", and sources are book (African penguin), BBC website (Magellanic penguin) and Animal website (Galapagos penguin). I am sure these sources can confuse "length" data and "height" data, and it probably caused such a oversize of megaramphus here. I am not sure about other fossil penguins, probably good to scale from materials? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I created this image for the page Pelecanus paranensis, seeing as it has no image. I based it on a photograph of a Peruvian pelican, which it is closely related to. Is this image good for the page, or are there any errors? Di (they-them) (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on a restoration of the Dodo by Hume. Roughly scaled based on the 70 cm estimate given in Hume's book Extinct Birds. However, having a copy of the reference in question, Hume does not specify whether the measurement refers to height or length. Looking at the scaled restoration given by Darren Naish [12], the scale looks about right to me, but given the differences in posture between the two images its somewhat difficult to judge. The beak is shorter than in Darren's restoration because it is foreshortened in Hume's restoration due to being angled somewhat toward the viewer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I think the sources for the measurements should be added to the Commons description as well. A shame the image I provided doesn't show the head in profile, then the known head-length could be used for cross-checking... FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that could work, but seems we would need a skull measurement to go by, isn't one in the article after all. Perhaps the recent description has one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I've made a new version based on the Mansur illustration. Is this better? Darren's illustration is based on a scaled skeleton by Jolyon C. Parish, so I hope that's good enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Cool, I think we should also add published size estimates to the description (such as Hume 2017), I'm sure the one Naish lists isn't his own estimate anyway, but based on some other source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "Hume 2017" you are referring to. I think Darren's main size source is the Parish skeletal [14], which Almost certainly originates from his book "The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History" (I book I assume you own). However, the scale on Parish's skeleton is only shown in stripes without the caption, so I can't know the exact scale without access the book. Does Parish's book give a height/length estimate? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I have the 2012 edition of the book, where it just says "70 cm" without clarification as to whether this refers to height or length. Is it any different in the 2017 edition? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, but it gives a wider range "Approximately 70–75cm (28–29in)". I've sent you the sources on Discord. Another thing is we probably need to find a different image layout for the size comparison, now it creates "text sandwiching" by being on the same level as the Mansur image. I'll see if I can fix it with a multiple image template or different placement. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Heyo, hope all is well. I recently reconstructed the Pleistocene flamingo, Xenorhynchopsis tibialis, as there exists virtually no art online. I'd like it to be considered for review to be the flagship image for the page of the genus, Xenorhynchopsis. Respond when possible,
I guess it's so fragmentary that it's fine to just base it closely on modern flamingoes, but the signature is very distracting, ideally restorations shouldn't have signatures/watermarks, and if they do, try to hide them. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Some size charts of recently described fossil lampreys (possibly more to come for older genera...). As always, comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Interesting version. Well, there are no feet known in sebecids, when I made my version I based it in Baurusuchus, since that baurusuchids are the closest relatives of sebecids. Here is a reference: [16] --Rextron (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Now we're at it, what's wrong with this, professionally drawn, but older restoration? Looks better than most newer restorations I've seen. The new one posted here has rather wonky limb-posture. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The back of the head-neck transition and profile of the back seems different and likely incorrect compared to the 2015/16 professional restoration I posted above. Compared to the 2016 restoration, the body seems lower to the ground, even when accounting for differences in posture. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, that restoration you linked looks very "shrink-wrapped", but with very wrinkly, loose skin in odd places, that doesn't look like any modern rhino. It also doesn't seem to take into account the massive muscles that would have attached the whithers with the back of the skull and given the "hump-backed" appearance, as shown in Christman's drawing, and is clearly visible in modern rhinoceroces. I must say Idon't really find that artists's style convincing in general. Look at the hindlegs here[17] or frontlegs here[18], doesn't look like any kind of real anatomy. And this rhino looks downright zombified:[19] Being published in a paper doesn't necessarily mean accurate, as we have seen many times before with dinosaur restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough then. I guess this isn't a good official restoration of this taxon. I think the 2016 restoration is going for fur as the skin texture, rather it being folds in the skin, though this admittedly is difficult to tell. Is this restoration from Flerov (1955) any better [20]? It's not public domain or CC compatible as far as I can tell, but Billia (who is regarded as among the foremost experts on the taxon), has said it is among the best restorations of the species. One thing I am noticing looking at the Christman restoration is that the head is very proportionally large, and looks like it is convex on top, where as in actual skulls of S. kirchbergensis the skull roof is close to flat (e.g [21]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The 1955 image certainly looks like it was made by someone who knows rhino musculature better. As for the 2016 image, I don't think it's fur, if you compare with their other rhino restorations on Facebook, they all have this odd, wrinkly skin texture, but you can clearly see on other animals when they're supposed to be furry. Maybe a modified version of the Christman image could be made, I know mariomassone has already done that for the dire wolf article. But as far as I can see, the back of the head simply continues over to the top of the neck, creating the impression that it's "round" (remember, the back of the head is where all those heavy nuchal muscles attached). There's a similar impression if you compare skulls of white rhinos with photos of live animals. Christman sure knew how not to shrink-wrap. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that without a mounted skeleton or skeletal diagram (neither of which appears to exist), then it's not possible for me to accurately judge the proportions of this taxon. Hopefully the complete Polish skeleton gets mounted at some point and then this will be worth revisiting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
What makes us think its proportions would be much different from relatives that do have complete skeletal mounts?[22] Also, what's going on with the categories here[23], what is this[24], a synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know how much of those mounts are based on actual bones, vs those reconstructed based on living rhinoceroses. I'm like 99% sure that Rhinoceros binagadensis is a junior synonym of the woolly rhinoceros, as implied in this Russian language paper. The skull in the mounted skeleton in the article infobox looks very similar to that of woolly rhinoceroses. To be honest, I'm somewhat dubious about the Azerbaijan skull used in the infobox of the Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis article. It may too be a woolly rhinoceros skull, but it's kind of difficult to tell given the photographic angle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, seems like something we should definitely have cleared out, seems potentially misleading. Unless there is actual disagreement in the literature and both are valid possibilities. Otherwise we need to recategorise and redirect relevant synonym images and articles. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Having looked at very closely now, and having compared it to DagDaMor's diagram in the article. I'm pretty sure the photo used in the S. kirchbergensis infobox is indeed a skull of a woolly rhinoceros, not S. kirchbergensis. Whoops. Looks like I'll have to draw a replacement, as there doesn't appear to be any CC-BY compatible papers with images of the skull. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps PrimalMustelid has something to say about this or the synonym situation, having commented on fossil rhinos before. And while we've discussed it before, and I'm not going to press it now, but I think all the Stephanorhinus species could (and probably should) easily be rolled into the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Reading The rhinoceroses from Neumark-Nord and their nutrition again, what strikes me is that the restoration by Christman has the rhinoceros galloping in a head down like a white rhinoceros, when all the photos i've seen suggest that rhinoceroses generally run with their head in their neutral posture or slightly lowered, and for the browsing S. kirchbergensis it is inferred that it had a roughly horizontal head neutral posture similar to the black rhinoceros (see page numbered 388 in the paper) and this black rhinoceros photo for example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not when they're charging[25] (0:53), though. Also, most animals are perfectly capable of posing outside their "usual" posture, so I don't see how that can count as an inaccuracy (and if you look at videos of black rhinos running long enough, their head goes in all sorts of postures). FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Baru species
Baru iylwenpeny, B. darrowi, and B. wickeni
Hello again. May I ask for another review for some crocodilian reconstruction? This time I tried to restored the three species of Baru. From top to bottom: B. iylwenpenny, B. darrowi, and B. wickeni. I am not making them according to the scale to showcase their proportion difference. For B. iylwenpenny, I am using the skeletal drawing from the original paper that is posted on Novataxa Blogspot. For B. darrowi, I mainly used the original publication paper [26] and Armin Reindl's drawing on the Baru page. As for the B. wickeni, I am using this photo as reference [27] which is NTM P91171-1. So as usual, can I ask if this image good enough to be uploaded for Baru page? I am also okay if not all species are deemed accurate. I will just upload the accurate one while fixing the other one.
Looks good, I wonder if the eye is too close to the upper part of the orbit (and horn), should probably be further down[28], and would the earhole not be visible from this angle? FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
To be honest this Nasutoceratops came out very well. The ear is also in a good place, but I have my doubts that it would be visible from this angle. Aventadoros (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I tagged inaccurate for other images but this is not sure considering resolution, Maybe tail fin is too long and pelvic fin placement is wrong but I can't say well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Yaguarasaurus columbianus (1/2)
First of a two-part series on Yaguarasaurus to illustrate the controversy of mosasaur evolution. Part one (this) is intended to reconstruct the species as a yaguarasaurine, thus a close relative of terrestrial-limbed tethysaurines where the two groups diverged together early on. Second part is WIP and will reconstruct a newer plioplatecarpine hypothesis that suggests a more Platecarpus-like body. Macrophyseter | talk06:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Looks nice, I wonder what's going on with the flexion of the front limb, to me it looks like the elbow bends in the opposite way of what it should? FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely. Mosasasaurs have a middle ear system analogous to sea turtles and earless monitor lizards, which don't have external ears. The general quadrate anatomy of Yaguarasaurus isn't that different from other mosasaurs, so there's no reason to suggest an exception. Macrophyseter | talk21:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, good to know (I guess it also makes sense if mosasaurs have a particularly close affinity with snakes). I should probably remove the external ear on my Eremiasaurus then. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yaguarasaurus columbianus (2/2)
Second of a two-part series on Yaguarasaurus to illustrate the controversy of mosasaur evolution. Part two (this) is intended to reconstruct the species as a basal plioplatecarpine, and thus may have had a more derived aquatic body than typical depictions. Macrophyseter | talk21:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It's a nice work, but I heard several comments about the recent paper that names the new species of Yaguarasaurus from Mexico, particularly considering that in the same paper the authors didn't found a clade of both species, it's more like a tentative classification in which the Colombian species is a bit more basal. Anyways, as far I know there is no evidence of tail fins and flipper for Turonian mosasaurs.--Rextron (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The yaguarasaurine interpretation in my earlier post (Yaguarasaurus columbianus (1/2); above) is for those who fancy the terrestrial limbs better. I completed the drawing for this one prior to the new species' publication and chose to keep as is because of the same considerations you mention. The plausibility of fins is inferred from an advanced brain circulation[30] found in Y. columbianus, which is only also found in derived plioplatecarpines and Sarabosaurus and may be an diving specialization (Tethysaurus has an incipient version). Also, members of derived russellosaurines were already popping up since the Mid-late Turonian. For example, Tylosaurus was already a contemporary of Y. columbianus, and there's evidence in Texas of Angolasaurus appearing even earlier. Macrophyseter | talk01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Mysterious glyptodont tail
Tail supposedly of Glyptodon from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History
The mount seems to be labelled as Glyptodon in the museum when you search for it, but given that older mounts often have a lot of weird sculpting, it could just be replaced in the article, sure we must have something better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
We already use a pretty good image, [31] so I went ahead and removed it a few days ago. It looks a lot closer to the tail of Glyptotherium though, so I left it in that article, while removing attribution to Glyptodon in the caption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Do we have some less ambiguous Glyptotherium tail images to use in its article? I think it's a bit iffy to use one that we identify as such ourselves regardless of museum labeling. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Should the nares be blacked out in dorsal view? It also seems from the occulusal view of the mandible that there are mandibular foramina that maybe should be blacked out too. And I'd move the dorsal view right a little, it's butting up against the legend. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Pachypanthera piriyai
I've updated my old Pachypanthera skull diagram, would be appropriate to show it in the Pachypanthera Wiki page?
Oh my, yes, that'd be lovely. I have minimal experience at judging paleoart, so it other reviewers may want to double-check, but to my eyes this diagram is accurate. Thank you, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for bothering again, but may I get another review again? This time I tried to reconstruct Moradisaurus which is a captorhinid. Actually, I am having quite a hard time deciding the proportion because there aren't many references for the skull. The only images I can find are the photos of juvenile specimen that was quite recently described. But then again it is a juvenile so it can't be used 100% as a reference for adult. So I used the silhoutte from this paper [33] and reconstruction by Alan Benetau. I also used Captorhinkos skull since it is one of Moradisaurus close relative.
Sorry for my long introduction ranting again. And as always, is my image good enough to be uploaded for the Moradisaurus page? Thank you..
ah yes. I am sorry to mention that too. And I also used Joschua Knuppe reconstruction on twitter as reference since the holotype fossil is not that complete.. DD (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
sorry if I am mistaken, but since there are no correction or input, I guess overall there are no problem with this image? I think I will upload it into the Moradisaurus page. But as always, if there are glaring inaccuracies, please just take it down. thank you.. DD (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Created skeletal reconstruction of gigantic protostegid Cratochelone. Mostly based on reconstruction in Kear (2006),[36] remains are scaled from measurement since scale bars are broken. For scapula I reconstructed it more close to that of Protostega considering morphology. Entoplastron width is also smaller than estimated width (130 cm) since with that measurement it exceeds estimated TL (~4 m). I omitted hyoplastal dactyloid remain since it is too fragmentary and impossible to restore shape. Body shape is somewhat based on fishboy86164577's Archelon and Protostega reconstructions, I haven't used his reconstruction directly and I got permission. Any comments? Maybe edging for bones would help it more visible but it is hard to do for me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I had to do a double-take here because it's not really clear what the silhouette is meant to represent. At least having the head here would be an improvement (even if it's speculative). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we need the usual sign off from PrimalMustelid. Maybe just tag him every time you add something here, because no one else really knows anything abut these things, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I think the tails might be a bit wide compared to how hyaenodonts are typically depicted in paleoart, but we haven't had much scientific anatomical reconstructions in academic sources, so it's difficult to verify. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The tails here in both animals are meant to be at least a little fluffy/bushy, as seen in a wide variety of modern carnivorans (civets and large closed environment adapted mustelids like tayra were my primary ref here) and preserved in the Messel Lesmesodon fossils Triloboii (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This reconstruction of Dorypterus hoffmani is from 1907, and looks like this is highly outdated. It should have slightly longer body and tilted dorsal fin.[37]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the mention :) My restoration (featured here) was based on the only skeletal available on the internet, which belongs to a paper published in 1941 (this one). Not very recent either, but seems to be an upgrade from the current one. A similar restoration is found in this figure from this paper. They seem to be slightly more elongated than your restoration, and the mouth is bigger. El fosilmaníaco (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I can upload it if requested, but I'd rather not to avoid duplicity. With these minor tweaks yours will be a reviewed restoration, and thus will be preferred :) El fosilmaníaco (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Better now! The other restorations also seem to feature a blunter snout, but perhaps the mouth can have mobile parts (not sure). Also, I'm no expert on fish anatomy, so I'm not sure how many of the head sections should be visible. The "lips" surrounding the upper mandible are usually visible though El fosilmaníaco (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Good points. I'll tweak it a bit. I guess I was just trying to go in a different direction than that 1907 restoration that looks like it's going to haunt my dreams. Kylinxia (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
If nobody has any other feedback, I've gone ahead and finished up the illustration and will put it on the wiki page. Thanks for your help, everyone! Kylinxia (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Would this restoration of Cordaticaris by Qohelet12 be okay to add to the main article on this radiodont. It seems it was already placed on review, but was never properly looked at. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I would maybe comment that the linear ornaments of the headshield, composed of tiny tubercules, are restricted to only the centre of the headshield. They are definitely not present on the lateral flanges. PaleoEquii (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Carrolla and Euryodus
Hello again. May I ask for another review of my reconstructions? This time I tried to draw two microsaurs which are Carrolla and Euryodus. I am using this paper for the skull shape [38] (must use Sci-Hub for accessing it) and also other skull drawing like from Wikipedia page for Euryodus. As for the intergument, I mainly used this paper again [39] . So, as always, are my images good enough to be uploaded to their respective pages? Thank you in advance.. DD (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Since there are no major correction so far, I assumed it is okay to be uploaded? If that so, I think I will upload them to their respective pages. But as always, please take it down if it is deemed too inaccurate. Thank you.. DD (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Lepidosauromorph and Basal Lepidosaur Members
Here's 9 out of the 10 lepidosauromorphs and basal lepidosaurs, tamaulipasaurus is a bit more speculative than the rest in its body plan
They all look reasonably accurate to known skull diagrams of the animals, with bodies looking like what would be expected. I think they pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This have been never reviewed, and I feel this is likely inaccurate work. Multiple phylogenic analysis results that Notochelone is close to taxa like Santanachelys and Rhinochelys, at least it looks like close to basal members. These basal members had smaller flippers, while in this reconstruction flippers are as large as advanced protostegids or modern sea turtles. However, this genus is so poorly described compared to how many fossils described (one of the most common vertebrate in the Toolebuc Formation) and there are no such a study described its limb bones well. This paper[40] have some measurements but looks like these materials are from juvenile on side of adult skull as I see. 2018 abstract have whole body analysis of Notochelone but not published yet.[41]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
If the flippers are indeed too large, it would be easy to resize them, but I'd need some reference image to base it on. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is description of Rhinochelys species that would help about flipper size.[42] Probably Sanatanachelys flippers would be too small for pelagic one, while Rhinochelys and Desmatochelys are enough pelagic probably. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Volaticotherium
Volaticotherium chart
.jpg)
Ebrachosuchus (left, with comparison of gharial on right)
.jpg)
Johnson (1969)
McCoy et al. (2016)
Mikami et al. (2023)
Dacrytherium chart
Anoplotheriidae chart
Dacrytherium ovinum
Yanliaomyzon spp.
Caeruleum specimens
.jpg)
.jpg)
Pterodon dasyuroides
Pterodon chart
Kerberos langebadreae
Kerberos chart
![[8]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0753396915000580-gr3.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/510be2c1e4b0b9ef3923f158/1594555557909-DFZ4ILT2DG5C3OKISH6A/Dodo-in-Life-July-2020-J-Parish-skeletal-with-Naish-Dodo-portrait-colour-2-1186px-133kb-July-2020-Darren-Naish-Tetrapod-Zoology.JPG?format=2500w){kind=link}
![[20]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618207002765-gr1.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephanorhinus_etruscus_skeleton_23.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skull_of_Stephanorhinus_(Merck%27s_rhinoceros).JPG){kind=link}
![[28]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1371499481117-NOHZB4UE9KJAAJZZY9ZJ/Avaceratops.jpg?format=1000w){kind=link}
![[31]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Cola_de_ejemplar_de_g%C3%A9nero_Glyptodon.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbioone.org%2FContentImages%2FJournals%2Fvrpa%2F41%2F5%2F02724634.2021.2030345%2Fgraphic%2Fimg-z10-1_01.jpg&tbnid=aWjtwDA21aJgPM&vet=12ahUKEwiZieHLjN-CAxVXUGwGHawxCZ8QMygPegQIARBp..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fbioone.org%2Fjournals%2Fjournal-of-vertebrate-paleontology%2Fvolume-41%2Fissue-5%2F02724634.2021.2030345%2FThe-Vertebrate-Fauna-of-the-Upper-Permian-of-NigerXI-Cranial%2F10.1080%2F02724634.2021.2030345.full&docid=MVUUYNiqXqyiMM&w=2140&h=2100&q=moradisaurus&ved=2ahUKEwiZieHLjN-CAxVXUGwGHawxCZ8QMygPegQIARBp){kind=link}
![[34]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER46ITsWsAgM-Hd.jpg:large){kind=link}
![[35]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D90cm1QXsAAW-2t.jpg){kind=link}
-738x591.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://i.imgur.com/FUTO5nH.jpeg){kind=link}