Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:20, 17 March 2024

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Discontinued yearly archives:
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them 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 paleoart 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, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Drastic 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"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), 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).

Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page:

Criterion sufficient for using an image:

If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria sufficient to remove 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: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
- Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
- Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
- Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
- Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
- Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
- Example: Brontoscorpio chasing a Cephalaspis, 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.

Click here to submit a new image for review

^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Images in review

Pterygotidae members

Pterygotus
Pterygotus
Erettopterus
Erettopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Jaekelopterus
Ciurcopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Ciurcopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Jun's pterygotids
Acutiramus cummingsi, I think this still works as historical art
Bonus: Eurypterid diversity image by Qohelet12, it descript shorter pedipalp of Acutiramus

Recent study about pterygotidae Acutiramus shows new 3D reconstruction,[7] more anterior insertion of appendages II–V, a near-horizontal orientation of appendages II–VI coxae, the presence of reduced appendage II (which was evident for Erettopterus and Ciurcopterus), and a labrum and epistomel region. For chelicerae, length of stem and placement got revision, it looks like became longer. Jun will update their reconstructions later, but what about other reconstructions? If it is hard to edit maybe just tag outdated and replace it into Jun's one would be fine? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, replacing them with Jun's restorations if they are hard to edit would work, but as you mentioned that Acutiramus diagram could work as historical art. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qohelet12 did some very good edits before, maybe they can rescue some? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is also a possibility, however I have not heard from them for a while, so it seems that they may be busy at the moment. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now Qohelet sent me fixes of these images, I will try to upload them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the DB and Abelov images with Qohelet12's versions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size charts

Acutiramus
Ciurcopterus
Erettopterus
Jaekelopterus
Pterygotus

Works by @Slate Weasel: and @Ichthyovenator:. These works probably needs update as well, putting legs other than paddle more forward and make pedipalp much shorter, and possibly longer stalk of chelicerae. Especially Acutiramus, Erettopterus and Cirucopterus are ones with known all legs so would be helpful.

Acutiramus shape can be updated to shape based on 2023 study. Since A. cummingsi (species used in original shape) is small species, I think A. macrophthalmus is more reasonable for shape of A. bohemicus.
Ciurcopterus shouldn't have segmentation on stalk of chelicerae. There is fossil preserved anterior body,[8] which show anterior placement of legs.
Erettopterus have same issue on chelicerae stalk. In addition this genus is one with known shorter pedipalps, probably good to see reference used in this reconstruction.[9]
Body shape of Jaekelopterus chart here is just based on art by Dmitry Bogdanov, but for body shape reconstruction in 2007 paper is more reasonable.[10] I think I have seen screenshot of reconstruction of Jaekelopterus in older paper (on tweet of @Junnn11:) and it was similar to reconstruction in 2007 paper.
Pterygotus which got update recently is fine for body shape, just legs need update probably.

It will be so hard to fix all of them, but I hope this will help. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mentions @Ta-tea-two-te-to! Recently I've updated all of my pterygotid works based on Bicknell et al. 2023. Hope it helps.

Another notable issue is the proportion of chelicerae (which was fixed in the new study as well):

The bases should be concentrated anteromedially instead of seperated laterally like decapod chelipeds, since the attachment points (sides of epistome-labrum) are very close to each other and located just immediately behind the anterior margin of prosoma.
Some of them seemly have a mesially-located movable fingers (again, like many decapod chelipeds). However as a chelicera's chelate in general, the movable fingers are more likely have a lateral position instead.

Junnn11 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a lot of these size charts are pretty old, and, to be blunt, pretty bad (the Jaekelopterus stands out as particularly egregious, made before I had any understanding of arthropod anatomy). My current project is to update my ceratopsids, but I'll try to get around to these guys this December too (I already had plans to update Erettopterus soon anyways). I see that the Jaekelopterus article shows various nearly complete specimens; have any of those been described in the literature? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the specimens had been formally described since I don't have access to most of Størmer's papers, which have detailed descriptions on Jaekelopterus rhenaniae (Pterygotus rhenaniae at that time) according to some recent literatures.

The famous full-body reconstruction by Braddy et al. 2008 seems to be largely based on a traditional drawing (Størmer 1944 Fig. 10. 1 as far as I know). Carapace and partial opisthosoma was described by Poschmann & Tetlie 2006, but these are juveniles and some features (especially the eyes and telson) are considered quite different from the adult, thus I think it's not a good reference for maximun size diagram. Recently, some large fragments of J. howelli was described by Lamsdell & Selden 2013. Junnn11 (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-tea-two-te-to & Junnn11: I've updated the Acutiramus chart with new silhouettes; how does this look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! As a minor detail, I think the pretelson can be widen a bit (just like the previous reconstruction). Junnn11 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've broadened the pretelson, does this look better? I've also made corrections to the limbs of the Pterygotus, do those look okay? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates! Another details, I think the proportion of Pterygotus appendage II-V can be reconstructed like those of Acutiramus (II very short; III~V subequally long), although appendage II are still unknown in Pterygotus & Jaekelopterus, these 4 pairs of appendages seems to have no significant differences across pterygotids (except Ciurcopterus, which were a bit more robust). Junnn11 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is appendage II actually unknown in Pterygotus? This specimen: [11] seems to preserve all four walking legs on one side, and is what I used as reference for limb proportions, though as I'm not very familiar with arthropods I may just be misinterpreting how it's preserved. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting... I'm not sure if any subsequent studies had take notes on this conflict, or perhaps just taphonomic effect of disarticulated appendages? Interestingly, the reconstruction from the same publication considered only 3 pairs of long legs, precede future research. Also be aware the purported "short appendage II of Pterygotus" illustrated by Huxley & Salter 1859 is those of Slimonia, which were classified under Pterygotus at that time.

The idea of all pterygotids have reduce appendage II was started from Selden 1986. this was further supported by the discovery of unambiguous appendage II in Ciurcopterus and Acutiramus. The reconstruction of Pterygotus in King et al. 2017 also follow this idea and propose a sensory function. It seems unlikely that Pterygotus could be an exception, based on its overall resemblance to other pterygotids and relatively derived phylogenetic position. Junnn11 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree that II of Pterygotus should be safer to make short like Acutiramus. By the way you mentioned that some length estimations of pterygotids (e.g. Braddy et al. 2008) are excluding telsons on Twitter. I also found that mainly because estimated length difference of A. bohemicus between Chlupac (1994)[12] and Braddy et al. (2008)[13] even through used same reconstruction from Ruedemann, 1912 (A. cummingsi recon above). I am not sure how to treat that because I can't find paper clarified to exclude telson from length, probably just treat it as total length including telson is safer here? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...a modification of all diagram is required if that's true. As for Pterygotus, the ratio (free ramus:body length=1:9) was based on Woodward's description according to the same paper. When measuring the specimen mentioned above (minus the disarticulating gaps between some tergites), It's certainly that the ratio could only reach until pretelson, a 1:>10 ratio is required to include the whole telson. I still haven't check either the same goes for other eurypterids (i.e. the inclusive size estimation of Lamsdell & Braddy 2009) so recently I can't say for sure. Junnn11 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've shrunk appendage II in Pterygotus; I can also rescale the silhouettes if need be. I'm currently working on Erettopterus, hopefully I'll have that done before the end of Sunday. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits! About the body length issue, one of the author clarified that telson was included (via twitter). But under this measurement, the opisthosoma (except pretelson and telson) of Pterygotus, Acutiramus and Jaekelopterus would need to shrunk a bit relative to other body parts (which have approximately consistent ratios across the whole family). Opisthosoma of Erettopterus might not need to change if the ratio follow the reconstruction by Ciurca & Tetlie 2007. If the 4 genera scale down to identical size of free rami, the proportion difference might roughly look like this. Junnn11 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junnn11, Ta-tea-two-te-to, & Super Dromaeosaurus: I have updated the Erettopterus; how does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thank you! Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks again! Junnn11 (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junnn11, Ta-tea-two-te-to: I have updated Jaekelopterus, my apologies for the delay. I do not know when I will be able to fix the other images (I'd also like to update my Ciurcopterus, Pentecopterus, and Slimonia before doing so), but I'm hoping I will at least be able to do these over the summer, if not earlier. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 11:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update! Glad to see the differences of chelicerae between the two species.

Additionally, according to Braddy 2023, J. rhenaniae might had been more likely up to 2.6m (this time strictly based on the ratio of Pterygotus, which was purported to be closer relative of Jaekelopteus in that paper). But I think the 2.5m estimation is still more reliable (an average number of Acutiramus and Pterygotus-based estimation), since the alternated basis is yet to be confirm by any phylogenetic analysis.

It's ok to delay, just take your time and no pressure. Junnn11 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice indeed! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saccorhytus

Reconstruction according with Liu et al. 2022
First reconstruction by Nobu Tamura

I noticed that @Christelle masclef: have tweaked reconstruction by Nobu Tamura without review. Original one is outdated and new one is after revision by Liu et al. 2022,[14] but is this tweak fine? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine, but I don't like how grainy it looks, also the small size of the image means you can't zoom in that much to see more details. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Have you seen images of the fossils themselves? They do not allow further details. Nobu Tamura, and i following him, did what we could. Without a microscopic observation of a living Saccorhytus, we will never know what it really looked like. --Christelle masclef (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Langobardisaurus

This was already reviewed and revised on discord, but I thought I would add it here for the sake of completeness. @Seismicshrimp: are you planning to upload the rest of the images you showed off on Discord (Like Protorosaurus)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarussuchus was already uploaded, fair enough. As Wikipedia's resident choristodere expert I suppose, it looks good enough to me. I mean, one could nitpick the shape of the crenellated spines on the tail see [15], but that's pretty subtle honestly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the size of the eye account for a possible sclerotic ring? Considering they are probably plesiomorphic for archosauromorphs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The orbits of Langobardisaurus are pretty large [16], so they look reasonable to me even when taking into account a sclerotic ring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mambachiton

Hello all. May I ask to review another of my reconstruction? This time i tried to restore Mambachiton for the Mambachiton page. I am mostly basing the body proportion from Teleocrater skeletal reconstruction [17] and Mambachiton silhoutte from here [18]. For the osteoderm, I tried my best to follow the number of osteoderm that is mentioned in the paper of the Mambachiton first description [19] For the rest of the body, I am sorry to say that it is mostly conjectural restoration for the number and size of osteoderms..

As always, can I ask if my restoration is good enough to be uploaded? Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The left forelimb looks mildly pronated to me. Perhaps it would be a good idea to rotate the hand outwards if possible? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah it should be more outward oriented? Okay then.. I will try to fix it when I redraw it. Thank you for the correction.. DD (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Livyatan Melvillei model

I made this sculpture in supervision of Dick Mol and Klaas Post. This sculpture is also used as an illustration in Klaas Post book: De fossiele zoogdieren van Nederland. Jaaproosart (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going off of the revised reconstruction in Lambert et al. (2016), I don't see any major anatomical issues. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dunkleosteus77, who wrote the Livyatan FAC, has observations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azendohsaurus

Hello all. Can I have another review for another Triassic reptile? This time it is a Azendosaurus specifically A. madagaskarensis which is known better than the holotype species. I mainly used skeletal reconstruction from [20] and most of Shringasaurus reconstructions like the one that Nobu Tamura made on Azendohsaurus page. So, as always, is my image good enough to be uploaded? Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the overall form of the skull, the mandible should be deeper than it is right now, and the (diagnostic) ventral deflection at its tip is not present. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will have to fix that then.. But how about the body? Is it passable? DD (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see major issues there, but DrawingDinosaurs may have further comments. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the skull is too low and the eye is shifted too far back. Skull reconstructions and fossil material for this species present a tall, narrow skull with a very blunt snout tip. In its current condition it reminds me of Plateosaurus, which had a much longer snout than Azendohsaurus. The head also looks a bit small, it would be good to double-check the scaling. One last thing: though the body looks fine enough at a glance, it may be worth beefing up the limbs a bit. I'd be careful with using NT's Shringasaurus as a good model, since that reconstruction has a strangely puny upper arm. Probably because the skeletal is in a weird sprawling posture which doesn't fully depict the true size of the humerus. NGPezz (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late reply. Ah I see. There are many things to fix then especially the head..

Ah okay, I will try using different reference then when I redo this species. Thank you very much for the input.. DD (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New DBogdanov mammals (and other things)

DBogdanov just uploaded so many new drawings that I thought it best to make a new section rather than add them to the previous one where they may be overlooked. I don't know anything about any of these, but on the Discord server it was mentioned that the Hyaenodonhas a way too large head and is based on a chimaeric specimen (head could be shrunk if we want to use it). I also think I read somewhere that hyaenodonts are supposed to have been plantigrade, but these restorations are all digitigrade. Is it incorrect? FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyaenodon looks like a mammalian Erythrosuchus lol. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on Discord made that exact point hehe. Apparently based on this:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that specimen is definitely chimaeric, and yes, hyaenodonts had a plantigrade stance. I already talked about this in the discord, but the Gorgonops is probably inaccurate based on the presence of whiskers, because most papers I could find, like Benoit (2019) suggest whiskers first appeared in the Probainognathia. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PrimalMustelid pointed out that at least derived hyaenodonts were digitigrade? And I've added three new uploads. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Oh, I was going off the Hyaenadonta article, but good to know that some were digitigrade at least. Someone else

pointed this out in the discord, but the fin spines and gills of the Orthacanthus should have more flesh covering them. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would that look, Fossiladder13? Any image references if I try to fix it? Added some more images too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, I totally forgot about this, thank you for reminding me. On the topic of the fin spines, they should probably look like these

•https://www.deviantart.com/hodarinundu/art/Diving-with-Orthacanthus-798344700

•https://www.deviantart.com/esthervanhulsen/art/Orthacanthus-and-Xenacanthus-772704178

the spines and gills would have been visible, but would have been covered by flesh. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the spine should just be the same colour as the skin? And the horizontal lines on the gills should just be removed to make it look like they're covered? FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best course of action I think, though It is probable that the tip of the fin spine would have been exposed, with the majority being hidden. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fossiladder13 so I'm not entirely sure how the spines differ from the examples you posted, so it should only be the very tip that's exposed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Sorry to not be as specific about it, the spines currently are fine (the tip being exposed at least) I believe the problem is that the spine itself should not be jutting out that much (the base should be buried more). Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I get it right before I do anything, Fossiladder13, I drew some lines[22] of where there could be more flesh, is that what you meant? FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk pretty much, the neck needed more flesh, that’s looks better. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this[23] look for the spines and gills, Fossiladder13? FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk comparing it to other art work, the body looks much more uniform with the extra flesh added. The gills also look much better. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've updated the image and might add it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more hyaenodonts now added, among others. I've just tagged the Hyaenodon macrocephalus with the big head as inaccurate for now, not worth fixing when there are so many other restorations to choose from anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bunch of new phorusrhacids. Is it just me or do some of their head proportions seem off, especially in Andalgalornis steulleti, Psilopterus lemoinei, and Hermosiornis milneedwardsi? And shouldn't Paraphysornis brasiliensis have a sickle claw as the rest? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hominin diagram dump

I spent the morning making images for hominin fossils that needed them.

Abel
Simon
Misliya-1
KNM-TH 13150
Bontnewydd
KNM-ER 64060

Clumsystiggy (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to label anatomical terms of orientation somewhere for each of the views that you show. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would updating their descriptions do the trick? Clumsystiggy (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least that, I'd say. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the teeth look really simplified. Since teeth are so diagnostic in mammals, wouldn't it be better to present the divisions between different cusps with more clarity? NGPezz (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for such a long wait, the diagrams showing teeth now have cusp/fold/pitting details and their descriptions are updated as well. Clumsystiggy (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cricodon

Hello all. May I ask for another review of my image? This time I have reconstructed Cricodon specifically C. kannemeyeri. I mainly used this sketch as a reference [24] and its close relatives such as Diademodon and Exaeretodon. I made the front limbs kind of sprawl since from what I have seen, the skeletal image of gomphodonts usually show their leg to be oriented outward a little? Thank you in advance as always..

DD (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daeng Dino: Yes, the forelimbs would have been semi-sprawling. Fully erect forelimbs probably first appeared in therian mammals and their closest relatives.

The image looks pretty good as usual, and I don't see any major problems with it. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah glad to hear that it is correct to make them semi-sprawling. And also glad to hear if there are no major problems! Thank you for your input.. DD (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for the genus name typo..hahaha DD (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork review User:YellowPanda2001

Hi, I have a few artworks made by me, for animal pages that belong to the Posidonia Shale. I'd like to see how well they would fit for review, before I could add them to pages.

YellowPanda2001 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Trachymetopon may need more meats on its tail, compare to reconstruction in this paper (you can see image search probably).[25] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the required adjustement on Trachymetopon. I hope its more presentable this way. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel may have comments on the ichthyosaur? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend adding a caudal keel, and the outline of the animal could be smoothed out in regions where it's currently rather bumpy; I don't know enough about Magnipterygius to provide a more detailed review. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an updated version of Magnipterygius with the suggested changes. Hopefully its better now. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colossosuchus

DNB XD (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good base, though some corrections are needed. Try to get your hands on a copy of the original description by Datta & Ray (2023), it has a lot of great figures for reference. If you can access Wikipedia library, here[26] is a link. As for the room for improvement:

The nostrils need to be visible in the rear part of the snout like other phytosaurs (fig. 5A and 23 A).
It's not entirely clear whether the tip of the snout is fully visible or submerged in the mud. If it's not submerged, then the tip should be visibly expanded into a terminal rosette, once again like other phytosaurs (fig. 5A and 23A).
I'm also not sure what the bulbous growth on the snout is meant to be. Colossosuchus does have a little bump in front of the nostrils (most easily visible at fig. 23C), but it's much more subtle and is shifted much further back than what is depicted here.
The eyes are probably a bit too widely spaced, the space between the eye sockets is narrower in the fossil (fig. 5A and 23A, again).
The paramedian osteoderms (i.e. the two rows above the backbone) are too small and narrow, available osteoderm fossils are broader and lumpier, with some overlap from front-to-back (fig. 22A, also note the skeletal at fig. 27).
Colossosuchus apparently had some lateral osteoderms forming a row (one per side) next to the paramedians. The lateral osteoderms would have been smaller and more elliptical (fig. 22D), and were very sharply angled (fig. 22G).
Finally, and this is just my opinion on the aesthetics rather than a scientific issue, but the art would benefit from some more color contrast between the phytosaur and the surrounding mud and pond scum. Clarifying the visual impact would help the average reader understand its anatomy at a quick glance. NGPezz (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DNB XD:, I just wanted to notify you to ask whether you wanted to make the edits I recommended for this art piece. NGPezz (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I didn't see it! I will! DNB XD (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kodymirus

Hello. Here is a reconstruction of Kodymirus vagans. I believe it is more morphologically accurate than the current reconstruction on the page, but I think it would be good to have both. PaleoEquii (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! The morphology of the raptorial appendages is a better match for the morphology illustrated by Lamsdell et al. 2013 than the image currently on the page, for the most part, although you do appear to have the terminal article of the appendage somewhat longer than Lamsdell et al. show it. I am also a bit concerned that the image is a bit difficult to interpret at thumbnail size, due to the murky palette and water effects, but that's a fairly minor concern, especially if it's not going to be the only illustration on the page. I would encourage you to double-check the appendage proportions, but other than that, if nobody else has any comments, I think it's good to go. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've made the requested change to the frontal appendages. PaleoEquii (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think @Junnn11 since you are recently working on artiopod pages? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the left antenna seems to be a bit too far away. Based on MR65789, the attachment points located just between the hypostome and lateral eyes, thus I'll suspect it was a bit more closer to the right antenna, or just below the anterior margin of the left eye in this image.

But this could be just an angle issue, suspecting the invisible proximal section was curved mesially to the hypostome beneth the carapace. Anyway just minor detail, I think It is very good for an ecological reconstruction, especially showing how it make contact with the substrate as suggested by Lamsdell et al. 2013. Junnn11 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is about the caption (sorry if It's a bit off topic).

As far as I know despite of its phylogenetic position, this genus is at best considered to be a close relative (aglaspidid-like arthropod) instead of a member of aglaspidid, not to mention lots of its features (e.g. kidney-shaped eyes; specialized post-oral appendages; 13 trunk segments) didn't match the current diagnosis of Aglaspidida (Lerosey-Aubril et al. 2017). Junnn11 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the antenna is where it needs to be - in the 3D model its origin is level with the eyes, just slightly more messial / closer to the axis of the body.

As for the phylogenetic placement, I agree, I shouldn't have been so brief. I support changing it to reflect the more ambiguous, stem-ward placement. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeophis size chart?

This is chart that is used in Titanoboa and Gigantophis article, but it looks like Palaeophis is recently added. I would say that body shape would be too speculative? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the source listed? Maybe the reasoning for the body shape can be found there. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like just referring this paper.[27] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so it looks like P. colossaeus is actually the most primitive species of Palaeophis. That probably means the body shape is too speculative and most likely also unsupported. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mullerornis & Pachystruthio

Hello. I wanted to upload these two restorations of Pachystruthio dmanisensis and Mullerornis modestus for review before uploading and adding them to their respective pages. I find that these two taxa are very lacking in up-to-date, accurate artistic representation. Pagodroma721 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mullerornis looks off-balance? Like it would tip backwards. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though it might be due to the feathering at the back of the body? Pachystruthio looks very nice, though I must admit I'm not too familiar with it. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an extremely short body if all that behind was only feathers. I think either the leg needs to be tilted further back, or an additional leg needs to be added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be useful to have a human silhouette for scale in the Pachystruthio image, as its large size is what primarily disinguishes it from Struthio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued in the past that it is preferrable to keep life restorations and size charts separate (not necessarily to say that shouldn't be the case here). Unfortunately, in its current state, the article is not really large enough to hold two images. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think combining restorations with size estimates is generally a good idea, because size estimates are very fluid, and once the scale human becomes inaccurate after some new study, the restoration is removed along with it, as has often been the case. Keeping them separate solves this recurring problem. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanthanosuchoidea

Hello everyone. Can I get some review for another of my reconstruction. This time I tried to restore some of Lanthanosuchoidea species especially the acleistorhinids. The species are (top left to bottom clockwise): Delorhynchus, Colobomycter, Carbonodraco, Feeserpeton, Lanthanosuchus, and Acleistorhinus. Most of the reference are available on their respective page. But some of them are on paper that I will mention if some of you want to see the reference.

For the Lanthanosuchus, at first I feel it kinda strange and wonder why it looks like some crocodile or temnospondyls. But from the lateral view of several image (like this one although it is not from paper [28]) and after keep measuring the length from the tip of the snout to the eyes of several reconstructions like those of Dmitry Bogdanov, I reached this reconstruction.. But as always, I will gladly welcome any correction.. I want to upload this image to Lanthanosuchoidea page. And if not all of them are acceptable, I can just upload some of them.. Thank you in advance as always..

DD (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say, but I presumed that there are no major error for the reconstruction? I am going to upload it to the Lanthanosuchoidea page. But as always, just take it down if there are glaring inaccuracies that I am not aware to. Thank you.. DD (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look good from a quick glance, though I do have a few minor questions or concerns:

I would double-check Feeserpeton to make sure that breakage or other taphonomic factors are not giving undue influence to the shape of the snout.
This is a very minor concern, but I'm not sure if it's ideal to figure Lanthanosuchus in lateral view, simply because the skull is so distinctly flattened. Lateral view is more conjectural and less anatomically useful than something like dorsal view for that genus. We don't know exactly how much compression occurred during fossilization, while most of the others have great 3D preservation thanks to the conditions of Richards Spur.
If Colobomycter has exposed fangs (and I don't disagree with that choice), then Carbonodraco should as well. You should also clarify in the description which species of Colobomycter you're illustrating.
A lot of acleistorhinids (especially Lanthanosuchus) have distinctly pitted skull bones, which may imply a very thin skin texture more akin to temnospondyls or gars than to lizards. But that's just something to keep in mind, there isn't a pressing need to alter the art accordingly.
I would recommend covering up the external ear holes with skin. Unlike neodiapsids, most parareptiles had thick squamosal and quadratojugal bones which covered up the quadrate, the bone which supports the eardrum in most modern reptiles. There were some parareptiles with embayed skulls which may have had ear structures on par with modern reptiles (nycteroleterids as the biggest example), but for most I would doubt that they had exposed ears. NGPezz (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the response and input. Regarding thoses:

- Ah I see. To be frank, I am also kind of uncertain whether the conture of the skull upper part is like that or it is taphonomical. But since I can't find reconstruction beside the CT scan of the skull and the image from the Wiki, I am sorry that I made it that way

- Ah I see. I thought that I want to show the side view of the animal since most of reconstructions show them from their dorsal side..

- For the Carbonodraco, I think that its fang are not as elongated as Colobomycter and want to give a variation like in the case of Tasmanian devil and quoll. Although their skull and canine length are quite similar, only the tasmanian devil that have canines that are visible from the outside (as far as I know)... Oh and I am sorry. The species is C. pholeter. I will add it to the description..

- Ah I see. I will keep in that in mind

- Wow, I am not aware of that! Thank you very much for the new and interesting information...

I will try to fix the things I can like erasing the ear holes and think again about the exposed fang.. DD (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about Feeserpeton, taphonomy is just something to always be aware of. In the original 2012 description,[29] I can see that the little droop at the tip of the snout is mostly limestone with only a few "uninformative fragments" of the premaxilla. So it does seem to be taphonomic rather than anatomical. Are you able to access the description? If not, check around to see if you have access through wikipedia library or your university system, or if all else fails pursue other means.
I don't have too much of a problem with illustrating Lanthanosuchus in side view, I just wanted to bring up how dorsal view is typically the most rigorous and informative perspective you can take for animals with flattened skulls. If you're intentionally trying to avoid that cliche, I fully respect that choice.
Proportionally, Carbonodraco and Colobomycter look about the same in terms of fang length, at least to me. Their fangs also seem to poke down beyond the edge of the lower jaw, which to me seems to be a classic case of the fangs not being covered. The skull texture (thin skin?) I mentioned earlier is another contributor to my perspective, mammals and lizards and other tetrapods with thick-skinned or muscular skulls are not the most ideal model.
The tasmanian devil/quoll analogy is an artistic choice which is perfectly acceptable by itself, but it's not fully compatible with Wikipedia's mission and role in science education. A very important thing to consider for Wikipedia paleoart is that it is often the most visible and most accessibly licensed art for obscure species, and much of the populace cannot easily distinguish artistic license from scientific interpretation even if context is provided. Introducing speculative flourishes inspired by the eccentricities of specific modern species (like strong variation in lip depth among close relatives) is far from a bad thing in the wider sphere of paleoart, I'm fully supportive of the All Yesterdays approach. However, in an encyclopedic resource like Wikipedia, this high degree of specificity may give people the wrong impression that your artistic choices are informed by definitive evidence. It's the same reason why we had to reject visually appealing art pieces like this one:[30]. The composition could not function without bioluminescent Amiskwia, an artistic choice which was partially inspired by the fact that a few modern arrow worm species have bioluminescent organs. The problem is that the lines of inference were stretched extremely thin: Amiskwia was not necessarily close to arrow worms, most arrow worms are not bioluminescent, and those that do use bioluminescence have it concentrated into only a few tiny spots rather than the whole body glowing green. In any other context, this is fine, since it's not demonstrably "inaccurate" and it makes for a nice piece of art. But in Wikipedia it strayed way too close to WP:Original Research; we don't want people to assume that Amiskwia was bioluminescent because of one artist's idea for a fun composition. NGPezz (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for my late reply

- Ah I see. I will try to take a closer look at the original description from that link..

- Thank you very much for your understanding of avoiding the cliche.. But yes I guess you are right. I am not taking account of the fact that the skull could he flattened becauae of geological process..

- On closer look, I have to admit that yes their fang proportion is kinda similar.. I guess the next time I redraw them, I have to stick to either lipless or lipped look for the consitency

- Ah I see. I guess you are right about not taking all yesterday approach to heavily when it comes to wikipedia reconstruction eventhough it is still plausible..

Well, I guess my reconstruction of them need to be fixed then in many aspects.. Please put the inaccurate label in my image so it can be taken down. I am okay with that since it got many major issues.. Once again, thank you very much for the input and a lot of new information about them! DD (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saccorhytus revisited

Saccorhytus as it may have been seen under a microscope.
Plain reconstruction of Saccorhytus.

Hello. I made a reconstruction of Saccorhytus as an Ecdysozoan, as it very likely was. I made two images with the model, one as it may have looked under a microscope, and one plain with a transparent background. Considering all but one reconstruction available shows it inaccurately as a deuterostome, and the only ecdysozoan reconstruction is barely 54 KBs, I think we could use both of these reconstructions on the page, along with one of the existing deuterostome reconstructions for comparison. Also, while I'm here, I think the page itself could use a cleanup regarding its ecdysozoan nature. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it is fine to me, better than other reconstructions in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaltadeta

Material referenced from "The Skull of Ekaltadeta ima (Marsupialia, Hypsiprymnodontidae?): An Analysis of Some Marsupial Cranial Features and a Re-Investigation of Propleopine Phylogeny, with Notes on the Inference of Carnivory in Mammals"

Reconstruction mostly based on living macropods including its closest living relative hypsiprymnodon moschatus which has similar incisor sizes proportionally. SeismicShrimp (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take into account the lower jaw material [31]? It seems to be deeper than you have it here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did in the original sketch but it seems like something happened when i was doing lineart so it got messed up. Should be able to update it with the correct depth in a few minutes SeismicShrimp (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's fixed SeismicShrimp (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thalattoarchon pictures

Hello, if you have followed my activities with my contributions, you know that my article on the apex predatory ichthyosaur Thalattoarchon is currently awaiting review for the GA. However, during my writing of this article, I transferred two images from the article by Frobisch et al., 2013. As this article is free to access and I found no laws prohibiting the I used these images, I then integrated them into the article. However, during my peer review with Slate Weasel, the latter advises me to delete them due to the fact that it was potentially not free of rights. As I am lost with these regulations, what is your opinion on these two images, should I delete them or keep them? Amirani1746 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not the purpose of this page; these kind of issues are better discussed at talk pages. But I agree with Slate Weasel's comments. Since there is no indication of a free license on the relevant publication (explained more in-depth on the journal's "license terms" page), the images should probably be deleted. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, open access is not the same as a free licence, unfortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lichas marocanus

Hi, this is my first submission, I made this restoration of Lichas marocanus trilobite in Blender based on my own finds, other fossils available publically and articles about related species, I'm not an expert in this field and sometimes I may unknowingly add some speculative elements so I doubt that this restoration could be viewed as accurate, at least i'll know what to improve in the future. Wawrow (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert of trilobite either, but I have some questions about the legs.

One is the distinct width between the distal endopod segments with fused terminal claw. Is there any published evidence for this feature? As much as I known, the width (excluding the ventral spines) of trilobite endopod gradually decrease towards the distal end, and the trifurcated distal claw itself is a tiny, distinct segment.

Another one is the exopod. It might be an angle issue, but it reminds me of the outdated spiral-shaped reconstruction, or perhaps it was tend to be multisegmented like those of Triarthrus? I don't know if any Lichida appendages had been discovered after early 2000s (not yet at that time), but In the Bohemolichas paper, the exopod (although very faint) was reconstructed as bilobed flap, typical for trilobites. Junnn11 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply

Perhaps I used outdated references or misunderstood something. I definitely spent too little time researching legs and exopods and making them. I will try to make them again Wawrow (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few restorations

Protorosaurus, Araeoscelis, and Mesoleptos

SeismicShrimp (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why the limbs of Mesoleptos seem a lot more robust than restored here [32] ? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Araeoscelis (also realized the neck was slightly too long so I fixed that as well). For Mesopetos, however, in the specimen that does have a figure, there is only a humerus but even with that, I felt that the authors may have not added enough soft tissue. Though not a perfect analog, I based the amount of muscle off of x-ray images of varanids. It's sort of a tough situation since the holotype and the other more complete specimen were both lost so it's a bit tricky to know how close the illustration actually is to the material. If needed, I can edit the limbs but I believe that given what i could find in the literature, they are within reason. SeismicShrimp (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else to fix with my Araeoscelis restoration or am I good to update all three of these? SeismicShrimp (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the head of Araeoscelis seems a little too small compared to how Reisz et al. [33] restored it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Protorosaurus looks fine as it was previously reviewed by NGPezz on discord. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various reconstructions

hi!! i finished these guys a bit ago and was wondering if they looked alright to use on their respective articles; im most concerned about the Sulestes as i feel it may be too speculative for use here based on what we know of it/its relatives but i am really not sure. any feedback appreciated :)

Sulestes
Kraglievichia
Milosaurus
Hainina
Bashuchelys
Leninia

Raingerr (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the osteoderms on Kraglievichia could be a bit more extensive on the forehead (see Holmesina for that matter). Also, I don't know if neck osteoderms are a thing in pampatheres... Larrayal (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added more osteoderms to the head so hopefully it should be good now. The neck wasn't intended to look like actual osteoderms and more like "scaly" skin are so I adjusted that a bit to not be misleading. Raingerr (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caudal keel of Leninia could be emphasised. Is there a reason why it's reconstructed as being so longirostrine compared to other ophthalmosaurines when it's only known from the back of the skull? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rostrum length was inintentional; i've updated it to be more in-line with Opthalmosaurus as well as made the keel a bit more prominent, so hopefully it looks better Raingerr (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More ABelov2014 images

So I and others have uploaded a few more ABelov2014 images that could need review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbospondylus and Phalarodon
Glyptodon, Doedicurus, and Panochthus
Pachycephalosaurus, Stygimoloch, Sphaerotholus
Illustration that seems to depict Adrienne Mayor's ideas of fossils inspiring legendary creatures

Shouldn't Cymbospondylus have a dorsal fin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, here are some images that could be of use but that I haven't uploaded yet because I need some confirmation of accuracy or lack thereof:

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Synthetoceras-Platybelodon-660159972 Synthetoceras, Platybelodon - but were they contemporaries? ABelov2014 has a tendency to mix faunas

According to this paper Synthetoceras is a little too old. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not really usable either, then. Unless the proboscidean can be identified as some other genus, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they could be photoshopped into Blancotherium if one really wished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Uintatherium-Hyracotherium-748511482 Uintatherium, Coryphodon, Eohippus - likewise, contemporaries?

According to this paper you can get away with Coryphodon and relabelling Eohippus as Protorohippus venticolum, but Uintatherium is a little too young. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since Uintatherium is the focal point, probably no use in the image. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Australia-hunting-stories-1021740361 Australovenator, Fulgurotherium, Diamantinasaurus - horns could be removed from the Australovenator

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/orienburg-Uralosaurus-magnus-var-2-1021274370 - seems to be Donguz Formation fauna, older version with genera identified here:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Necks-long-1031928738 - How are these tanystropheids? FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any preserved tanysaur soft tissue that supports the existence of a tail "paddle" as depicted here. Dinocephalosaurus definitely had paddle-esque limbs (they might be too smooth and plesiosaur-like here), but these are almost certainly too long (compare here). -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, doesn't that make the Dinocephalosaurus restorations and size diagram we use in the article inaccurate, then? Also pinging Lythronaxargestes, who wrote the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The size chart is definitely inaccurate; it is, to be blunt, one of the lowest-quality ones I've made. I can try to update it sometime soon (I was planning to do so last week but got sidetracked), but it may have to wait until next weekend. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...okay, that update went a lot quicker than I anticipated. Hopefully it's okay that I switched things over to the diver-style chart to match the other marine reptile size comparisons. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parexus sp. Restoration

Based on reconstruction from "Redescription of Parexus recurvus, an Early Devonian acanthodian from the Midland Valley of Scotland" SeismicShrimp (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older restorations of Ekaltadeta by Nobu Tamura

Ekaltadeta ima (older version)
Ekaltadeta ima (new version)

Now that a new illustration has passed, maybe it is time to consider reviewing the two previous illustrations. If the shape of the skull seems on par with our modern understanding of their anatomy, the body shape seems extremely speculative, more evocative of modern macropods than to its direct modern relative, the musky rat-kangaroo. The forelimbs in particular are remarkably long, something that does not seem to be substantiated in the litterature. Larrayal (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth editing them now we have a better one, so could just be tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthostega Restoration

Restoration of Acanthostega gunnari

Wanted to do an updated restoration of Acanthostega, the cranial reconstruction is based on "Descriptive Anatomy and Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of the Skull of the Early Tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik, 1952" and the postcrania is based on "The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution", was wondering if i needed to fix anything before uploading SeismicShrimp (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toxoprion restoration

So I noticed that this restoration of the eugeneodont Toxoprion by Gasmasque was never formally reviewed. Are there any issues with it?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think tail fin of Eugeneodonts are mostly symmetrical, so not sure that shape like modern shark would be possible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ta-tea-two-te-to that is true, but aside from that, I don't really see that many issues with it. It correctly lacks anal and secondary dorsal fins, it has a caudal keel, and I believe the number of gills is correct. I'll ping @Gasmasque about it. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply, I've not been as active on the site as of recent. The chimaera-like eye on this reconstruction is not plausible for what would most likely be a shallow water fish, the whorl anatomy is not consistent with that of an adult of this species, with a small number of comparatively very large teeth, and the aforementioned caudal fin anatomy is not consistent with Caseodonts (although given the caudal anatomy of Helicoprionids is entirely unknown I think this is actually the least pressing issue here). This was among my first contributions to the site, and in retrospect I don't think it is appropriate to use a life restoration at all for a taxon known only from whorls.

Also, regarding all future reviews of Eugeneodonts, it is entirely plausible they did retain pelvic fins, especially Edestids and Helicoprionids, and that those of Caseodonts were simply reduced and quick to decay or become damaged, and I don't think reconstructions of them should be struck as inaccurate because of including those. It is also totally plausible, given the recent description of Cosmoselache, that extinct Holocephs (or stem-chondrichthyans that were originally considered Holocephs, I should say) potentially including Eugeneodonts really did have a chimaera-like operculum after all, considering Symmoriiformes appear to have had one. It may be too early to say for sure, but it is entirely likely this reconstruction has incorrect gill and pelvic anatomy as well as the problems more definitively addressed. Gasmasque (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thank you for replying 👍 Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timorebestia

Noticed this image by @Cambrian dude52: was added without review. I think it looks fine, maybe image is bit too dark to see, what do you think @Junnn11: since you have worked on Japanese article of this taxon? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image is a little dark, but to be fair, that is how deep the Sirius Passet site is. Although one thing to note is that the restoration in the paper shows the animal with "eyes" (though that may be artistic license). Also love the red coloration of the creature. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is too dark. Regardless of the realism of such an environment, it is almost useless on the page if you can hardly make out the animals' forms in a small thumbnail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the image is a 3D reconstruction, perhaps we can just use the model for Timorebestia. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The morphology looks good, but as noted, the darkness is a major issue to make it useful.

So far there's no evidence of eyes in Timorebestia (stated as unknown in the character coding of the original description), so perhaps its still ok to make it blind, but I think it's also worth to note that modern chaetognath have a pair of simple eyes. Junnn11 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and sorry about adding the image without review, I didn't know about this page until now. I will be remaking this without an environmental reconstruction for better clarity. Cambrian dude52 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this render for Timorebestia look? I'm still uncertain about it having eyes and I don't recall the paper mentioning anything about it's eyes. So I am deciding to leave them absent until further notice.

Cambrian dude52 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now! Thank you for the update! The eye was stated uncertain in the supplementary materials, as well as other fossil chaetognaths ("character 51. Head with cerebral eyes" from page 7 of the pdf file). Junnn11 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hauffiosaurus

Made this artwork to be included in the Hauffiosaurus page. Are there any observations, before it can be uploaded? YellowPanda2001 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has crushing of the skull been accounted for? Also, the outline's a bit rough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the outline also needs to be smoothed, plesiosaurs would have been streamlined animals. Also, while I understand that it's supposed to be simplified, the tooth arrangement, shape, and count does not line up with what we know about Hauffiosaurus zanoni at all, for example, the tooth row does not extend far back enough, there are only six teeth illustrated per side of the lower jaw here when there should be more than 30, and the teeth look somewhat too straight when they should be slender and recurved. I think the neck might also be a bit too long. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

[a]

@@ Line 509: / Line 509: @@
 :I'm unaware of any preserved tanysaur soft tissue that supports the existence of a tail "paddle" as depicted here. ''[[Dinocephalosaurus]]'' definitely had paddle-esque limbs (they might be too smooth and plesiosaur-like here), but these are almost certainly too long (compare [[:c:File:Dinocephalosaurus (Skeletal reconstruction).png|here]]). -[[User:SlvrHwk|SlvrHwk]] ([[User talk:SlvrHwk|talk]]) 09:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 ::Oh, doesn't that make the ''Dinocephalosaurus'' restorations and size diagram we use in the article inaccurate, then? Also pinging {{u|Lythronaxargestes}}, who wrote the article. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 14:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+[[File:Dinocephalosaurus Scale 2.svg|thumb]]
 :::The size chart is definitely inaccurate; it is, to be blunt, one of the lowest-quality ones I've made. I can try to update it sometime soon (I was planning to do so last week but got sidetracked), but it may have to wait until next weekend. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:Slate Weasel|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|Contribs]]&#93;</small> 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+::::...okay, that update went a lot quicker than I anticipated. Hopefully it's okay that I switched things over to the diver-style chart to match the other marine reptile size comparisons. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:Slate Weasel|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|Contribs]]&#93;</small> 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 == Parexus sp. Restoration ==