[[File:Nemegtonykus.png|thumb|Nemegtonykus]], what do you think?--[[User:Bubblesorg|Bubblesorg]] ([[User talk:Bubblesorg|talk]]) 23:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
[[File:Nemegtonykus.png|thumb|If people don’t know Nemegtonykus, they will say”What the heck is a Nemegtonykus?”]], what do you think?--[[User:Bubblesorg|Bubblesorg]] ([[User talk:Bubblesorg|talk]]) 23:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
:First of all, Mesozoic dinosaurs go on [[WP:DINOART]], not here. Second, what's this based on? Scaling to roughly equal (sometimes estimated) humeral length, it doesn't proportionately match [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-52021-y the skeletal in the paper], ''[https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/mononykus Mononykus]'', ''[[Shuvuuia]]'', or ''[[Linhenykus]]''. Third, it needs more detail and is missing shading, which, when present, makes reconstructions look much more realistic. Also, why's the sky bright cyan? Fourth, why this view in particular? The only known material in this region is the scapulocoracoid, while the animal preserves a nearly complete posterior trunk, tail, and leg. I'm sorry, but I think that this image is going to need a lot more work to get it up to standards. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ([[User talk:Slate Weasel|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|contribs]]) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
:First of all, Mesozoic dinosaurs go on [[WP:DINOART]], not here. Second, what's this based on? Scaling to roughly equal (sometimes estimated) humeral length, it doesn't proportionately match [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-52021-y the skeletal in the paper], ''[https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/mononykus Mononykus]'', ''[[Shuvuuia]]'', or ''[[Linhenykus]]''. Third, it needs more detail and is missing shading, which, when present, makes reconstructions look much more realistic. Also, why's the sky bright cyan? Fourth, why this view in particular? The only known material in this region is the scapulocoracoid, while the animal preserves a nearly complete posterior trunk, tail, and leg. I'm sorry, but I think that this image is going to need a lot more work to get it up to standards. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ([[User talk:Slate Weasel|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|contribs]]) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thank you for your input--[[User:Bubblesorg|Bubblesorg]] ([[User talk:Bubblesorg|talk]]) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thank you for your input--[[User:Bubblesorg|Bubblesorg]] ([[User talk:Bubblesorg|talk]]) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
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 here. Once an image has been approved and added to an article, its section can be archived.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[5], so they can be 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 Featured Article reviews).
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:
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
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.
Made another prehistoric shark, this time Squalicorax falcatus. It is based on the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), with features like the fins' shapes being derived from modern lamnids (due to their comparatively close affiliations compared to other extant sharks with anacoracids) and requiem sharks (as many species likely filled ecological niches and behaviors akin to S. falcatus). And yes, the upper caudal fin is suppose to curve in the angle it is shown in. The coloration also echoes the latter group, with species like the silvertip shark and oceanic whitetip shark serving as prime inspirations. As with my ginsu shark reconstruction, I aim at replacing the older Squalicorax art currently present on the wiki page, as it is rather inaccurate and aesthetically unpleasing, at least in my opinion. I hope this shark will get get better representation in paleoart than it has in the past, so I appreciate the potential for this to make it into the article. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damouraptor First I would like to ask if you actually have access to Shimada and Circumurri (2005), as last time I checked I think it was paywalled and in order to get that skeletal reconstruction someone ought to have posted it elsewhere. (If you don't have access to the paper, just let me know and I'll see what I can do (I'm not a scientist, I'm simply an ordinary person who managed to get access to a lot of papers)) But you are certainly correct on the assumption that Squalicorax is essentially a lamnoid that was carcharhinoid-like, and I really like how you tried to reflect this. However, I would like to note that Squalicorax is still a pelagic shark and that it must have features that any pelagic shark has including fins and bodies designed for long distance and at times fast swimming.
So one major thing that could use some tweaking is the angle of the caudal fin; it's too bent down and designed for shallow life. If you can raise the angle of the upper lobe of the caudal fin (keep the lower lobe as it is), it'll make the art a lot more pelagic-like. I recommend taking inspiration of this change from lamnids and confirmed pelagic requiem sharks like the blue shark. Another thing is that appears that the head kind of deviates from the original Shimada and Circimurri (2005) reconstruction (such as a less flat dorsal). I would caution this as the head reconstruction is the most accurate based on actual well-preserved head fossils and recommend something like vertically shrinking the head region a bit. Here's an image with some of the possible tweaks in place: https://i.imgur.com/UQ27fEx.png
Still, don't let this artwork down! It's so much better than that unpleasantly creepy current one and just simply needs a few easy tweaks that can be done without going back to the drawing board. I absolutely love the texture inspired from whitetip sharks and your willingness to make art to represent extinct sharks. With some easy changes, this one probably could make it into the article. Macrophyseter | talk20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canid size chart request
Hi, I was told by FunkMonk that requests regarding extant fauna are also accepted here.
Would it be possible to make a size chart (with human silhouette) of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? Wolf, Jackal and Fox.
Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.
Anyway, the shoulder heights are: Grey wolf = 80 cm Golden jackal = 45 cm Red fox = 35 cm.
Yeah, since it is unlikely there will ever be a similar request page for extant animals, and since we have already had size comparisons that incorporated extant animals here before[6], I thought it would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple things stick out to me on the Gordodon. First is the ear hole, which shouldn't be there as pelycosaur-grade synapsids wouldn't have any visible external ears. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of the "cross-bar" tubercles on its neural spines, which should at least be visible on the sail above the 'hump' at the bottom (the presence of those tubercles all the way down the neural spines might also go against the interpretation of a 'hump' at the bottom, but that point seems more debatable). I'm a bit unsure about the skin texture with rows of large rounded 'scales', but it doesn't seem so egregiously wrong as to be detrimental to the picture in my opinion. DrawingDinosaurs (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my marine reptile size comparisons. I've been playing with the idea of making a rogue's gallery or marine reptiles size comparison, and am considering finally doing it.
Taxa in need of review
It’d be kinda redundant to have both dorsal and lateral size diagrams (but that’s just my opinion), and for the Tylosaurus size diagram, you’ll have to ask Orthogonal Orthocone who took it down in October without giving a reason. It looks like it might’ve been an accident when s/he was shuffling text around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just one file, sort of like my Hibbertopterus (I'm still not done with it?!) By the way, how accurate is this Placodus skeletal: [7]? I love marine reptiles but lack much knowledge on them thanks to paywalls (seriously, it would be cheaper to buy 4 copies of the GSP field guide than to get access for 30 days on some papers!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unorthodox tail fluke, though? I'd expect something more like this (and what you have in the diagram):[9] Also, the fluke shouldn't really make the tail longer, as its tip would follow the length of the bony tail. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by a DeviantArt user to do a chart comparing Titanoboa to a green anaconda and a reticulated python; I'm assuming he was referring to the existing chart so it would make sense to modify it. I've applied some of the comments from the original image review [10] like adding a grid and some colour, added a little more detail etc. The work in progress can be seen here: [11]
One difference is the DA user wanted to use 6.95m for the python, which the Wiki article is stating is 'one of the largest scientifically measured'. (I'm not massively clued up on snakes but I read the source (Fredricksson 2005) and done a quick search and there are mentions a 10m python reported from 'Raven 1947'. The wiki article doesn't mention this so I'm guessing it doesn't count as 'scientifically measured'.) At the moment, the chart is using a captive snake "Medusa" at 7.67m. Would you guys prefer to use the 6.95m measurement or a wild python? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool, perhaps Gigantophis could also be added, and maybe other giant extinct taxa (if there are any)? I've always thought that it would be cool to have a diagram for snakes similar to Smokeybjb's crocodilian size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly look into doing Gigantophis. Regarding Titanoboa; there is a SVP conference abstract [13] that provides a newer length estimate of 14.3m and a skull estimate. Are conference abstracts sufficient enough citation material? or is it still an 'unpublished idea'? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be called Broghammerus reticulatus[14], and Python reticulatus wouldn't be correct either. The reticulated python doesn't belong in genus Python, and the proper name for this species is Malayopython reticulatus[15]Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That last link didn't work but thanks for the info, your comment led me to this interesting read [16] (which is linked to in the Wikiedpia article) I guess every scientific feild has it's 'outsiders'.
Here is a link to a potential newer version (not 'polished' and I havn't corrected the name yet) [17] In this version I have other estimates ( Titanoboa 14.3m (+/-1.28m) and Gigantophis 9.3-10.7) faded behind the main silhouettes. The larger version of Gigantophis is 10m in this diagram, splitting the difference between 9.3 and 10.7; trying showing both ends of the error margins clutters the diagram. Based on the research I've read, Madtsoiidae isn't well known morphologically so I based the torso depth on the height of the Gigantophis vertebrae and comparison to images of other large snake skeletons, which seem to be 4ish, maybe 5? times the height of a vertebra? (Anyone know of any concrete numbers?) The skull shape was based on a Wonambi naracoortensis skull diagram. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This recontruction by Nobu Tamura is currently the only image of Umoonasaurus that we have. It is rather old and needs some corrections:
The nostrils are inexplicably huge
The paddles have a very oar-like appearance and don't account for the powerful musculature supported by the limb girdles. They also are missing the trailing edge
It is missing a caudal fin
Points two and three follow Witton's The Paleoartist's Handbook. Does anybody want to make the above changes?
I plan to draw the skull of this animal in dorsal and lateral views whenever I get time which may be weeks, or months if things go really badly :(. For this drawing, should I use a color key or in-image abbreviations?
I've started to have a go at it, and will upload when finished. I use the clone/stamp tool for simple outline readjustment and painting out or drawing in lines and shrinking ears and nostrils, airbrushes to add in nostrils and ears, perspective to roughly distort something, smudge to smooth out unwanted texture or patterning and creating strangely-shaped new regions (i.e. caudal fins), rotate to change positions, scale to fix too big/small areas, multiple layers if I'm extending an appendage (i.e. neck elongation). I see that Umoonasaurus would have had quite a puny caudal fin based on a chart by Lythronax: [19]. Any recommendations for additional tools to use or other stuff to change? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be doing this already, but what I've found useful for being precise with additional elements of images I was adjusting (such as the caudal fin and larger paddles) is to draw the outline of these with some base colour, and then fill out the outline, rather than to try drawing these additional areas with the clone stump or any other imprecise tool Then they can easily be filled out afterwards with whatever tool you want. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Burgess Shale
A variety of animals from the Burgess Shale. Here’s the description I wrote for it.
Deep in the early Cambrian ocean, below the shadow of the Cathedral Escarpment (A giant rock shelf formation), life goes on as normal. Bioluminescent Amiskwia swim in groups, trying to escape the carnivorous Opabinia. It can walk on the sea floor with legs, or swim through the water with undulating fins.
Among the algae, strange sponge relatives called Choia exist, holding themselves just above the rock surface. Hallucigenia sparsa feed on the marine snow that falls, catching it on hairy tentacles and shoving it in their mouths. Aysheaia feed on sponges called Vauxia, which grow on the rocky substrate.
Preying on hard shelled animals like trilobites, using its armoured antennae to break open armour, Anomalocaris dwarfs everything. It is followed closely by a shoal of Pikaia, which survive by feeding the scraps left behind when Anomalcaris finishes messily ingesting it’s prey with a horrifying circular mouth part. It can see Opabinia with the best eyes that would ever evolve for millions of years, only rivalled by dragonflies and possibly griffinflies.
The Opabinia, though it has 5 compound eyes, still has a more limited resolution, and doesn’t notice the Anomalocaris swimming towards it through the gloom of the depths.
First of all I want to clarify that this is a beautiful piece of art, and that all my comments focus solely on its worth as a portrayal of modern paleontological notions. For example, I don't believe that there is enough empirical evidence to justify the bioluminescent Amiskwia, despite the fact that it is a very creative and visually appealing concept. You have made good arguments for bizarre interpretations in the past (your bright green Hallucigenia, for example), and I would like to see if you have further elaborations on the matter. Just make sure not to infringe upon Wikipedia's "No original research" clause (WP:NOR) too much. Also, I was wondering whether you were aware of the several studies questioning Anomalocaris's role as a predator of hard-shelled animals. It probably wouldn't affect the illustration, but it would certainly affect the "plot" you seem to be crafting in the description. Speaking of the description, it was the only thing which led me to notice some of the background critters, such as the Hallucigenia, Pikaia, Aysheia, and Vauxia. Their relative invisibility is justifiable considering the murky composition, but still a bit counterproductive if the piece is viewed as an educational piece of art. In conclusion, this piece is very well-made and creative as a piece of original artwork, but I'm not sure if it functions well-enough as an educational tool to enhance or elaborate on the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Considering how the bioluminescent Amiskwia seem to be the sole light source in the piece, the illustration would not really function if they were removed. I'll see what other reviewers think of it, but am personally unsure whether it passes Wikipedia's standards or whether the bioluminescent Amiskwia are too speculative (or justified by too much original research) to allow to be used on a site which advertises itself as an encyclopedia. It's a wonderful illustration though, and it's 100% worth posting elsewhere. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. While the bioluminescent Amiswkia is speculative, I believe there is no evidence against it either, and I wouldn’t ever suggest this in article. Bioluminescence is widespread throughout Eukaryota, and there are even bioluminescent species of Chaetognaths, which are some of the closer living relatives of Amiskwia. Especially considering the believed deep sea habitat and the fact that we don’t have any living animals in the grouping Amiskwia was apart of, I believe that the bioluminescence in this animal is harmless speculation, as with the colouration of most extinct organisms.
Regarding the Anomalocaris, whether or not it fed on shelly fauna is still debated. Personally I fall on the side that it exploited the weaknesses in shells by shaking and contorting prey, before using its jaws to either bite open the shell or just suck out soft tissue from the breakage (this stance is supported in some articles, though other articles oppose it, hence the debate. No firm conclusion has been reached). The Aysheaia, Hallucigenia, and Vauxia are not the main subjects of the image, and are merely there to flesh out the environment should the viewer inspect it closer. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up good points, especially about the existence of bioluminescent chaetognaths. However, the abilities of modern bioluminescent chaetognaths seems to differ quite a lot from the bright solid glows of those in your illustration.[20] In addition, I'm not the only reviewer here, and some editors may have more comprehensive criticism (especially considering how I am no expert on Burgess Shale fauna). Hopefully there will be enough activity here that you would get another substantial evaluation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about invertebrates, but as I noted on the Hallucigenia talk page, we should steer clear of including our own original research on paleoart, we should only reflect what has been previously suggested by researchers. And this advice is not something to be taken lightly, as we may risk a ban on all user made paleoart if we don't follow this rule, as it has created problems several times in the past. Believe it or not, some editors have suggested that usermade paleoart should not be allowed at all, with much drama to follow. We don't want that again, so any such images that breach the OR rules in an obvious way will not be used. So no, this is not the place for "All Yesterdays" style experimentation, which we should maybe make clear in the guidelines above. I have started a discussion about this general issue here[21]. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am against depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence here. As far as I know, bioluminescence is rare in gnathiferans (to my knowledge, it is not known in rotifers, gnathostomulids, or micrognathozoans, and is rare and unlikely to be the ancestral condition in chaetognaths) thus its presence in Amiskwia is a level 3' inference. As I said in the OR in paleoart talk page, I think speculation should be avoided except when necessary in the context of Wikipedia articles; depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence is both unnecessary and likely to inspire the unjustified paleoart meme of bioluminescent Amiswkia. This isn't a paleoart gallery, it's an encyclopedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the bioluminescence issue, this piece misrepresents the sizes of the Burgess Shale fauna. Opabinia ranged from 43 to 70 mm [22] and Amiskwia ranged from 7.4 to 31.3 mm [23], so Amiskwia was about one-third the length of Opabinia. The Anomalocaris seems rather large, but perhaps not implausibly so. Furthermore, Amiskwia is a fairly rare animal, so I'm not sure depicting large groups of them is a good idea. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well rarity of Amiskwia in the fossil record isn't indicative of rarity in the Cambrian, just rarity of fossilization which is to be expected with soft bodied organisms (even in the Burgess Shale). There's this study that says that it's possible many creatures were bioluminescent in the Cambrian as a warning display to predators, and so many reconstructions of Cambrian fauna are incorrect. It doesn't specifically identify Amiskwia with hard evidence of bioluminenscence, but if I'm reading it right, it's saying it's possible that any (especially smaller) creature could have had it. Of course, it probably wouldn't have been so bright, and his entire explanation relies on the idea that the evolution of eyes started the Cambrian explosion (which doesn't make any sense because unless it's the mantis shrimp basically nothing in the sea relies on its eyes), so really, we're kind of in the wind if bioluminescence was common or even a thing in the shallow seas of the Burgess Shale User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know it's been months, but I only just saw this. The article you linked doesn't mention bioluminescence at all; it's talking about iridescence, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Bioluminescent animals don't look like the Amiskwia in this image—as far as I'm aware they generally aren't bright enough to cast a light on surfaces—and moreover, bioluminescence in Amiskwia is not supported by phylogenetic bracketing. Moreover, my other objection, that the scale of the animals in this image is inaccurate, remains unaddressed. As such, this image "differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements" (i.e. body size and capacity for bioluminescence) and meets the criteria for removal stated at the top of this page. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
Macrauchenia trunkless
It appears that macraucheniids had more conventional looking nostrils, something similar to a moose if this relatively recent study comparing the skulls of various extinct & extant herbivorous mammals is anything to go by. (LINK) Perhaps these two images should be edited. Other Macrauchenia restoration on Wikimedia should probably be labelled inaccurate, as they depict the genus with odd elephantine trunks. Monsieur X (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The study I read (see talk page) also proposed a saiga-like snout, which isn't that far off from what's shown. Could be a bit shorter, though, but I think it's kind of too early for us to do anything, it seems to be very preliminary ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the talk page and I think we should split the difference. Perhaps someone should edit shorter saiga antelope-like trunks on the mother & calf Macrauchenia, but edit Nobu Tamura's restoration to show moose-like nostrils. Either way, I do believe that the other Macrauchenia restorations on the site are rather inaccurate by modern standards. Monsieur X (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NT's restoration is pretty much saiga-like already, so I don't see why it would need to be modified, though. If anything, it should be a bit shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was thinking since it was rather simple looking in comparison to Olllga's, it would be more easier to edit. Should I put out a request for a new image instead? Monsieur X (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of a moose-like snout? Well, no one will stop you, hehe. Personally, I'd like to see some more studies on the issues first, and it seems some are underway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking more in the lines of a image comparing the two ideas, but I might sit on that idea for moment. I could be wrong, but I think the traditional view of Palorchestes might also be going through similar scrutiny. But I'll leave that discussion for the Palorchestes talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diplodocid heads have historically been restored in various ways: a) skull, b) classic rendering of the head with nostrils on top, c) with speculative trunk, d) modern depiction with nostrils low on the snout and a possible resonating chamber
Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I've been busy. Hmm, looks like a interesting idea, to show the skull and the trunked and trunkless versions. I guess that the trunkless version should be the moose model recently proposed, although in Darin Croft's book "Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys" appears a version with normal lips and narials located very high in the head, the reasoning behind it model is not explained there, just why it probably lack of a trunk. Well, I can make some sketches, by the way there is a diagram that would be very useful: [24] --Rextron (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering! An interesting article, it does highlight the need for more peer reviewed studies on age old ideas that go unquestioned or unchallenged. I have seen other artists with similar ideas for Macrauchenia, though I have no idea if there are more studies on this subject at the moment. As for the comparison image, I think it should be similar to the "diplodocus" chart, with the skull and the three different interpretations. Like the the old flexible elephantine trunk depiction, the small saiga antelope-like trunk and the more recent moose-like suggestion. Monsieur X (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly content with this interpretation. Now it looks like a camel with moose-like characteristics. Which seems to line up with our understanding of Macrauchenia. With the taxa appearing to be generalists, like the two mentioned. Calling FunkMonk, do you have any opinions or criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I wonder if that "slope" of the head should begin further anterior, though? Seems like it begins even before the bony nostrils, comparing to this interpretation:[26]FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have the same doubt, what if was a inflatable structure? ;) Anyways, later I'll modify it to make the trunked version.--Rextron (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eosimops restoration
I found this image of Eosimops a while back. Looks a bit emaciated compared to other Pylaecephalid restorations. On that note, are there any images of Eosimops fossils to see if it's anatomically accurate? Monsieur X (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the neck is almost certainly too long and the overall shape of the head seems incorrect, and it's artistically rather lackluster overall. Definitely needs improvement, and there's a 2013 paper that redescribes Eosimops that would doubtlessly be useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realized recently that the size comparison in the megalodon article was removed, possibly to it looking to much like a great white. I have been thinking about creating a new size comparison for adding O/C. chubutensis, and having a less great white-like look. I also have been considering doing a life restoration for O/C. megalodon, or perhaps O/C. chubutensis. Here is lineart for a generic otodontid: [29], based on the shortfin mako, smalltooth sand tiger, and basking shark. If it's good enough, I'll proceed with the size comparison and life restoration. Pinging Dunkleosteus77 and Macrophyseter, our main prehistoric shark editors. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the generic otodontid lineart could be a possible representation for some of its members like Otodus, Cretalamna, Megalolamna, etc, but not likely for those in the' Carcharocles' genus, at least starting C. angusteidens; it doesn't seem to well represent a form designed for the extreme strength megalodon may have possessed, but rather a more generalist morphology. The body shape I'm more used to would be that of what could essentially be described as a beefed-up lamnid, which appears to be the appearance most used in DA that isn't derived from Carcharodon. This [[30]] drawing of a generic Carcharocles shark presented by Kent and Ward (2018) would be a more ideal representation. Macrophyseter | talk00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, darn it, I forgot about Cretolamna. Looks like I've gotta make the first dorsal fin smaller, the second one larger, the pelvic and rear fins more triangular. I'll post a new version once I've fixed the current one. Perhaps I should go for Megalolamna, as we don't yet have a life restoration for that... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shaidng has been added: [32]. Apparently Megalolamna was an inshore shark, so I'm thinking of coloring it a bit like a sand tiger shark, with a brownish hue. I found the paper that described M. paradoxodon, it's been very useful: [33]. It suggested a phylogenetic placement for Megalolamna between Cretalamna & non-"Carcharocles"-grade Otodus, which I think the image already resembles. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly based on the photo of a "Cretalamna" body fossil that used to be on its Wikipedia page (which I removed), which is actually a new species of Lebanese odontaspidid. As such, this reconstruction needs to be reworked and should be removed from the page for the time being. There are some other aspects of the soft tissue that are incorrect, like the teeth in the lower jaw not being visible. I recommend using photographs of lamnids like porbeagles for reference.Carnoferox (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a few weeks back I had another DA request to update the existing diagram, which I have been working on. At the moment my WIP has primarily been using the Gottfried skeletal, which extrapolates from the Great White but is more robust generally, especially the jaws, with larger fins. The very rough WIP can be seen here: [34] This has taken me a while because I have been trying to fact check the Wikipedia articles for the lengths and estimates of the relevant animals. I'm not too fussed about which silhouette we use because Meg is only known from teeth and vertebrae which don't say much as to overall build and proportions. Maybe a generalised/generic silhouette is the way to go, but ultimately, any silhouette is going to be made up and be speculative. That said, I'd be happy to hear what any of the shark editors think. In my version, I was going to add question marks in the Meg silhouettes, as I have done with some of the really fragmentary sauropods, just to make it clear to the viewer it's speculative. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ?s are a good idea perhaps you should add the maximum size for the whale shark. Also, it seems like O. (C.) megalodon loses to the whale shark for the prize of the biggest shark ever, if only by a tiny bit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's become apparent looking into shark measuring is that even though there are standards, those standards can be interpreted differently or that different terms are being used interchangeably. Generally speaking there is 'Standard Length' and 'Total Length'. Standard length excludes the caudal fin; some might measure to the base of the caudal fin (precaudal length), it's possible that some are measuring to the notch on the far side (called Fork Length). Total length includes the caudal fin but there are two ways people measure it. One way is the shark positioned in a life pose and measured between the snout and tip of the caudal fin. (between pegs); this is similar to how it might get illustrated in a scale chart. The other way is by measuring the standard length and then just adding on the caudal fin length. This can quite drastically change the perceived size in a scale chart as it does not take into account the angle of the caudal fin. (Not dissimilar to scaling a dinosaur silhouette to the length of the silhouette vs measuring along the curves of the vertebral column.)
The are a lot of reports of large ~18m whale sharks, however, I'm currently not aware of any that have detailed measurements. One '18.8m' individual was measured as being 15m SL and then they added on the tail using an equation to get the TL. I know of two reports with detailed measurements from Indian fisheries, one is a 12.18m male and the other a 14.5m female. After trying to use the measurements to illustrate them I realised they probably contain mistakes and/or typos (these are older reports that predate portable computers, so these would have been written down by hand and typed up at a later date). The SL of 12.18 male was reported as 10.23m. After illustrating it is seems that 10.23m is the actual TL and then later this got mistakenly changed to SL and then the authors added on 1.95m of caudal fin. [35] The 14.5m individual hasn't got the same level of detail in measurements but I suspect it was actually 11.5m and there has been a typo, otherwise it's proportioned like no other whale shark I've seen. Another possibility is that it was 14.5m meters and some of the measurements have been placed in the table incorrectly. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a new WIP for the Megalodon update [36]. At the moment the largest I have found in the literature is estimated at 17.9m and the average size, across geologic time, according to Pimiento&Balk 2015 is ~10m based on 544 teeth. The whale shark is scaled to 9m because they mature at about 8-9m. The Wikipedia article and the original version state average adult as 9.8m and cites Guinness Animal Facts&Feats, I can't get a book preview, can anyone confirm that? They get larger; Guinness records claims the largest accurately measured is 12.65m near Pakistan in 1949 but looking into fishery records it seems that individual was 11.58m (I have yet to find a copy of the original source which was published in a weekly magazine) so I'm not sure where the Guinness number comes from? McClain et al 2015 support an individual estimated at 18.8m as the largest. The Great White is scaled to 4.7m which in Gottfried 1996 sample was the smallest mature female. I might also include the largest female which was 6.1m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, a new user reverted the old chart back which is probably not surprising considering the subject. Because the old chart was so widely used and many of the image captions became obsolete with the loss of the whale shark, I've decided to upload under a new file name, inserted above. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a potential update to the megalodon scale chart based on Shimada 2019. [37] Shimada suggests only using anterior teeth for estimation which is claimed to be more reliable. (The 17.9m estimate used previously is based on a lateral tooth). Shimada estimates the tooth with the tallest crown height to be 13.5-14.2m TL based on new equations or using the tooth with a tallest total height and the Gottfried equations 15.3m. Currently I've gone for 14.2m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to modify the old one too to newer sizes so its not outdated in every page its used? I don't have the .svg editing ability so I'm just wondering the possibility. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. The original intention was for the new one to replace the old one but because I decided to remove the whale shark it creates issues with image captions relating to the old chart. That said, there are some problem users over at the wiki commons that reverted my update. I then decided to update the description on the old image, which was full of errors and misleading statements (see the image history and talk page) but they reverted those as well. The old image doesn't represent the science very well. The idea that there is a 'conservative' and a 'maximum' is also problematic in my eyes; which of the many estimates do we decide is 'conservative'? (I don't think those words even appear in the literature until Shimada 2019). 20m estimates exist but one is purely hypothetical based on scaling trends in the great white and assumes a questioned 7m GW existed. Shimada 2019 shows that another ~20m tooth based estimate is a mistake. Admittedly, considering how many estimates are out there, deciding which estimates to show in a scale chart is difficult. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like File:Longest dinosaurs2.svg and File:Largesttheropods.svg. I'm counting 6 estimations for max size: 13 m by Randall 1973; 25 m by Schembri and Papson 1994; 25 m by Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996; 16.5 m by Jeremiah 2002; 18 m by Shimada 2002; and 15 m by Shimada 2019. If we're doing average size, we could use Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996, 10.5 m and 14.3 m for males and 13.3 m and 17 m for females; or 10.5 m by Pimiento and Balk 2015 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in terms of layout? Finally got a full copy of Gottfried 1996 who do use the phrase 'conservative maximum TL' for their 15.9m estimate. Either way, the existing chart's 'conservative' is too large for Gottfried 1996. Shimada 2019 effectively resizes this estimate to 15.3m after remeasuring the tooth in question. I personally think for this chart we should stick to more recent estimates, ie Shimada 2019 should be used over Shimada 2002. Shimada 2019 also shows that many of those estimates above are not reliable or have made mistakes. I have no issue mentioning larger estimates in the text but I don't think we should show them. Regarding 'Average'; there is 'average megalodon size' including juveniles & adults (ie Pimiento and Balk 2015), or 'average adult megalodon' (ie Gottfried 1996 10.5-14.3m for males); I have currently gone with a global estimated average of 10.5 m as suggested by Pimiento and Balk 2015 and also happens to be the size that Pimiento 2010 consider being adults & Gottfried's 'smallest mature male'. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris reconstruction inaccuracies
I noticed this reconstruction of Anomalocaris has a few inaccuracies. The big one is that the Burgess Shale species A. canadensis did not have the tail "streamers" (they're only known for the Chengjiang species, A. saron). Additionally, though the low level of detail makes it hard to tell, it appears to lack setal blades on the back and a head shield. Something about the proportions also seems off, but that might just be foreshortening. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the work in progress (WIP): [38]. The lower jaw is based on a CT restoration [39] (Fig. 6). Upper jaw curvature has been based on Edestus, which may not have been a good thing (perhaps Sarcoprion would be better?). Postcranium is a cross between Caseodus and Fadenia[40] (Fig 12 & 30). Any input? Do we have any Pal(a)eozoic fish experts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason to think it had an Edestus-like arrangement with upper and lower whorls instead of a Helicoprion-like arrangement with only a lower whorl? Ornithopsis (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fish expert, so I'm not really sure. I do think the updated appearance looks better—as far as I can tell, Edestus is unusual in having similar tooth whorls on the upper and lower jaws (compare to e.g. Ornithoprion and Helicoprion), hence my asking if there was a good reason for the original Edestus-like appearance. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an additional creature: Bandringa. I will eventually give it a more creative color scheme (and probably a big green eye, as seen in many modern lineages of deep-sea cartilaginous fish) and perhaps a background. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to find a good source of information on Bruketerpeton. I see you have a source but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is considering its age and how it is a popular science textbook rather than a peer-reviewed study. The illustration doesn't look like it has glaring errors relative to Gephyrostegus, though I am unsure of whether the eardrum would be visible. Most animals with eardrums evolved them independently and have specific adaptations of the stapes and temporal region coinciding with such adaptations. Gephyrostegus doesn't have any real evidence for such features, due to stapes not being preserved and the temporal region having an unspecialized and broadly concave rear edge. As a close relative, I doubt Bruktererpeton would be any different. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will remove the eardrum (it looks like our current Gephyrostegus life restoration also has an eardrum, so I'm guessing that it needs to be removed too). I'm pretty sure that the skeletal in the book is taken/redrawn from a scientific publication (many of the skeletals are credited as being from The Osteology of Reptiles, for example) although they don't cite their source beyond stating that the author is Boy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, claws didn't really evolve until amniotes. Casineria has been claimed to possess claws based on the tapering and curved unguals, but Marjanovic & Laurin (2019) showed that the tips of the unguals were not pointed, unlike the case with true claws. They also placed Casineria within a gephyrostegid grade of tetrapods, along with Bruktererpeton. So I think that tapering and curved (but not keratinous) finger tips would make sense for Bruktererpeton. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I realized that the head of my Mystriosuchus doesn't match the perspective of the body, so I'll have to fix that (probably by changing the angle of the neck). I also have to upload my colored Cobelodus (see above). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries
Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries until 2007
The timeline should be updated thanks to new discoveries of Archaeopteryx specimens since 2007. It also should take into account the renaming of "Pterodactylus" crassipes as Ostromia and the erection of Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi for the Maxberg Archaeopteryx specimen.68.4.252.105 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Basilosaurus
I'm not quite sure what to make of this honestly; it was posted here without comment by an anonymous IP whose only edit record is here, and likewise the only actions of the commons user who uploaded it was just that. The image itself is a known illustration from deviantART[42], but there it is clearly watermarked and the full resolution is not available unlike this image. It's licensed as their own work, which lines up with the lack of watermark and high resolution, and a reverse image search doesn't turn up any other examples of the image outside of deviantART and Wikipedia, let alone without a watermark and at this resolution. I'm not sure how else this could be uploaded if it's not the original artist, but I don't know if we can be sure of that and let the image stay up on commons as a Creative Commons image. Thoughts? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you that I don't see any real possible other way for someone to have uploaded this work if it wasn't there own, and following the nice guideline of assuming good faith I think that the lack of any alternative that we can see as possible means that we should assume this is their own work. I think its possible there is an underbite in the art, although that could be perspective, but I don't know enough about Basilosaurus or its relatives to say much else on the accuracy. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the B. isis skulls look like they've got a bit of an underbite (the species isn't specified here). I will say that the perspective does make the tail look a bit unusual, but this image does quite a nice job on the head - unlike virtually every single other restoration that we have (expect maybe this one: File:Basilosaurus BW.jpg). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pectoral fins seem too far back; in whales, they are just behind the head and neck. I'm not as confident on this next issue but the dorsal fin seems very far forward compared to other reconstructions. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be a good time to review the other Basilosaurus restorations[43] we have? Most of the others were uploaded before the paleo review page was started... We need to apply the "inaccurate paleoart" tag more generously, as this is often not done even when an image is deemed such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a gallery below of our other images (I actually was thinking of doing something like this soon!):
I have no clue what the heck that head's based on
Tail very thin
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head doesn't match bulky body
Original of the former
Too deep body
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head
Should have much more oral tissue going by modern whales
General proportions
Shrink-wrapped head, "surfin' serpents" meme, no dorsal fin
I think the last one can be excused and used as a historical example. The ones with the demon heads could probably be modified more easily than the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the least inaccurate and probably most worth fixing would be Dmitry's and Pavel's but I agree they all have inaccuracies. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give those two a shot, anything else that should be fixed in them? Seems odd that the raised area around the nostrils would be so obvious in the living animal, or what? Maybe the one with the thin tails too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps modify Pavel's one following B. isis, as Dmitry's is B. cetoides? That way, we can have a restoration for each species. Also, Pavel's has a strange constriction in its profile after the pelvis, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, I'd imagine it would not even be discernible, but even most modern restorations seem to show it. Also, modern whale skulls give little indication of what the living animals look like... FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basilosaurus had 10 teeth on either side of the jaw, I’m only counting 9 (but it’s kinda blurry if you zoom in that much, so I don’t know). The head seems about the right size, I don’t know why it’s been called shrink wrapped, but I will say the top of the skull seems really bony (like it’s an exact outline of the skull) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More Marine Reptile Size Comparisons
Bye-bye, 25m pliosaurid!A very nosy ichthyosaur
Sorry for my long periods of inactivity, I'll try to be more productive (although I may not succeed, as I'll be pretty busy for quite awhile). Anyways, here's another Liopleurodon update. I replace the old flat skull with the Noè et. al., 2003-style head, in addition to giving it a Rhomaleosaurus-style caudal fin. How does it look? (As a little side-project, I did a very rough scaling of the Monster of Arramberri using Liopleurodon and got a pliosaurid that was a little over 9m.) Additionally, I plan to upload some more marine reptile size comparisons once this one's approved (these include Muraenosaurus, Pliosauridae, and Sachicasaurus, not to mention updates coming for Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus). I'm also open to requests. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Eurhinosaurus update. Looks more like a real animal now. The skull's based on Jaime Headden's skull diagram, which we still haven't uploaded here yet. Any comments on the updated size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. This definitely shouldn't be used without being brightened; we also already have a perfectly servicable illustration of Inostrancevia hunting Scutosaurus on the page already. The perspective on the head doesn't look too bad, but it's hard to make out details. I think the bigger problem might be that the neck is too long. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Inostrancevia is missing its incisors (and everything but the canines it seems), that's a pretty big deal. But yeah, we are getting a lot of random artwork uploaded without review in various places. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know the person who uploaded it, they were not aware of the paleoart review process and I'll remind them. I'm not entirely sure how we should make it clear that such a process exists for artists who do not have much experience with Wikipedia editing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far what I and some others have done have simply been to notify editors who add such images on their talk pages that there is a review process. Not sure what else that could be done. It seems a lot of the drive by paleoartists here are also active on Deviantart, maybe a group or something there could help spread awareness and maybe even recruit more artists... FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more weekend in October means one more skeletal. Here's my first non-archosaurian skeletal - Gallardosaurus. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that can't already be found in the file description. However, there appears to be what looks like part of Cv5 preserved in the specimen, but nothing about this is said in the paper, so I've left it in light gray. Was this the right choice? I'll ping Eotyrannu5, who's done a much more complex pliosaur skeletal, for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked someone else to comment on this one, since I'm not a marine reptiles guy, and he said it looked fine, so I will echo that sentiment. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Mesozoic dinosaurs go on WP:DINOART, not here. Second, what's this based on? Scaling to roughly equal (sometimes estimated) humeral length, it doesn't proportionately match the skeletal in the paper, Mononykus, Shuvuuia, or Linhenykus. Third, it needs more detail and is missing shading, which, when present, makes reconstructions look much more realistic. Also, why's the sky bright cyan? Fourth, why this view in particular? The only known material in this region is the scapulocoracoid, while the animal preserves a nearly complete posterior trunk, tail, and leg. I'm sorry, but I think that this image is going to need a lot more work to get it up to standards. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bubblesorg, you really need to work on how you go about this whole process before attempting more paleoart reconstructions. For one, put the entire animal in the frame. I remember once you said you only did half of the animal because it's easier. You can't do that. Second, if you're gonna put a background, put a background, not just a single color nor a single color with some dashes. You can also not put a background. Third, read up about the animal before reconstructing it. You can't just start drawing whatever you want. Fourth, why does it have a orange beak? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk05:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether this level of MS Paint art is even appropriate for an encyclopedia. In particular, what informational value does this image add if it's not a rigorous reconstruction of the animal? (And I would argue that many of our older images also have the same problems, although they are probably of a higher calibre.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some images, if they are clean and accurate enough, with minimal detail can be useful for illustrating proportions of an animal (like black silhouettes in phylogeny templates). But that requires cleanliness and accuracy, which this piece doesn't have. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by "rigorous" I was referring not necessarily to artistic expertise, but instead to adherence to scientific data rather than whatever freehanded stuff the artist comes up with (infamous case in point: [46]) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend to either draw on paper (and to scan the result in), or use a drawing tablet (there are cheap ones available) and dedicated drawing software (Krita is great free software for this purpose). This makes it much easier to improve and one day become a professional. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the program that it's drawn in (whether it be MS Paint, GIMP, or Krita, although the first one is poorly designed for paleoart) is irrelevant as long as the art meets our standards. For the record, I do actually draw a lot using GIMP and Inkscape (for instance, my Bajadasaurus was drawn using these two programs). But I do draw in rather strange ways, so it may be better to try out programs that are more dedicated to digital painting. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting up this recent PaleoEquii art for review for the sake of it. I think it looks really good, and I personally know that the artist is quite knowledgeable on Camrbian fauna. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The shape of the tail looks a little off. I count eight segments in this reconstruction; Ooedigera had seven. The terminal segment looks too pointed. Would there have been a narrow, rayed fin along the margins of the tail like that? I'm not extremely familiar with vetulicolian anatomy, but that seems different from other reconstructions. Also, if I'm reading Vinther et al. 2011 (the original description) correctly, the tail would have been somewhat more asymmetrical dorsoventrally and had a more prominently scalloped dorsal margin of the first four segments. The body also doesn't look particularly laterally compressed, which Ooedigera is described as being. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's all that needs to be changed? According to Vinther et al., "a broader flattened region extends ventrally all the way from segment 2 to 7 and dorsally between segments 5 and 7", and they repeatedly emphasize the importance of this dorsoventral asymmetry. Your reconstruction doesn't look anything like that. Based on my interpretation of the text, it should look something like this [47] (apologies for the quickness of the sketch, it just needs to get my point across), with a scalloped dorsal margin along the first few tail segments, and no 'fin' along the margins. In addition, the dorsal margin of the tail should probably be approximately aligned with the dorsal margin of the body, as in other vetulicolians, not dorsoventrally centered. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to PaleoEquii, who said "I think that's all that needs to be changed" after changing one detail, without responding to any of my other criticisms. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it looks better than our current reconstruction which is somewhat reminiscent of a bejeweled vacuum cleaner (no offense to the creator). It's in lateral view so I don't think dorsal anatomy is going to be very prominent, and it should be a pretty easy fix. Just make the back end of the tail a bit more bulbous on the top, and the first few ridges a bit steeper. As for my former comment about shading, it actually looks fine the more I look at it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one more than the old one too but that just makes it all the more important to make sure this is up to high standards of accuracy. I'd like for PaleoEquii to either revise this image in response to my critique or justify his interpretation as opposed to mine. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue (the tail fin) has just been fixed, and I think that the rest of the anatomy is consistent with what is known of the animal. It was a soft-bodied creature and I wouldn't doubt that it was capable of some variability in its body shape. As it stands, the body looks taller than wide, which resembles the fossil and corresponds with the described lateral compression, the extent of which is not fully set in stone due to the 2D preservation. And the tail looks to be positioned above the dorsoventral midline, as it is above the body's gill slits. Perspective may be responsible for some ambiguity there, in addition to the clearly convex dorsal surface ("egg-shaped", according to the paper's etymology). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right that the body is within acceptable bounds of accuracy, but I still have some concerns about the tail, to be honest. I've never seen a reconstruction of a vetulicolian with a thin, seemingly translucent, rayed tail fin like this depiction, so I want a source on that, or for it to be changed. Near as I can tell, the thinner fin-like region of the tail is still composed of the same shell material as the rest of the tail. The shape also still looks off in a few details--the peaks of the scalloped axial region edges don't seem to line up with the segment boundaries in some places, when they probably should. The axial region (i.e. the non-fin portion) is described as consisting of "hourglass-shaped" segments and that appears to refer to the concave dorsal and ventral margins of each segment of the axial region. Finally, the seventh tail segment is more or less triangular in Ooedigera, which is not how it looks in this image--and it doesn't look angled in a way that would explain the difference either. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for the tail segments, they should go inwards rather than outwards so that in dorsal view a segment would have an hourglass shape, the ventral side of segments 2–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, the dorsal side of 5–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, and the ray fin is highly implausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk07:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the tail fin is consistent with tunicate larvae and especially conodonts and lancelets, which seem to resemble the "bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome" model quite well, especially compared to the oddly derived shape of ambulacrarians. And responding to dunk, the hourglass shape is meant to be in lateral view, not dorsal view. The scalloping persists throughout the tail as far as it appears in the fossil. From my interpretation of the source's text and imagery, the illustration is completely consistent with the fossil evidence. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conodonts, tunicates, and lancelets don't have shells on their tails, so I'm not sure they're the best model. Given that the life reconstructions of Nesonektris in its original description (which is a reliable source) lack such a fin, I'd like a source justifying depicting it to the contrary, not just supposition. Also, the shape of segment 7 is clearly inconsistent with the fossil in my eyes, and the shape of the rest of the tail still looks off to me in various respects, as should be evident by comparing my sketch to PaleoEquii's painting. I'm pretty sure that the transition between the axial region and 'fin' ventrally should also be concave, to complete the hourglass shape of the axial region ("there is a broad axial region with concave margins on each segment, giving each of the seven segments an hourglass shape"), but note that that transition between axial region and 'fin' is more a matter of mediolateral thickness of the segmented region than transition from a segmented structure to a thin translucent rayed fin. FanboyPhilosopher is, however, right that there is no reason to depict the segments as convex in dorsal view (as the tail is not preserved in a manner that would show that). Ornithopsis (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the segments still don’t have an hourglass shape in lateral view. The dorsal aspect is fine but the ventral aspect is convex where it should be concave, so each segment right now ends up sort of saddle shaped (if I’m looking at this right) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. That, the structure of the fin, and the shape of the final segment are my main concerns left with this image, and I'd really like to see those concerns addressed because we definitely need good vetulicolian art like this on Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoEquii: So really, there's only 3 fixes and then we're set:
1. Make the tail segments hourglass-shaped rather than saddle-shaped
2. Remove the ray fin
3. Make the final tail segment sharper (like how it was in the original version)
The tail should be fine now. I don’t see the harm in ornamentation or even simple colour on the tail fin? The fossil itself isn’t exactly pristine. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks saddle-shaped (both the dorsal and ventral sides should be concave, right now the dorsal is concave and the ventral is convex). The ray fin would be more likely if it were a chordate, but it wasn't, it had armor, so a ray fin is not very plausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "ray" fin is fine, it looks like its supposed to except for the colouration giving the appearance of rays, but a striped pattern isn't a dealbreaker. I can't comment on the rest tho. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of an hourglass figure at this point is simply down to perspective. As for the fin, Ooedigera had a much softer body than Chengjiang Vetulicolians. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments: first of all, this is an educational website; if it's misleading but not demonstrably wrong that's still a concern (although admittedly not a dealbreaker). However, more to the point: the "fins" of Ooedigera are laterally compressed extensions of the segments, not a separate structure, as I understand it. They should be segmented like the axial region, not a separate unsegmented structure. I'll also link to my revised sketch of it; I still think that various aspects of the tail anatomy in PaleoEquii's reconstruction look wrong to me [48]Ornithopsis (talk)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mV0_w-4tB0/XESLVrH08BI/AAAAAAAAAg8/lVS0kRJRuJALEr4q2YNI-XFRAHQAEcAUACLcBGAs/s1600/Liopluerodon%2BBW%2Bedit.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Makhaira_rossica.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bx503MmNs30/XOGdCIS6f5I/AAAAAAAAApU/Xn2v9mYpT_QJjAK9Fvnf7-Hf-ElPIGIpgCLcBGAs/s1600/g5110.png){kind=link}
![[30]](https://pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png%7C//pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png){kind=link}
![[31]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gBNJYmVLF1A/XOU3Od31fPI/AAAAAAAAApg/9pZhlTRJ8sESf_v_FvW0NFBjUDZoPjyYgCLcBGAs/s1600/Oto1.png){kind=link}
![[32]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--txJps65n-k/XOW_8UwkUUI/AAAAAAAAAps/gI-jxycj4A4pVXS986ssSbHfMQdej5kYACLcBGAs/s1600/Megalolamna%2BLineart.png){kind=link}
![[38]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JMVk4jHhALs/XP_0lMv422I/AAAAAAAAAqA/Cw4Fq_ojGhsUGITj2FSWqXUzd-EThyGcACLcBGAs/s1600/Toxo-WIP1.png){kind=link}
![[41]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BLthaBF4Qao/XQLBHp0CKkI/AAAAAAAAAqM/pm1mXFoOHCsQyEcB5jXjZeVvmaB26QURACLcBGAs/s1600/Toxo-WIP2.png){kind=link}
![[44]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilosaurus1DB.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gidley-1913-Basilosaurus-cranium-neck-reconstruction.JPEG){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sizecomp_dromaeosaurs.jpg){kind=link}
