:::::Yeah, there have been some pretty awful reconstructions in peer reviewed papers, see for example.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png] Others that seem good otherwise also have issues, like this one.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05016-6/figures/5] So they are certainly not exempt if we find some issues. In this case, it should be an easy fix. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, there have been some pretty awful reconstructions in peer reviewed papers, see for example.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png] Others that seem good otherwise also have issues, like this one.[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05016-6/figures/5] So they are certainly not exempt if we find some issues. In this case, it should be an easy fix. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::It also seems to have rather insufficient toe pads. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::It also seems to have rather insufficient toe pads. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Feathers and toe pads fixed does it look good?[[User:KoprX|KoprX]] ([[User talk:KoprX|talk]]) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Feathers and toe pads fixed does it look good?[[User:KoprX|KoprX]] ([[User talk:KoprX|talk]]) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
I have been updating my faunal diagrams by adding references, paleoflora and correcting anatomical issues. Many suggestions made by users were taken in the process. One of the main goals of these diagrams was to recreate the contemporany fauna and environments of the largest dromaeosaurids ever: Achillobator, Austroraptor, Dakotaraptor and Utahraptor, in order to be added to their Wiki pages. The "most" complete fauna out of the 4 depicted here is the Cedar Mountain Formation, but why? I mean, there several papers describing both the aquatic and terrestial fauna of the formation (including the other geological Members of this particular formation), and I haven't seen a single soul taking this in consideration and making something out of it. In the other hand, the other formations are a little bit more known, except for the Bayan Shireh Formation, a poorly studied unit. I'll resume this kind of work in a near future with other formations. Is something incorrect? Dinosaurs missing? Issues? Comments and corrections will be much appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the Cedar Mountain image is that the fauna shown in that image aren't all contemporaries. I haven't read the relevant literature extensively, but from Jim Kirkland's twitter feed I have gotten the impression that there are at least three faunas represented here, with Yurgovuchia older than Utahraptor, Moabosaurus younger than Mierasaurus, and so on. I think it's misleading to show it all in one image. As for Bayanshiree there's a few taxa you've missed: Erketu ellisoni, an unnamed titanosaur (MPC-D100/3005), an unnamed velociraptorine formerly identified as Adasaurus (MPC-D100/22 and 100/23), and Amtocephale gobiensis have all been reported as being from the Bayanshiree Formation. There's probably others (I vaguely remember reading a mention of an avimimid from there, but I might be misremembering). I don't believe Saltasaurus is from the Allen Formation. If I'm not mistaken, Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from the same site, which has been debated over whether it's Allen or Anacleto. I think you need either both or neither. I think Antarctosaurus and Laplatasaurus are also debated over which formation they're from, but I don't think either is from the same site as Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow Cat was actually redated recently so it's actually several million years older than Poison Strip as opposed to immediately before (which as you point is already not contemporaneous). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not just "several million years" as you suggest, it has been dated to the latest berriasian to early hauterivian, making it coeval with the Hastings Beds. Given now that it's clear that the Cedar Mountain Formation was deposited over the best part of 50 million years, it's obvious that each individual member's fauna should be treated separately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the corrections, especially for the missing taxa in Bayan Shireh, already working on them. I would be grateful if you guys could provide me the papers/documents (or page?) about the information of the Cedar Mountain Formation and the unnamed members of the Bayan Shireh in order to do an aprox. body size and silhouette. Abelisaurus is making its way into the Allen fauna, referring to Laplatasaurus and Saltasaurus, I checked again the papers and they are not identified from the Allen Formation, as you stated, nevertheless, Antarctosaurus has been identified, here. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources indicate that Antarctosaurus is from Anacleto, though, so I'm not sure it's appropriate. According to this paper[1]Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from Anacleto as well, but not everything has followed that—I'd like to know if there's any more recent research on the subject. I don't trust any paper on the subject which simply states which formation these taxa are from without commentary on the opposing hypothesis. As for Bayanshiree, [2][3][4] cover what I listed. Are you sure on the sizes of the sauropods? Rocasaurus and Saltasaurus had roughly 800 mm femora whereas Pellegrinisaurus appears to have had a substantially longer femur (around 900 mm as preserved, according to the scale bar in its original description, likely would've been around 1300 when complete). Aeolosaurus had a 1030-mm femur and Panamericansaurus presumably had a femur length of ~1500 mm (extrapolating from a 1230-mm humerus). You've given them all roughly similar hip heights here.Ornithopsis (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Bayan Shireh fauna, now I'll be updating the Allen one. Is there any problem if I add the missing taxa in the Bayan Shireh page? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but would it be better to restrict it to the terrestrial habitat, as indicated by the background? The plesiosaurs in the forest are a bit irritating. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor issue, IMO, and has no real bearing on accuracy, but it does bother me too. Maybe put the marine life in a lower part of the image, "below sea level" so to speak? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The colour coding in the Bayan Shireh image is essentially useless because the earthy shades used are so similar (multiple browns, how will we identify them in captions?). I am red green colourblind, but even then I can't be the only one who can't discern the very similar shades and correlate the names with silhouettes. The other images are more successful in this regard, so it should definitely be changed if it is to be used. Also, it is a bit annoying the genus names are not in italics. All that being said, I think this is a good idea, and such images could be used in the paleoecology/environment sections of individual genus articles. I will probably add it to Segnosaurus, but it seems to not have the distinctive downturned dentary tip in the diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, I can't tell them apart based on their colour, just because I can identify which taxa based on their anatomy. Having more variety amongst the colours would be a good idea. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an option would be to have the names and colors listed in the key according to the positions of the silhouettes from left to right, rather than listing them alphabetically. Or one could place the names (and maybe colors) along the bottom of the image under their respect taxa. And to check if an image is not useful for colorblind audiences, I would use a color blind simulator such as this.[5]Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that Erlikosaurus is way too huge, here is a photo of its skull in hand, it is pretty small:[6] Or has it and Segnosaurus been inverted? The sources seem a bit unclear on which is the larger one. Are you seeing these comments, PaleoNeolitic? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, I was unaware of these comments. As you may notice, I heavily updated the Bayan Shireh Formation page, so that means that I will have to rework its faunal diagram as well. I'm currently working on Achillobator skeletal reconstruction, since I got the nefarious paper, so don't worry guys, I'll be updating the faunal diagram. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Bayan Shireh faunal diagram, sizes and silhouettes improved. Segnosaurus is now more identifiable (by the mandible) and Microceratus was removed from the chart due to not being present in the formation (after the creation of Graciliceratops, the remaining material is known from Chinese locations). Also, I decided to restrict the diagram to only the known Dinosauria, since it's the mayor focus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much, looking good. One problem I see is that the Ohmdenosaurus is much longer than published estimates (Wild, 1978 gave 3–4 m, and Holtz, 2008 gave 4 m). I know that somebody recently put a larger figure into the article; I don't know where that is coming from, and I removed the info for now since no source was provided. Maybe the size discrepancy arises from the fact that you scaled the silhouette based on the proportions of Shunosaurus, while the older estimate might have assumed more prosauropod-like limb with a proportionally longer tibia. So I don't think that the diagram is wrong, but it will be drastically different to the size estimates given in the text. Not sure if and what we can/should do about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a moderate change to reduce the neck length and tail lengths could fix this size issue, as it stands the long neck is baseless if Spinophorosaurus is more derived than Shunosaurus, and the elongate tail can easily be reduced to make it a bit more in line with 4m estimates. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem having it within 1m of the published sizes, especially since published estimates are rough at best. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looks quite nice, bit weird with the far hand looking like only two fingers, but that's not necessarily inaccurate as much as a pose I'm not used to seeing. Vallibona doesn't have the most material so with it currently as a basal spinosaurid it matches with long legs, a slight sail and an average skull. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shaggy partial feather covering looks a bit odd, otherwise I have few complaints. A complimentary skeletal reconstruction would be nice for this taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revision people, I will correct the problem with the teeth eventually. For additional information, the reconstruction was mainly based on an Irritator skeleton drawing by Felipe Elias (closely related spinosaurid without the extreme derivations of Spinosaurus) and both hands have three fingers, but they are a bit turned upwards and that may hide them partially.Juan(-username-)(talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am reading all this article and I see it would be better to post here my illustrations before uploading them to the pages. Sorry because I am pretty new to this and I don't perfectly know all the rules and features. Here are the dinosaur (and stem-dinosaur) illustrations I did this year. I only want them posted in articles that don´t already have a reconstruction or that have a very innaccurate one. Also, I would be very pleased if you could tell me if the images are too dark, as I made them in my laptop and I saw them perfectly fine, but with my other computer they look very darkened and I can't clearly see all the details, especially in the belly, hands and feet of the animals. I don't know how annoying it is for other people. Juan(-username-)(talk) 10:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as accuracy goes, I think the Lajasvenator is unfortunately the worst off, because instead of being restored based on megaraptorans, the skeletal in the paper uses Hartman's Neovenator, which is quite possibly unrelated. As far as megaraptorans go, this is probably the best basis for the unknown material, although for Lajas the skull is larger than in the derived megaraptorans used.IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: I'm very confused, the paper clearly states that Lajasvenator is a carcharodontosaurid, closely related to Concavenator, definitely not a megaraptoran, so using neovenator is not a particularly bad proxy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are too few teeth, though due to the nature of theropod tooth replacement it may be more realistic to have a few empty sockets at a time. Is this in contrast to the image review's emphasis on "ideal" circumstances (like no pathologies)? I don't have a strong opinion on integument in herrerasaurids, though it is odd that the artist provided a "pelt" (like that illustrated for many theropods) as a transition between longer feathers and shorter feathers. As far as I know, the scientific support for the "pelt" is inspired by animals like Kulidadromaeus and Juravenator, where it is a transition between feathers and scales, not feathers of different lengths. The eye might be too large and there's a weird extended flattened area behind the head which looks to be the neck, albeit in a very strange pose. As for the Kwanasaurus, the eye looks a bit big, the head may be a bit too deep, and the foot proportions are iffy, but otherwise it looks good. The Vespersaurus is nice but the length of the foot claws are underestimated and their curvature is overestimated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited everything but the Kwanasaurus, which I've tagged as inaccurate unless someone else can adjust it. I don't have any more comments, but I'll leave this section here for at least a few more days
Buriolestes again
Buriolestes
Wow, wow, wow Let me congratulate you all, you have done a great and beautiful job all these years.The reason for my partial inactivity is because of the school, I am barely on vacation from university and I have given myself a break to return. Well, after so much idle time. I return with 2 of the drawings I left pending. The first is perhaps one that waited too long. In these years many articles of the Saturnaliinae family were seen and I did not go unnoticed, I still have not finished reading them and seeing everything, but I feel that both the articles and the images of all the taxa require attention, expansion and improvements. Well, I show you a preview of the Buriolestes profile [7] illustration, I have started from scratch and I have attended to the errors and anatomical issues that had to be corrected. In addition to this I would like to revisit the fantastic restoration of User:Audrey.m.horn in general is impeccable and very good in every aspect, I think that Buriolestes from the beginning needed an illustration of the whole body. I think the placement of the ear is too far in the skull, just that. [8] Any comment? --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the compliment on my restoration! i'm afraid i'm not completely sure what you mean about the ear - is it too far forward, or too far backwards? as for your skull restoration, i think it's great! i would point out though that the skull fenestrae wouldn't be quite so visible on the living animal, maybe tone down the shading a little bit! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This usually happens. True, don't worry, it's just the lines coming out to become shadow and textures. Fenestrae will be covered, and Thanks for your attention. --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with your new head drawing as it stands, the proportions match up completely and soft tissue fits what we expect. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, much better. By the way I show you a progress in the illustration in which I look a little confused. Isn't Buriolestes supposed to be a relative of Eoraptor? Well, I see that it would be right to stretch the image up to make it look more like Eoraptor. Both skulls are deformed, but I think it would be better to do it more like the last image of these [9] I would like to know your opinions before continuing. --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think both interpretations of the skull are accurate within our known information, since some taxa just outside dinosauria have elongate snouts (lewisuchus etc) and some basal theropods do as well (coelophysids). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the philosophy that Buriolestes and Eoraptor must have similar skull proportions if they are closely related. Both of their descriptions included skull diagrams which had already been corrected for taphonomic deformation. Buriolestes simply had a longer and lower skull than Eoraptor. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Head restoration.
Looks good, but the finger tip "pad" morphology of the two hands differ in their perspective: the hand closest to the viewer would indicate that the pads would overlap the underside of the claws, while the claws further back are free. A bit hard to explain, I can draw on top of it is unclear. But you can see what I'm getting at in for example Fred's Allosaurus image:[10]FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have been a little stuck with this illustration, especially because it encourages me to make scales, I hope soon to make the neck and edit the final image to give texture to the drawing. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally the version of the head is corrected, well, I think the illustration no longer fits on the Buriolestes page, I think that in the future it could be expanded and fit, but for now I think it could have a better place in the Sauropodomorpha article in the Paleobiology section. I will continue editing the image in the following weeks, it still does not end at all. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patagotitan
Terrible skull and a questionable neck
Well, now and after many requests from both here, Facebook and DA I have the obligation (Because it was used in newspaper notes, even when it was terribly done) to correct and redo the illustration of Patagotitan, right now I am working with a silhouette drawing based on the Scott Hartman diagram, and also on a model for that serves as a basis for a drawing of the paleoenvironment. At the moment I only show photos of the model [11], any comments or suggestions? --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proportions look to match what we know, width is about right, it looks a little unfinished for some finer details but thats because it is. Welcome back. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK well. Yes, exactly because it is unfinished. I based on the model of the supplementary information and photos that are available on the web and here for tail and neck thicknesses and shapes. Thank you very much. --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I promised to create this a few months ago, but I've been so busy with school that I haven't had time. Here it is though, is there anything I should fix before I add colors? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the hand throws me off, perhaps it is the angle of the wrist. Might want to check up on that I thought wrist flexion was related to the arm pose. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be safest to show it with less tightly folded hands, as we don't really know its range of motion. Also, the nostril seems to be placed too far back, it should be at the front of the bony naris. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the teeth should be as numerous and homogeneous as depicted, Yi and Epidexipteryx show otherwise. The wrist also looks much longer than the fossil shows. It looks like more dense feathering is also required, it's currently fairly skinny in general. You may also want to give it a bit more gut for its omnivorous tendencies. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had some other quibbles that were hard to place, but I think I know what the issues are now. The skull is too long: where the nostril is right now is right about where the jaw should stop. It seems to also be somewhat too small relative to the torso. This is based on the proportions of both Yi and Epidexipteryx. As pointed out already, the tooth row does not stretch that far back and the teeth should be concentrated at the front of the jaws. Additionally, I think the torso is actually too deep. The pelvic girdle is quite small, and the pubis looks like it's jutting out between the legs right now. This is not the case in scansoriopterygids, where the tip of the pubis is roughly at the level of the concave curve you have going down from the pygostyle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
alright, I've made those changes. the arm is less tightly folded (both at the elbow and the wrist), the skull is shorter with fewer, more concentrated teeth and a repositioned nostril (I think it's in the right spot, but I may still be wrong), feathering is denser in some areas (all other restorations I've seen of Ambopteryx don't have much more feathering than this does), the torso is more shallow, and the pelvic girdle is moved forward. the ischium still sticks out backwards as it does in all skeletal diagrams, but the pubis isn't as prominent. I didn't end up actually changing the head size but I think the issue was that the body was too robust rather than the head being too small; it looked proportional to me after making the changes to the torso and pelvis without changing its actual size. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few less significant changes to make Audrey.m.horn. The feet need more padding, probably about double what they have currently. The metatarsals are a bit too thinly wrapped, the propatagium is missing, there shouldn't be a patagium between the back of the humerus and the body wall, and the top surface of the head should be an almost smooth curve down to a mostly triangular snout (instead of square as currently). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added the propatagium, thickened the legs and toe pads, and made the snout more triangular. on every other restoration of Ambopteryx I've ever seen, the wing membrane continues from the fingers under the elbow and attaches to the body wall like a patagium, it's just hard to show that because of the angle of the arm in this drawing... I probably should have done that a little differently but regardless there is a patagium there so I left what I had originally. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've been finishing up for a while, just a skeletal of Segnosaurus. [12] The material itself has already been layed out and articulated, Once I get the silhouette finished it'll be easier to display the anatomy. I'm going to be copying Headden's skeletal a bit more in only showing the known material, but it's a vastly different pose, and I won't fully restore the caudals since I have no real basis for their anatomy. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't know the hand claws were so short and curved though? The papers gave me the impression that they were long and straight? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claws themselves are stand-ins for Segnosaurus, but the proportions of them are correct according to the measurements and proportions given by the papers. I'm going to show them in "dorsal" view anyways so their curvature won't be visible. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perle 1979 is all we have to go by, he says "The ungual phalanx of the third digit is somewhat longer than the second phalanx and is quite flat transversely. The ungual is sharply curved, very pointed and compressed laterally. Its ventral tubercle for the attachment of the flexor tendons is thick and massive". I wonder what "quote flat transversely, sharpy curved, very pointed" means. But yeah, probably more curved than in my old restoration then... Headden's old silhouette doesn't show the claws that curved either, but I don't know what he based them on:[13]FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have it mostly complete now, including a 2m vertical and horizontal scale bar. Are there any fixes needed? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding reconstructed portions of the bones of the hips and sacrum would be nice, to highlight what parts of the bone are missing. Obviously in a different, presumably lighter shade of grey to the tail vertebrae. Also, the contacts of the individal tail vertebrae should be made distinct Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the tail to account for the correct number and placement of vertebrae, and probably the correct approximate anatomy. I'm hesitant to restore the unknown regions of the known bones because of their high variability, and the fact that they don't add much apart from maybe make the pelvis articulations clearer. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The caudals are now actually restored, they are just as figured as the entire pes in lateral view, tibia, femur, or hand so really unless they are all shown in grey none of them should be. The caudals were a special case at first because I didn't want to put in the time to try and restore 25 vertebrae. But then I did. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bit sad that the thigh overlaps the pubis? Is there some way they could be more free of each other? Maybe if the foot placement was inverted? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could invert the feet, it would take a decent bit though. Not much is really lost but a quick solution like I've done before could be to have dashed grey lines showing the outline of the underlying pubis. If the bone was more complete I'd consider it more of a worthwhile change but all thats lost is a little corner of the proximal bone and showing the edges of the boot. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it already makes for a much better taxobox image. Where did you found versions of the old Russian papers with figures? FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get it myself so I really don't know, but I was given it by someone who also happened to want me to finish an updated Segnosaurus skeletal. Generally contacting authors who reference the old studies is a good method though, I've used it before for other papers. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}07:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add which sources have been used when creating the image in the file description? I'm sure it'll be asked during FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done. That should be all the references and taxa used except Nothronychus which I used for the tibia based on a 3D scan online. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here the new size chart is. It grew... considerably. It loooks a lot less elegant and more like a typical therizinosaur now. I also reduced the caudal feathering. How does it look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more typical, Headden's old image also has some weird choices, with all of the animals being tilted forwards, perhaps before they were recognised as walking rather upright? I wonder if this one still needs to be more upright. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're at it, I made some changes to my old restoration, mainly in making the first toe visible, the hand claws shorter, the curve of the lower jaw more apparent, and reduced some scales on the head. Any thoughts? Still not sure how curved the hand claws should be. FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would make the claws a bit curvier just to match Perle's description, but nothing is too certain. The tail may also need to be elongate to match with just the larger number of caudals. Interestingly headden's skeletals were all used by Zanno 2010 in silhouette form, I noticed that when I looked at it for the material. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, suprisingly long tail, but I think the perspective in the restoration makes up for it, and that the tail would become too long if I lengthened it (the curve makes it seem a bit shorter, but it was based on Headden's image, which has an even longer tail). But yeah, if the claws were as curved as for example those of Nothronychus, they definitely need an overhaul. Speaking of the claws, shouldn't they be lengthened by keratin in the skeletal silhouette? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the head of the Lufengosaurus. Not possible to see where the head ends and the neck begins, but what is that little indentation at the upper margin? If this is the depression of the nasal, it should be less pronounced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lufengosaurus loooks off proportionally, but it could be the pose is too horizontal. Ruyangosaurus appears to have too long a neck, the paper describing new material overestimated the cervical count. Omeisaurus' neck looks too curved, it should be mostly straight through the middle with curves at the anterior and posteriormost ends. Zhanghenglong looks quite off probably because of the long legs and very prominent shoulder spines. Gigantspinosaurus looks like it has too short a neck and the tail looks like it projects too far dorsally. But the rest looks good. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ruyangosaurus, Omeisaurus, and Gigantspinosaurus have all been modified. I'll need more specifics on Lufengosaurus in order to fix it. As for Zhanghenglong, the tall anterior dorsal spines and extremely long ulna are known characteristics, so there's not much that I can do about it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing for Lufengosaurus from looking closer is that the fingers look very short and the skull is completely indistinguishable from the neck. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The short fingers are indeed strange, but both Hartman and Paul restore them, so I assume that they're genuine. I'll see what I can do about the heads, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just noticed this got uploaded to the Berberosaurus page by Mariolanzas without review. One of the first things I noticed is that the right foot is more fatty and has shorter metatarsals than than the left foot, and also gets thinner towards the ankle. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼15:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's also one weird head. Some kind of dilophosaur (the kinked snout) abelisaur hybrid, reflecting its various classifications? He also has a lot of other unreviewed restorations which could maybe be discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've gotten my laptop fixed, I'm back to uploading paleoart here! To start off, here's an early sketch of a Baryonyx restoration I've started to work on. I know the animal's page already has one. But since I've been requested to draw this animal many times, and it's also being created for a spinosaurid size chart I'm working on, I thought I might as well give it a go on Wikipedia as well, and see if I can give the effort to make as best of a reconstruction as my abilities will allow. Any suggestions for this sketch so far? (Mind the tip of the dentary being incorrect, still working on the skull). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we already have many good ones, why not make an image that shows some kind of hypothesised spinosaur behaviour we don't have illustrated? Or maybe a higher res skeletal than the Headden one? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree, but the other projects I'm making this illustration for require a plain depiction of the animal. I was just taking the chance to see if It'd be of any use to Wikipedia as well; in any case, more avaliable restorations isn't necessarily a bad thing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up some things with the skull, neck, and feet, added the nostril, eye, and ear, corrected the lengths of the pubis and ischium, and made the right arm visible. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on the head scales and extended the nasal crest with some keratin (let me know if it's too much). My mistake on the lacrimal crest, must've misinterpreted the skull. Removed now. There was a little bump on the dorsal surface of the lacrimals though, which I've now added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The foot placement makes it look off balance, like it would fall over. I wonder what else we could do to make it more unique/usable, because as for now, there's not much room or need for an additional, similar restoration in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the feet. As for possible uses, when I finish drawing the animal, perhaps I could illustrate a scene of its environment around it? Which could be used in place of this[15] image in the palaeoecology section, as the Baryonyx in it is somewhat low resolution anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also this one. it's my first sauropod so I'm fully expecting there to be lots of things to fix, please tell me what they are! I did my best on the feet but they're confusing as I'm sure you all know. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sauropod feet are more or less plantigrade, meaning that they're rather flat, and lacked the stegosaur-type ankles. The shin could also use some more flesh. The tail sticks up at a rather odd angle, and the neck seems unnaturally low. The shoulder also was likely deeper. Sauropod hands are really strange, even stranger than the feet, and actually have concave backs, so they're roughly horshoe-shaped in cross-section. The skull looks like a titanosauriform, but Moabosaurus is a turiasaur. This skeletal may help for proportions of unknown parts. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this was based on the reconstruction in the taxobox, which is a museum mount. Generally, museum mounts are not very good bases for reconstructions. There are a few issues with that reconstruction which mainly arise from practical considerations (and apply to many museum mounts): first, the neck is horizontal so it can fit in the exhibition space, and the skull is based on Camarasaurus because that was where it was initially placed. I would suggest restoring the head based on Mierasaurus, where it is much better known. In fact the full skeletal reconstruction of Mierasaurus is much better overall: [16]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I made those changes. I couldn't find any skeletals of Moabosaurus when I was making the reconstruction so I just figured the museum reconstruction was best but I guess not. glad I know now that they're not as accurate as they could be, that'll be helpful in the future. the neck is more vertical and shoulder is deeper, the skull is based off of Mierasaurus and other turiasaurs, and the tail is bent at a less weird angle (I think). anything else? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more things to point out. The feet need changes, because sauropods feet were semidigitigrade, so the metatarsals were held at about 45º from the horizontal, not vertical as you have them. There shouldn't be a line on the top of the neck into the torso, the right foot should still be facing forwards, the claws on the left foot aren't as splayed as you have them, the thigh lines are opposite they should be (long line in front, short line behind where the caudofemoralis is). The skull also appears to be too small. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the metatarsals and foot directions, removed that weird neck line, fixed the thigh lines, and made the skull larger. according to the Turiasaurus skeletal I was referred to, the tail is proportionate but was a little too thick so I made it slightly thinner. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm perhaps I should have also been more clear, it was the feet that needed fixes regarding the angles, not the hands. Sauropod hands were properly upright, but the feet were angled so the top of the foot and the metatarsals were angled roughly 45 to the horizontal, which is why they are referred to as semidigitigrade/semiplantigrade, because they are halfway between resting entirely on the phalanges and resting on the phalanges and metatarsals. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some comments on the manus: On the near hand I think that the claw is on the wrong side of the hand. For the far manus, I think that it should be obviously concave. Sauropod metacarpals are super weird, and are arranged in a horseshoe shape: (here's a hand print). Levi Bernardo's Aegyptosaurus (at the bottom of the page) does a good job of showing how this translates in the animal if you're looking for a reference. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a few more things now there is shading. The far foot (and hindlimb) still appears too columnar, but the near one is good. The shading under the jaw is too prominent, because of muscles the jaw would smoothly transition into the neck. The same is for shading at the front of the chest, the entire pectoral and arm region smoothly transitions into the neck so the sharp shading is too much. The skin flap on the front of the thigh is too long, its alright for an anterolateral view but from straight lateral it wouldn't even be half the current length. The metacarpals should actually be more vertical here, and the concavity of the hand needs to be even more pronounced. But that's it. I see nothing else that could need adjustments. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Life reconstruction of Stenonychosaurus by Tom Parker
Apologies to IJRied, but I would like to replace the reconstruction on the Stenonychosaurus page. I know we dont approve of replacing art based on aesthetics or artistic quality but there are scientific problems with it too. The space joint between the tarsometatarsals and tibiotarsus is way too thin, the jaw musculature is off, the feathering is unrealistic. I have cleaned up an old image of the animal I have done. If you'd rather clean up the other image then whatever, but here it is anyway. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now there are some things off with this. The retracted claw on the left foot looks like it is the middle toe, the lower jaw is much too thin, and the arm appears to articulate to the shoulder halfway up the side of the torso. The snout is probably also too deep but that's unknown in Stenonychosaurus and would be based off Gobivenator. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}07:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The toe is for sure not supposed to be on the middle foot but there is def some weird shading artefacts going on there, I'll fix that right up. The rest of that shit is obviously nonsense based on the material we have. Really looking for FunkMonk's approval here. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense if it is based on actual relatives. The shading of the upper arm is misleading and makes it look like it articulated too high on the chest. The anterior end of the lower jaw is basically absent, where we have multiple anterior dentaries from "Troodon" which would now be either Latenivenatrix, Stenonychosaurus or both. The anterior snout is too dorsoventrally deep and with too square an anterodorsal corner compared to close relatives. And for a collaborative project approval should be reached from all members. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Stenonychosaurus is the Two Medicine troodontid, then wouldn't it be (by the Latenivenatrix description) be closer to Saurornithoides/Zanabazar? Both(?) of those appear to have rather dorsoventrally shallow dentaries. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what we even know of Stenonychosaurus after so much of the material ended up in Latenivenatrix, so I'll try to check that out. As for now, yeah, certainly looks like the sickle claw is in the middle, and there's a weird splotch by the front of the chest that should probably be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can probably use Hartman's skeletal as reference:[17] I think it looks fine apart from the foot and splotch issues, I agree the tip of the jaw is a bit thin, but we don't really know that part anyway it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk. The "splotch" was supposed to be a feather falling from the animal, but that is obviously unclear, and I'm happy to remove it as that is not necessary for an encyclopedia anyway. Here is the skull of my reconstruction compared to the skull of Zanabazar: https://sta.sh/029ymqw6x12q. My skull does have a slightly shorter and more robust maxilla, but as we don't have that element from Stenonychosaurus so I don't think this is an issue, but if you like I'll be happy to try and thin it out a little. Tomopteryx (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, to me it looked like a claw or something had been misplaced. So yeah, probably a bit confusing now, especially since the rest of the image is so schematic, you'd not expect something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better than my old piece, I'll replace it, but I still think the lower jaw could be smoothed out, the arm is be too high on the torso, the neck is too thin and the head articulation is too angled. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again and getting a second opinion reveals a bit more thats off about it. Mostly the neck-head articulation is overflexed, the neck itself is too thin, the shading of the thigh makes it look very thin, and at least the ventral edge of the dentary should be straight or gently curved as in all troodontids, instead of with a distinct narrowing towards the tip. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}06:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been brought to my attention that there are some updated needed for the Tarbosaurus size comparison, impacting "G. lancinator" and "G. novojovi". The former, PIN 553-1, is apparently much too small, the skull is 97cm long. The latter is the proper length, but is much too proportionally built like an adult, it should be more gracile like Jane based on the postcrania (you can follow Maleev's 1974 skeletal for this). But that's it Slate Weasel. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, "G. lancinator" is still a bit too small, the skull still isn't quite 1m long. And the arms of "G. novojilovi" look a bit small, they should be noticably larger than "G. lancinator". IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PIN 552-2 is also still too robust. I've made a quick edit of your figure based on measurements from Maleev 1974 and a reposed version of Maleev's original diagram depicting PIN 552-2. Black is PIN 551-2 scaled down to match the skull-length for PIN 553-1. https://sta.sh/018wzmvwkf9131.151.8.113 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The skull of 551-2 is 1130mm long, lancinator is 970. So "G. lancinator" should be 16.5% smaller than 551-2 by your chart, which gives it a length of 7.3m in a straight line. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arguing over this image with FunkMonk on the species talk page, so I thought I'd put it here for discussion. I personally think the area of feather covering and the transition to scales is really jarring. I think in particular the feathers only covering the dorsal section of the tail is just odd looking. Also as feathers transition to scales in birds they usually get shorter as can be seen on a chicken foot, the feathers in the image are of a totally uniform length so it looks like the feathers have been stuck on with glue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally in the camp that tyrannosaurids should be depicted as scaly most of the time. Dryptosaurus, as a more basal species of similar mass to Yutyrannus, is a borderline case where I would personally lean towards scaly as well. However, while I find the 'feather cape' look to be visually unappealing, it does resemble the condition in ostriches so it's plausible. My biggest concern looking at this, though, is with the hands! They look much too large, and wouldn't something as close to tyrannosaurids as Dryptosaurus be likely to show some reduction of the third digit? The body-tail transition is also problematic and the large, visible scales are inaccurate given what is known of tyrannosaurid integument. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main complaint with the tail is that the lateral sides of the tail should also be covered with feathers, rather than just the top. I agree that on closer inspection the caudofemoralis appears to be lacking and looks pretty odd. I don't think any of the third digit is preserved in drypto, though other digits of the hand are as can be seen in this reconstruction Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I think the upward bend of the tail end is also pretty extreme, almost like one of Dollo's tail-breaking Iguanodon mounts, unless there's something I'm missing about the perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the tail, but I'm not sure how far into wrong it is. I also note that the shoulder region also looks a bit messed up. Finally, what about lips? It seems to be the consensus here to have lips, and this doesn't have them. Given that this image probably should be heavily edited or replaced, the question of "what kind of integument do we want it to have?" becomes more relevant. Regarding the tail, is there any reason to think it would be any more fully feathered than the body? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The size/shape of the forelimbs and teeth hanging out of lips for sure need to be fixed. Other stuff I don't know can be chalked up to scientific rahter than aesthetic complaints. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The base of the tail also definitely needs to be fixed. The ischium is missing! There are also plenty of animals with less fluff on their tail than their body, such as rats and Kulindadromeus, so I don't see any good reason to think a more feathered tail is necessarily preferable. There are enough problems in need of fixing here, though, that I think it's worth asking if it's worth starting over and making a new image that also avoids some of the more minor concerns with this image, such as integument distribution and aesthetic concerns. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like we have the man power to get many of these fixes done anymore? I don't have as much time as I used to myself. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok once again, I'll see what I can do. But tomorrow will be the last day I'll have free so if I can't get it done then, that might be it. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't have time, Tomopteryx? If nobody else is up for it, I can try and do a new Dryptosaurus reconstruction. What's the preferred feather distribution? I'm personally inclined to make it fully scaly, but I'm open to the feather cape or full feathering if y'all disagree. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would do full feathering but for conservativism sake partial feathered is probably best, whether it be cape, arm, tail or some combination thereof. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a rather philosophical matter, but I would hardly consider partial feathering the most conservative approach. In fact, I would consider it the most speculative approach of the three, given the lack of examples for such a feather distribution. Ostriches are the closest example, but there are plenty of reasons to question how good of an analogy they are for a rhinoceros-sized dinosaur. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're also the smallest rhinos, the only ones generally under one ton. It's perhaps not surprising that they'd be the hairiest on those grounds. Are you saying you think ostriches should be the model for Dryptosaurus or that you'd prefer fuller feathering than that? Ornithopsis (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was more to show that partial covering does exist, not related to size. Well, if I was to restore a large theropod myself today, I'd do something like this Tyrannosaurus autopsy model:[19]FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that amount of feathering, that was closer to what I was meaning by saying "partial" than the current dense partial feathering on the restoration. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally concerned that a sparse distribution of feathers, a la T. rex Autopsy, is not really supported by what's known in dinosaurs. All large dinosaurs with known integument appear to have had fully scaly skin, or seemingly densely feathered in the case of Yutyrannus. Ostriches have a "feather cape"-esque distribution, but it's unclear if that can be extrapolated to a much larger animal without pennaceous feathers. However, if you all agree that a sparse feather distribution is best I won't argue further. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus as to what those few patches of scales in large theropods mean, though. Darren Naish and others still say they could be taphonomic artifacts, and see Andrea Cau's recent FB posts:[20][21]FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I specified "all large dinosaurs". If feathers were ancestrally present in ornithodirans, as suggested by Kulindadromeus, the various scaly large herbivorous dinosaurs represent our best model for what reduced feather covering in a large dinosaur looks like. Also, when it comes to reliable sources, there's a published paper saying that tyrannosaurids were scaly versus speculation on social media saying otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to tyrannosaurs, what publications do we have, though? We have a single paper reporting tiny patches of skin (not counting Carr's "crocodile-scale" paper which was critisised), so it just seems way too early to make such definitive rules based on something that hasn't even been evaluated by other researchers. Likewise, we have two camps when it comes to theropod lips, but we shouldn't really be taking sides. By the way, there is now a Laelaps blog-post write up on the pebbly penguin-skin issue:[22] Not that we should use it is a source, but it shows there are different camps. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the only peer-reviewed article I'm aware of that comments on the issue at all indicates they have scales. Mark Witton has argued on Twitter [23] that the resemblance between the Palaeeudyptes skin and dinosaur 'scales' is only superficial, and that the dinosaur 'scales' show none of the indications of feathering present in the Palaeeudyptes skin. Ergo, tyrannosaurids were probably scaly in the regions with preserved skin. Not that that's decisive evidence re: Dryptosaurus. I'll post my Dryptosaurus reconstruction here one I'm done, hopefully within the next couple days. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Visible antorbital fenestra, pretty jarring transtion to featherless anterior portion of the skull, particularly in the lower jaw, where it looks like the two halves are separated. Not sure what the spike in the naris is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here again with another skeletal, this time Graciliceratops. As I stated in the description, cranial and vertebral remainds were omitted since they are pretty much fragmented (or badly figured). By the way, the remodel of Alectrosaurus skeletal will take some time, the papers are very uncommon and the meditions are mostly absent. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think skull and vertebrae should be illustrated in some capacity since they include the posterior mandible, most of the frill, and the entire presacral column. True they aren't all visible in lateral view but the frill can be modified from any related form to fit the proportions, and the vertebrae of ceratopsians really don't show much variability. A lot of potential is missing by excluding the skull and vertebrae. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, very good points, however, I don't really know how accurate the lower jaw will end up; it is very confusing in shape. Already working on the vertebrae. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great, my only comment on the skeletal is that the frill is known and should be white. As far as the remainder of the image, I would prefer if the cat is replaced with something smaller so that the skeletal can take up over 50% of the area of the skeletal (right now its probably below to 25%). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't see requests very much around a here, but I am in a bit of a pickle so I figured I would give it a shot. I am currently working on significant expansion of the Macrogryphosaurus article, but it and all of its immediate relatives lack anything in terms of open access images and have very little on Commons to supplement them. As things are, I will have essentially no images to fill in the space. If anyone was looking for a subject for a skeletal, size diagram, or reconstruction, it would be much appreciated. Even just some illustrations of some individual bones would be useful. Do be sure to follow the osteology well though, it is not a standard ornithopod by any stretch. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here we go. I had to scale it to the pubis as no longbones are known for this animal, but I got a length of ~5m which matches published estimates, so it seems to have worked fine. Missing elements filled in with Talenkauen. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]Life reconstruction of Macrogryphosaurus.
Thanks, but I think the proportions are off. Torso might be a tad bit too long - it should be a bit shorter than that of Talenkauen, which had two more dorsals than it - (and the shoulder muscles seem overbuilt, assuming that is what that is), but the main issue is that the neck is definitely too short, significantly so. In particular, I am looking at four images to support this. Firstly, the Talenkauen skeletal from its osteology. It has a somewhat longer neck than your reconstruction here, but that species should have a shorter neck overall. Second, an ornithopod silhouette from the Macrogryphosaurus osteology, the one in the map figure. This is a very rough metric, but with its proportions I cannot see it as anything else but tailor-made for the species. It definitely has a longer neck than your animal. Thirdly, there is a mounted skeletal reconstruction of a Macrogryphosaurus in Buenos Aires. Search "Megaraptor mount" on google images, it will be the thing in its jaws. This one shows a much longer neck than yours. Lastly, in Stephen Poropats report on South American ornithopods [24], he includes a picture of the whole holotype specimen stitched out. The neck is, again, much longer than yours, and this specimen does not even preserve all of the cervicals. The text says the preserved portion already measures over a metre long, something your entire neck definitely does not preserve. I imagine this last image would also help with the torso proportions. Anyways, this is why I made sure to disclaim that it is not a standard ornithopod. Also, the published size estimates are in the range of six metres, not five. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a reconstruction of Suskityrannus today and it seems there isn't one currently included, so I thought I'd put it up for potential use. There are a lot of images there already though for a short article, so we may not need it. Scaled to holotype specimen. Tomopteryx (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sure could replace the Timurlengia image, which appears to have been added as a stand in. It seems a bit too tilted forwards to be stable, but I guess it's about to take a step? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it appears to be based on the old Jaime Headden skull reconstruction, which is no longer accurate. Besides not taking the "Angaturama" specimen into account, it also has a bizzarely-shaped-snout with an unusual crest not known in any species. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼
Another thing I've noticed is that it's common in palaeoart to restore Ichthyovenator as having a fairly standard spinosaurid sail that looks like it's had a triangle-shaped piece taken out of it, instead of the sinosoidal, wave-like shape preserved in the actual fossils, which seems to be the case here. So that could be fixed as well. Speaking of Ichthyovenator, I made an updated version of my older restoration a while back[25], which I've been thinking about putting up for review here as it has some issues, mostly with the hind limbs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've been pinged multiple times about posting images without review, but they haven't responded here yet. Perhaps someone should notify them of this policy on their talk page? Also, Spinosaurus' sail looks rather low and flat-topped. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that he only edits occasionally, and usually only to add his own images to articles, so he's probably not checking wikipedia most of the time Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in many of his illustrations, the musculature of the tail is strange and does not match the bones. We would have to carefully review everyone's skulls, especially Spinosaurus. Also the back of Suchomimus looks strange. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sauropodomorph added this life restoration to the Mussaurus page without review. I think that it looks pretty good, but what do others think? This also reminds me that I planned to eventually make a Mussaurus size comparison, although that may not happen for a week or two. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the transfer to Commons has already been made, the funny thing is that I was thinking these days to correct my old and simple illustration of Mussaurus. But this one is very good. Only that the eye seems to be too high on the head, it would also be good if it became 5% larger. The muscles and skin in the tail do not seem to match the vertebrae and chevrons. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have made several fairly simple drawings of different dinosaurs, the vast majority have not really been illustrated here for the reason that there are very few known remains of each taxon, besides they have been described and named recently. I give reasons for the fact that of certain details in the drawings, and of my project in my user sandbox. Finally, only some have managed to give enough finish, and others lack many details especially Acantholipan, Adynomosaurus and Ahshislepelta. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aegyptosaurus is the one I can say the most about, but it actually looks quite nice. The narrowness of the limbs matches with the known limb fossils, which are quite gracile. And the small osteoderms is good for a probable basal lithostrotian. Acanthopholipan and Adelolophus also look good to me, I can't see anything in them that pops out at me as wrong. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theropod femora couldn't rotate backwards past 90 degrees relative to the pelvis, so you might wanna fix that up. --TKWTH (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should be good! I'd say there are some issues with the gait of the animal itself but that's all pedantry and really, who has the time? xD --TKWTH (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been making a few skeletal things, prompted by the restoration of Aegyptosaurus by Levi where I decided to redo my old and very poorly scaled limb bone image. Then I was asked to make the skull of Ngwevu, so I did that. I'll take requests if people have them, and I hope nothing is wrong with either of these two. The unknown material of Ngwevu isn't shown in a separate colour because I also restored the internal bones and I would need another two colours of grey which could be more confusing than just labeling it as a restored skull. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like to keep my images entirely text free, but if people want I can add labels. I make the scale bars clearly different colours for that reason, it's either in mm, cm, or m which can be identified based on the context. A 15cm Ngwevu skull isn't going to be shown with a 5mm scale bar, nor will a 1m humerus have a 10cm scale bar at the same height as it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, finally here is the updated skeletal for Alectrosaurus. I have fixed the femur and almost every bone, in terms of structure and length, any comments? By the way, I'll start to work on the Bayan Shireh faunal diagram. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reasoning behind removing the scapula and skull material? It would be nice to have those illustrated in the article, currently we only have an image of the leg bones. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes got it right, this skeletal is based on AMNH 6554, the most important specimen. I wasn't able to find the accurate measurements for specimens AMNH 6556, IGM 50 and 51, so, they were adjusted to match the size of AMNH 6554. In the previous version I just mixed everything with some fatal measurements. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saving the best till last. None of these images have an inaccurate tag on commons. While working on improving the Iguanodon article, I came to realise that we do not have a high-quality Iguanodon restoration on wikicommons. While obviously the 19th century images and the Azerbaijan stamp are hilariously inaccurate and need commons tags, I would also like to hear comments on Nobu Tamura's images, I know that these are under deletion discussion anyway, but they look proportionally a bit off to me. The Dinosaur isle model also looks to have an odd angle for the tail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think NT's images are fine (see DR discussion). As for the first image, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be "Dollodon". By the way, probably best for saving space if the images are put in a gallery.FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KoprX both images look nice, my one comment would be that the baby Spinosaurus should probably have slightly different proportions (longer skull, shorter sail) based on other theropods growth, but that is it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KoprX, sorry to bring this up so late in the game, but I think that Dropzink's Diplodocus is a trace over a copyrighted Hartman skeletal. Hartman's newer silhouette is available under CC BY 3.0, though: [27]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I already modified Dropzink's Diplodocus so it looks more like Hartman's skeletal silhouette. Both of artist are credited.KoprX (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restorations by Mariolanzas (was "Vallibonavenatrix restoration")
As far as the sauropodomorphs go, the Thecodonto is excellent, and the Melanorosaurus is also great, and both display the weird features of the two taxa (proportions, hands etc). The Patagotitan looks alright we can't yet tell whether it would've lacked the thumb claw, although the torso may be a bit deep, I can't quite tell. The Turiasaurus also looks good but there may be two hand claws? There should only be one but I can't tell from the resolution whether theres a second or just a shading artifact. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him on Instagram and he appears to be more active there than on other platforms, gonna try messaging him. He's responded to me before so there's no way he won't see it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is something odd about the perspective in the Saurophaganax's lacrimal horns. They should run in parallel (as in other allosaurs), but here it looks like they are somehow "flaring" to the sides, kind of like the crest of Cryolophosaurus. And speaking of Cryo, the image of its head here also seems way too speculative to use, we are not supposed to show our own extreme ideas not reflected in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Below unsigned comment from Mariolanzas]
It seems that some of the issues ¨reviewed¨ on this page are in many cases just minor details open for interpretation and treated here as an excuse for the editors as to decide which pieces to keep or reject mostly based on their personal perceptions.
Mariolanzas, while your artwork is very nice, due process exists here for a reason. This is not DeviantArt, but an encyclopedia where verifiability and accuracy are important factors. Images need to adhere closely to sources and not present unpublished ideas to avoid falling under original research. That means that they need to be sourced and reviewed, neither of which is happening with your images. Indeed, this page exists because of a historical precedent. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though the images are mostly good, some of the speculation goes outside the bounds of what is supported by even the "All Yesterdays" books. But Wikipedia is even stricter when it comes to novel interpretations, and we need to reflect published sources. For example, no spinosaurids are known to have had downturned snouts, therefore the Vallibonavenatrix image fails the criteria established by phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mariolanzas I understand how frustrating it must be to pour hours into a piece of artwork only to have others tear it down for minor details. However this is to be expected in Paleoart, if you were doing commercial work for a museum for instance you'd expect similar feedback. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we are required to go through this strict review process, otherwise we could be shut down by the rest of Wikipedia, and usermade paleoart wouldn't even be allowed. And trust me, there have been several attempts at that. So this is a small price to pay. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Bob Nicholls talking about this, saying the scrutiny is much stronger than for normal artwork and quite off putting initially, and you have to get used to it.FunkMonk, can you link to the attempts to shutdown this process? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were some more aggressive attempts too, but I only kept the links hat lead to our policy of being more rigorous with sourcing. I'll see if I can dig one of the other cases up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: While the osteoderm distribution in titanosaurs is not known for sure, the Patagotitan reconstruction does not resemble any of the suggested distributions discussed in the literature and is at odds with the consensus that titanosaurs had few osteoderms. The tail of the Patagotitan also looks unreasonably thick at the base. The Inostrancevia reconstruction appears to be good in terms of all of the frequent mistakes I'm a stickler about. Agreed that the Cryolophosaurus is too speculative to use as is. As I am wont to say, remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just added another one, Pelicanimimus this time. Mariolanzas, you know about the review page, yet continue to add images to articles without dropping them off here first, and fixing any potential inaccuracies/errors. We very much appreciate and welcome the contributions you're making, but as stated above, there are some rules for this and they exist for a reason. And that reason is pretty much the same as why you wouldn't just put your artwork into a scientific paper/journal or museum exhibit without consultation or peer review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, well I have uploaded a couple of images to commons, the one from Mosaiceratops had already been revised, but I had never uploaded it, Boreonykus was a quick drawing that never came up because it was possibly a chimera, but now I pass here to see if they have anything to modify. Please any comment is useful. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
I have cut and edited the illustration of Thomas Wright's Oplosaurus tooth to add it to commons. Any necessary changes? I think I can still see some letters and words on the other side of the page in the drawing. In addition I have redrawn the photograph of Nesbitt Ezcurra 2011 of "Teyuwasu". Any comment? --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I came across this image by change, by Fanboyphilosopher and theres a bit of an issue. It is almost exactly the skull in Nesbitt et al. 2019, which is a bit of a copyright issue. While the bones can't be copyrighted the skull restoration certainly can, and it's not so complete as to have every skull image be the same. As well, the posterior end of the dentary shown as known in the published diagram is unknown here, and the colours are so similar for some bones as to be confusing. I would suggest removing the colour altogether because of the confusion and lack of reproducibility (unusable in other wikis), individual bones should be understandable enough from the description, a basic sense of anatomy, or following the links in text. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid Many images in papers say "redrawn from" another image to get around copyright, so I don't understand why this would be an issue (I have changed the description on commons to "redrawn from"). I did this with my Concavenator skull which was (sloppily) traced from an image of a 3d model. A skull is a natural object and thus a technical drawing of it from lateral view is not copyrightable. The colouration makes it distinct from the original black and white drawing. I admit that I find the nature of the dotted lines confusing and they don't serve to locate the preserved portions of bone particularly well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this is it is not the natural object that is being reproduced. The skull of Asilisaurus is too incomplete for a single definitive restoration (which is different from Concavenator or Massospondylus or Tyrannosaurus or Herrerasaurus) which means this is copying the authors *interpretations* (the copyrightable bit). Publications that redraw from previous studies don't actually get around the copyright, we aren't able to host redrawn images if the original isn't also in a freely licensed paper. Publications are allowed to use originals or redrawings because of the mandatory reproducibility of science, but the copyright of a redrawn image is no different from the image it is redrawn from. That's one of the reasons we aren't allowed to use Scott Hartman skeletal redrawings or reposes, because they take the artists interpretations of the fossil material, and while the fossils aren't copyrighted, the interpretations are. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: If that was the case, we would have to remove the image of Asfaltovenator, as the base of the image was blatantly copied from an old allosaurus reconstruction by him without permission (it's clearly visible in the torso). The image in the paper with restored sections in red shows that the skull is substantially complete, so I think it's ok. I personally think the image will be fine if the jaw is rotated by about 30 degrees or so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for my decisions surrounding this diagram are a bit complicated. Most of my diagram is traced over the one from the paper, I fully admit that. I was stuck in a situation where I could either go with the interpretation of a much more talented skeletal artist (S.H.), or offer my own interpetation, which would likely have a bit of original research. The skull is actually fairly complete, so I was confident that S.H.'s interpretation was very close to the actual anatomy. It also resembles the skull of the FMNH mount, which was based on scans of the original fossils if I recall correctly. In the end I decided to trace over the original diagram. If most of the skull was missing, I would probably not have taken the chance. I did make slight changes wherever I could see differences between the diagram and the fossils. One example would be the antorbital fossa, which looked too narrow in the original diagram compared to the photos and description in the rest of the paper. Another example would be the rear of the dentary being shaded as if it was present, even though it was not described in the paper at all. I could have made more changes so that my estimates of the missing bones are not identical to Hartman's, but I have no reason to think his are wrong and adding my own speculative outlines would edge on original research. For example, I slightly increased the height of the surangular to bring it in line with other herbivory-trending dinosauromorphs, and I'm not sure if I should go further. I'm basically walking a tightrope between possible copyright infringement and original research, and I have tried my best not to lean too far in either direction. My color-coding preferences are a whole other can of worms, but on a fundamental level they are identical to those of the Dromaeosaurus skull diagram created by AS. That diagram is currently in use on the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy and no one has objected to it. Overall, while I have basically created a derivative work, it is transformative, important for context, and unlikely to adversely affect the income received through the original work (a 61 page scientific monograph, in which the skull diagram takes up less than 1/4 of a page). The line at which it crosses into fair use is a bit fuzzy in this situation thanks to the numerous variables, but I think it's safe. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia I honestly think the Asfalto image should be removed, but I'm going to leave that up to others because I could also see the rationale of the silhouette being de minimis, and without the silhouette is would be much harder to immediately identify it as Hartman's. With regards to the image itself, a few things appear to me. The premaxilla as traced is a bit *too* perfect, in the fossil the anterior end is a lot more flattened, the nasal fossa is less distinct, and the foramen is more prominent. The posterior mandible is more complete than in the published diagram, it is visible in fig. 19 labeled as "D". The anterior tip of the dentary is similarly "perfected" in the diagram, in all the known fossils the anteriormost tip is mid-height or below, yet Hartman's drawing places it noticeably above mid-height. The frontal would be flatted, the squamosal more dorsally convex and with a shallowed posterior process, and the quadratojugal more preserved and less acute based on the fossils. The upside is the image is probably easily adjusted to fix these, but the downside is that such changes were necessary in the first place based on the use of the papers "perfected" diagram. I would have no objections to the use of the diagram as a base for which to determine articulations and angles, but using their drawings of the bones instead of your own causes the issue of potential copyright issues. add on Additionally with the Asfaltovenator, the bones themselves have been modified in the skeletal, the humerus for example is completely new, so the use of Hartman's skeletal as a base from which the new bones were placed also means it is less a copy and more a derivative (though the paper should have attributed him still). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid I have had trouble interpreting figure 19, but the text does note that it depicts part of the posterior dentary, so I can make that change. I also agree with your observation that the tip of the dentary should be positioned more ventrally. I disagree with your argument that the squamosal should have a shallower posterior process and convex dorsal surface, as neither of those are apparent in the fossil (fig. 11). The outline and orientation of the quadratojugal is unclear where pictured (fig. 5), and the text notes that it is "only represented by a small fragment still in articulation with the quadrate". I'm not sure what you mean by making the frontal flatter, S.H. (and by extension myself) compromised in shape between fig. 10B and 10E, though I could chosen the latter in hindsight. The text says "Its dorsal surface is nearly flat anteriorly, dorsally expanded in the lateral portion across the orbital margin, and ventrally depressed in the posterior third of the element." Finally, S.H.'s depiction of the premaxilla is extremely close to the actual fossil, so I barely changed it. I can definitely revise the diagram when I have time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The premaxilla, quadratojugal and posterior dentary are fine then, this is your diagram so it should probably be how you see the fossils. However, the squamosal posterior process, if the height is correct, has the quadrate articulation too centered, in fig 11 the quadrate head articulated directly into the flange labelled, which is maybe 1/4 up the fossil, and this change would likely also raise the parietal and posterior postorbital process unless you rotated it a bit counterclockwise. Using the known fossils certainly isn't OR, and changes to the unknown material in order to better articulate the known bones shouldn't be either because tha anatomy is already quite conservative. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as the postorbital process being depicted as too narrow, and I will revise it once I look over the text to make sure that my suspicions are justified. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complicate issue, and this is not the first skeletal drawn after one in a paper. Maybe the issue should be up at one of the copyright fora at Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what the policy is in these kinds of situations. I've created a fairly transformative tracing of a skull diagram originally published as a small component of a copyrighted scientific monograph. I don't know whether the copyright is owned by the artist or the authors who commissioned his work, though I know the main author IRL so I may get some answers that way. It seemingly meets most of the fair use criteria apart from minimal usage (as I replicated some artistic license such as the shape of the postorbital). At that point the problem is whether changing the outline in those situations would infringe on original research policies. I am of the opinion that S.H. would do a better job estimating the true anatomy than I would, so I wouldn't want to alter it in those areas anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I think the main issue is whether any derivative image is likely to cause issues with the author of the original work. For example for the Kamuysaurus issue, we have had an explicit request (presumably from the artist) to remove the image (admittedly only in the very weak form of removing it from the article and leaving a message on their user page). Yet the image is still on commons and in the article. Would the authors of the paper object to having their image traced to be used in a diagram on wikipedia? A lot of this is a bit touch and go depending on individual whims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely remove it if Scott Hartman expressed an issue with it being too close to his work. The Kamuysaurus issue is not really related to this discussion, as that artwork was supplied through a paper with a free license while the Asilisaurus monograph is under more restrictive copyright. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference is that life restorations like that are of undisputed artistic nature. But a skull diagram like this has choices based on a scientific rather than artistic basis. So it is a bit of a fringe issue and again I think the easiest solution is to bring it up at Commons, for example here:[29] Fair use is only for fair use images, by the way, which are not allowed on Commons. But if we wanted to keep it under fair use, we could just as well use the original. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the original has issues (as listed by IJReid), then we should not use it. Moreover, from what I know of fair use images, reducing the resolution may be necessary if it was classified as one. I think the debate at this point is whether my image is derivative enough to be classified as a derivative work. What would we make of it if I edit it to the point that the only aspects it shares with the original are the outlines of the preserved bones, which cannot be copyrighted. Would it be a derivative work at that point? Truth be told I'm worried about bringing this up at Commons, because I don't know how to properly state how I only traced over S.H.'s image because I considered it the most accurate depiction of Asilisaurus's skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made sveral edits as suggested by IJReid. The squamosal, dentary, and frontal now have shapes more similar to the photos in the source and the jaw is rotated as per Hemiauchenia's suggestion. The middle of the jaw has also been altered after comparisons with Silesaurus, Kwanasaurus, and Lewisuchus, though it is still very speculative. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its been a while, I have been working on a page expansion for Erlikosaurus (already expanded) and an updated skeletal for it. Nothing much to say really, the only thing that bothers me is the 30 cm long humerus, which is massive compared to the skull, comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reasoning behind the unknown elements? They seem extremely arbitrary to me. In particular, I am surprised the (unpreserved) manus is included while the (actually preserved) cervical vertebrae are not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say include a full grey unpreserved skeleton or remove it all. Also, the greyed hand unguals seem incredibly long and curved. Not sure which other therizinosaur shave such morphology. Either they are very long and relatively straighter, like Therizinosaurus, or they are very curved and relatively shorter, like Nothronychus. Cool with the article expansion, but I wonder why you have uploaded these image under CC licences:[31][32] As far as I can see, they are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think that the pectoral girdle could be left in the skeletal, since the humerus may confuse some readers. The claws were based on Nothronychus, as you pointed. Lythronaxargestes The cervicals are not illustraded and the quantity is unknown, therefore I omitted those remains. As for the images, I thought that the skull file was allowed? and for the foot image, I wasn't sure of the permissions surrounding it, and to find the permissions. I thought that it could supply the article but apparenly it needs to be removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that paper itself does not seem to have any free licence attached to it. Their terms of use makes clear that there is no one overall licence, as some journals have. Which makes sense, since Taylor and Francis is not a journal, but a company that owns various journals. As for the claws, the unguals of Nothro[33] don't seem nearly as long relatively, so I think they need to be shorter in the diagram. Also, which I somehow overlooked, Erliko seems very small? Greg Paul gives an estimate of 6 metres, and though I see Holtz gives 3.4 metres, how do you end up at 2.4 metres? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurrent topic in dinosaurs and skeletals, most authors give length and measurements without taking into account the actual remains. The skull of Erlikosaurus is 25-26 cm, how in the world will an animal with such small head reach 6 m? 3.4 m seems more reasonable, however in order to reach that, the remains would need to be scaled-up, very unnatural and inaccurate. They do estimates yes, but these estimates could be applied to the genus, very unlikely for the particular specimen (at least the estimate fits the preserved remains reasonably). My skeletals are oriented to particular specimens, the representative ones. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if you say this is your own personal estimate, we have a problem with WP:original research, which is not allowed (not saying your estimate is right or wrong). At the least, you should use the smallest published estimate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the scale bar 2.4m long or is the Erlikosaurus 2.4m long? I'd reccommend removing the 2.4m scale bar, as it's rather confusing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think what added to the confusion is that you had a different length written on the image. It made it seem like you were going for that unpublished length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The actual axial length of this reconstruction is approximately 3.7 meters. Also, the skull looks a little small—the basal skull length in this reconstruction is only around 23 cm, whereas the Theropod Database lists it as 23.7 cm. Sure, that's only a 3% difference, but it's something, and might help explain a portion of why it seems undersized. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With Allosaurus jimmadseni finally being named it would make sense to update the size diagram, which can be seen here: [34]. In this version, I've added the type specimens of all 3 species and separated them into their own columns. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: I feel like it might be slightly misleading as presented, as both depicted specimens of A. jimmadseni are immature. It could give the impression that A. fragilis was substantially larger than A. jimmadseni, but I don't think that's the case. I don't know the ontogenetic status of any of the other specimens depicted here. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to have them ordered by size again, maybe in a line, but this would mean the species would be jumbled up together which might be confusing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding paper also find SMA 005 to be a. jimmadseni its definitely bigger than two immature specimens maybe you could include it? KoprX (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into SMA 0005, there's the skeletal from Froth et al. and there are decent side views of a mount available, according to the paper it's about 12% larger than MOR693 at about 7.5m but I would like some specific measurements (like a femur measurement) to verify that. Looking at Chure & Loewen 2020 it seems like there are specimens reaching comparable sizes to other A. fraglis specimens and clearly larger than MOR 690 and SMA 0005 (looking at the jugals in fig 12.). Part of the issue is citability and avoiding OR. I could try and estimate based on the size of those jugals, but it could be original research. I've spent several hours researching (ugh) trying to find claims of adulthood etc. I have so far found adult claims for AMNH 4734, MOR 680, subadult claims for Big al, DINO 11541; I have yet to find any claim of maturity for DINO 2560 (aka. UUVP 6000) which is weird considering it's one of the most well-known individuals, I must be missing something obvious. It doesn't seem like A.europaeus has been described in detail yet, I haven't currently found any sources that state the maturity of the specimen. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a version that includes Big Al 2 SMA 0005. [35] Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete (just missing a few bits near the tip fo the tail, assuming the info here is correct [36]) and seems to have a very short tail. Maybe this is the norm for the species (Big Al only preserves 2 and the type is incomplete) but it looks very different from the other silhouettes. Scaling is slightly questionable; I couldn't find any measurements for this specimen other than, 'it's about 12% larger than Big Al at about 7.6m long. I took the images of the lower jaw, ischium, and a vertebra from Foth et al., which don't' have measurements but have scale bars, scaled them into the skeletal reconstruction; that gave me a total length of ~7.6m... so I assume it's scaled somewhat correctly? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram by Marmelad may have to be updated because the allosaurid specimen NMMNH P-26083 has been mentioned in the literature as being about the size of the Epanterias holotype and Saurophaganax, and given that the second edition of Greg Paul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs puts the size of Saurophaganax at 35 feet long, the Epanterias holotype might be a bit smaller (like, say, 34-36 feet) than estimated in the diagram. Therefore, it could be prudent to add NMMNH P-26083 to the diagram but also the holotype of Allosaurus lucasi (YPM VP 57589) because super-large allosaur specimens are rare compared with normally-sized Allosaurus skeletons, and the Epanterias silhouette could be shrunken a bit.70.175.133.224 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
The original idea was that File:Allosaurus size comparison.svg was supposed to replace Marmelad's version. At some point, we removed Epanterias because of the limited material and to focus on clear Allosaurus specimens. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having just uploaded the update, I re-read the theropod database and a couple papers and saw the location info for AMNH 680 is Bone Cabin Quarry, Salt Wash Member. In Chure 2020, Salt Wash Member is where the type of A.jimmadseni and both Big Als' are from. Does that mean that AMNH 680 is probably A.jimmadseni? I'm probably going to remove it in case it is. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly indicates it is A. jimmadseni but we cant be sure it doesn't preserve jugal. What would be the biggest definitive A. fragilis AMNH 290, NMMNH P-26083?KoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steveoc 86Actually Theropod database states that AMNH 680, 290 and 275 all comes from Salt Wash member so that indicates that either all big allosaurus specimens are A. jimmadseni or both A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni live in Salt WashKoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to look into that at this point, I'm going to remove AMNH 680 for the time being. It doesn't sound like NMMNH P-26083 has been officially referred to A.fragiis; also, are NMMNH 26083 and NMMNH P 26083 the same specimen? Both are large, from Brushy Basin Member, New Mexico? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AMNH 275 is a femur only, AMNH 290 is composed of hindlimb, metacarpal, and foot bones only, while AMNH 680 is a partial postcranial skeleton. AMNH 275 might also belong to a non-allosaurid tetanuran, while the lack of cranial material for AMNH 680 makes in hard to say for sure if that specimen is Allosaurus fragilis, A. jimmadseni or similar to "Camptonotus" amplus, because even though the stratigraphic locations of the fossil sites from which YPM 1879 and AMNH 680 were collected fall within the stratigraphic range for A. jimmadseni (see Turner and Peterson 1999; figure 7), the uppermost end of the stratigraphic range for jimmadseni partly overlaps with the lower end of the A. fragilis stratigraphic range.70.175.133.224 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Talking about Allosaurus has reminded me of this old size chart of mine, and how badly it needs updating. I'm wondering what to do about it - shuld I include multiple specimens (probably the humerus for a big Saurophaganax and the femur for a smaller one)? Which skeletal should I use? Also, I'm wondering if I should throw a big Allosaurus and "Epanterias" in there as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the size comparison - what do people think? Big Al was removed for arbitrarily showing a small, immature Allosaurus and the great variability of Allosaurus' size. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you use the Saurophaganax skeletal of Franoys for the Saurophaganax size comparison update?
Are you sure about that head shape for Big Al 2? Seems very different from all the other specimens in the image, jimmadseni or otherwise... :/ Also, do you think it would be a good idea to add A. maximus? --TKWTH (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The head is very close to the skeletal, Big Al 2 seems to have a somewhat bulbous snout and strongly defined lacrimal horns. Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete and has a very short tail, assuming it's restored correctly. Considering that both Big Al and the type don't have complete tails it could be they also would have had shorter tails as well. A maximus isn't always considered a valid Allosaurus species so I'm reluctant to add it in just yet. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion on the Erilikosaurus skeletal reminded me that I have some concerns with Vallibonavenatrix's inclusion in this size chart. When I mentioned to Eotyrannu5 that there aren't any published estimates for it, he said that he based its length on measurements of the known fossils from its description paper. However, that means he's still the one deciding how to apply those measurements and extrapolate the animal's possible length (presumably based on related taxa to fill in the gaps), which definitely crosses the WP:OR boundary. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all length estimates are specimen specific and approximate? As long as there is a note saying that the length is approximate and the length isn't considered defintive, I don't think it's a violation of OR. Ultimately something has to give, otherwise we just end up in a quagmire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main difference here is that we do have length estimates for Erliko, therefore making them up ourselves isn't justified. I guess there are no published estimates for this dinosaur, but if we make up an estimate, we should state this clearly, and what other genus the proportions are based on. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something else I just noticed, Irritator and Vallibonavenatrix appear to be traced from the spinosaurine silhouettes by Aureliano et al. (2019)[37], which is not a free paper.[38] Though perhaps with Irritator it's not too big a concern since it uses a different pose. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Spinosaurus is very similar to Franoy's silhouette as well, something I brought up the previous time around. Eotyrannu5 excused it as being a difficult taxon to pose convincingly, but surely the animal could be easily depicted at a different point in the walk cycle, with the neck more extended, the jaws opened/closed further, the arm more forewards, the tail posed differently, etc.? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is true, and I am also certain we have discussed the silhouettes before and came to the conclusion they were not copyvios. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Vallibonavenatrix one is definitely an exact trace though (again from a non-free paper), so it should at least use a different pose. The comment by FunkMonk above also makes me wonder about the implications, does this mean we're allowed to extrapolate our own size estimates now for scale diagrams if there aren't any? As long as we clearly state what we based them on, like with the life restorations? Seems like a bit of a slippery slope... But then again, one could argue that similar issues may apply to user-made skeletals, which are similarly technical and often involve reconstructing missing bones based on relatives. So as long as the references used are clearly stated, I guess it shouldn't be a problem. However, it should probably be clarified in the diagram that the estimate pertains to that particular specimen. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, there are some noticable differences between the one hera and the papers. The back is almost sail-less, the arm is retissued while still in the same pose, the tail is lengthened and the neck is more natural. I can't tell if the leg has been modified, and the lack of change for the skull makes sense because of its completeness, so it would be quite hard to tell whether it is a unique silhouette in the same pose or the old silhouette but with several tissue changes. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about size estimates certainly isn't any kind of guideline (was more like saying it's better to base on related animals than contradicting published estimates), I think we should actually have a talk page discussion about this; what to do with size comparisons and skeletal diagrams when such haven't been published for a given animal before... And then work out a policy we can add to the top of the page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've seen Eotyrannu5 being accused of plagiarizing skeletals, but I know that he's under the names of AlternatePrehistory and BritishPaleontology on Deviantart, and he makes skeletals and uploads them there, so I've (I think reasonably) assumed that his Carcharodontosauridae and Spinosauridae skeletals were based on his own, yet unpublished skeletals, escepially because I've seen noticeable differences compared to the skeletals of Francisco Bruňén (Franoys), Henrique Paes (randomdinos) and Scott Hartman when looking at the silhouettes of his Carcharodontosauridae size comparison, and less so, but still noticeable differences when looking at the silhouettes of his Spinosauridae size comparison.
Right, at this point you may as well remove the image, I've lost the original file when my hard drive was corrupted and I'm not willing to make another as I have other priorities outside of wikipedia and having much of an online presence. Also seems that this whole thread has been accusing me of plagiarism (of my own skeletals with some) and I don't have the time to deal with any of this right now. I suggest using another Spinosaurid chart, because I do not have the time or patience to go through with making another. Eotyrannu5-2 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's fine because we don't really know if the teeth were covered with lips or whether the naked skin had scales. But many would probably find it unlikely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that we don't have enough evidence for lips. I also tried to make cracked ceratin rather than scales like in crocks.ARSDRACO (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cracked keratin of crocodilians was a very specialized structure correlated with heavily texture bones. Dinosaurs don't have those kinds of bones, and instead had bone texture correlated with lizard-like facial covering. Otherwise it looks very nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not settled, sure. While most paleontologists are leaning towards lips on the basis of bone structure (Witton, Hone, Headden), there are a few dissenters (Carr) who use phylogenetic bracketing to argue that dinosaurs were lipless because they lie between crocodilians and birds. I would recommend reading up on some of Mark Witton's work (like here[40]) if you have not already. At the very least we should avoid crocodilian-style cracked keratinous skin in troodontids. That is excessive speculation unsupported by both bone structure and phylogenetic bracketing (since it's absent in birds). Also, ARSDRACO, can you please sign your replies with four tildes? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lips are far less up for debate than many people here seem to think. Lips are the default for tetrapods, and are only absent in particularly specialised animals. Liplessness is the exception, not the rule. Crocs and birds are both very specialised, we just got unlucky that they're both the closest living relatives to dinosaurs. While yes, there are no papers explicitly supporting lips, they are the parsimonious option, and should be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It's common sense. --TKWTH (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but parsimony could just as easily be used to argue for liplessness as Carr has done. And Wikipedia cannot possibly cite the common sense among specialist practitioners. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Carr has only argued for liplessness in tyrannosaurs, Daspletosaurus specifically, and even that has been said to be less than airtight. No such evidence exists for paravians. I struggle to understand why so many people are grasping at straws to justify liplessness in the face of its sheer unlikeliness. --TKWTH (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what Lythronax is saying is that for our purposes, where everything has to be backed up with reliable sources, there isn't really much that has been published in defence of lips either. And what we as editors think is common sense is irrelevant if we can't back it up with citations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but... I dunno, man, it really comes down to a case of likelihood. There's simply a lot more reason to believe dromaeosaurs and their kin had lips than reason to believe they didn't, and with all the misinformation and reaches and fanboy wishful thinking floating around about the subject, I'll admit I find it a little... irresponsible to depict this animal without lips when there's simply no reason to believe that's the case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. While it's true that we don't really have any hard evidence either way, lips seem to be the default state for all tetrapods, and while that's tenuous, admittedly, tenuous evidence is still more reliable than no evidence, at least if you ask me. And liplessness in paravians simply has no evidence.
Also let's be honest lips are just so much easier to draw and including them saves a lot of work lmao but i suppose that's neither here nor there. My initial point still stands. --TKWTH (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree it is more likely, recommend it, and try to follow it, yes, but I don't think there is strong enough evidence for us removing images that show exposed teeth if we encounter them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more serious issue I just noticed, the image gives it quite a bit of an underbite, unlike what's shown in the skeletal:[41] Lower jaw should be much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the depth of the front of the upper and lower jaws; your drawing shows the lower jaw as deep as the upper jaw there. The skeletal shows the lower jaw much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this has had an inaccuracy tag on it for some time because of issues with the leg musculature, which I think I've fixed. do the hind legs look okay? (that's the only thing up for debate, everything else is fine as is).Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything, I added those tags during the process of archival because points from earlier discussion hadn't been resolved. I think both are fine now. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patagotitan 2
A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.
Yes AFAIK. I don't have the source for it though, but maybe someone else does.
Lognkosaurs had them by way of phylogenetic bracketing with Malawisaurus and Mendozasaurus, so I have no issue with their presence. The arrangement is also fine they are sparse on the torso and tail. The neck is a bit fat for my preference but theres also the idea that sauropods had thicker necks so its within the realm of possibility. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Osteoderms are fine. Alamosaurus could reach similar sizes to Patagotitan and had osteoderms, and as IJReid said phylogenetic bracketing suggests they were present or at least possible. Better to have them than not, though either option is within the realm of possibility IMO. I personally think that the "horn-like" osteoderms are a bit of an art meme, though, FWIW. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the thickness of the neck, generally it's fine, but it looks implausibly thick under the jaw. Looks like it would have trouble rotating its head up or down. It would need to taper a bit more, unless it is supposed to represent some sort of dewlap, which seems implausible because the shading indicates the lower margin of the neck just keeps its width throughout too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough information on osteoderms to be sure. Mendozasaurus is the only definite colossosaur with preserved osteoderms, so we can't be sure whether that osteoderm anatomy is unique to Mendozasaurus or a general feature of colossosaurs. I suspect that there's more variation in the osteoderm appearance than the current nearly universally spiky trend, though. Agreed with FunkMonk on the neck. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Size charts and missing attribution and/or copyvio
One thing that I've always attempted to do when making size charts is to make original silhouettes (except that one time when I used a PD silhouette for Anchiceratops). I know that not everyone does this, and it is rather common for the silhouettes of others to be used in these sorts of diagrams. This is perfectly okay as long as the silhouettes are correctly licensed and properly attributed. However, this is not always the case, so I thought that it would be good to bring up some cases of size charts that are missing attribution or contain copyvio. I appologize in advance if I've made any errors here. Also, I'm sure that these are not the only ones. Feel free to add any more that you find. Also note that many of these size charts have multiple iterations uploaded as different files. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tail tip seems undermuscled and I think that the tail may be too short. The legs, head & neck look like they were just taken from the Hartman skeletal, so their posture should be changed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the tail may actually be a little too long now. Also, Stegosaurus had a huge number of tiny osteoderms on the underside of its neck. These seem to have formed a sort of shallow dewlap, so there should probably be more flesh under the jaw. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on some Stegosaurus silhouettes myself, and I discovered that S. ungulatus apparently had considerably longer hindlimbs than S. stenops. For plate arrangement, I followed Paul's skeletal for plate shape and rearranged them so the corresponding plates were in the same positions as S. stenops. The elbows of both could do with being a bit more flexed as well, right now they're uncomfortably ramrod straight. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also find S.ungulatus to have longer hindlimbs but i didn't know exactly how much longer. I did this feature more prominent. For plate shape i used GetAwayTrike's skeletal but it seems that he uses Paul's too so I think it looks fine. I rearranged plates to correspond with stenops. Finally elbows fixed.KoprX (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure, but S. ungulatus does preserve considerable amounts of hindlimb material, in addition to vertebrae, so I think that this trait is probably genuine, at least to some extent. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgosaurus
A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.
That high nasal ridge seems like too much speculation. And the fact that it is almost just a black silhouette and has no details makes it useless compared to images we have already. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're watching it on a phone, put the brightness to the max. You can see that it's partly dark blue instead of being completely black then. Also, the brown restoration cureently used in the Gorgosaurus article has a too extensive feather coat.
Our current Ankylosaurus size chart showing the maximum size of the largest specimen is looking a little... small. I've created a new version showing the two most complete specimens, with CMN 8880 matching the 8m length estimate. Comments? Also, the new version of PhyloCode comes out tomorrow! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are they scaled to their skull lengths here (55.5 and 64.5 cm in length)?
Hmm... looks like the GAT skeletal may have had too big a head. I'll have to fix that. The femoral length should be correct (I measured it before and it matched up w/ the published length). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the proportions of his skeletal give a length of 7 m for CMN 8880. It's even mentioned in the comments on Deviantart.
It looks a bit confusing with the many different coloured legs, because it is hard to see at a glance which attaches where. Maybe it would be best to simplify it so each dinosaur has a single colour? Or make their colours even more different, so they aren't both green.FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going to start working on a skeletal and life restoration for Angolatitan, since it's the only dinosaur known from Angola so far and the article has no images. What should I base the reconstruction on? I'm rather unfamiliar with sauropods, but from what I'm getting from the article it should be something between the likes of Brachiosaurus and Euhelopus? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's closely related to Chubutisaurus, and Asier Larramendi's skeletal of Chubutisaurus doesn't seem too problematic at a glance [42]. Andesaurus, Ligabuesaurus, and Sauroposeidon are also probably fairly close relatives. Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan is also worth referencing, but I'd be cautious about basing it off of Euhelopus, because some studies find it to be a basal macronarian and there was an SVP abstract recently indicating it may be a mamenchisaurid. I'm not sure what you should base the head on. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most phylogenetically appropriate skull would probably be Sarmientosaurus regardless of its taxonomic position, because of its largely intermediate morphology between brachiosaurs and other titanosaurs. It still has the nasal projection and a flat maxillary ventral edge, and the skull isn't controversial like Malawisaurus. Otherwise the best bet would be an edit of either Euhelopus or Brachiosaurus to fit the maxilla of "Paluxysaurus" and the posterior skull of Phuwiangosaurus. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankylosaurus, Edmontonia and Suaropelta
So an IP has brought these to our attention, and I thnk they look quite nice. The only real issue is that the Ankylosaurus tail may be too short since it looks to be based on the old Carpenter skeletal, but perhaps someone else knows better whether it is actually wrong. The Edmontonia can probably be cropped to remove some whitespace easily. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that up, I was halfway through formulating a far more verbose response with exactly the same message. I'm not too upset personally as it's not like this damages me from a career or reputation perspective, but it is still pretty blatant plagiarism, which I'm sure none of us are exactly fond of. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's similar, but it's not completely the same.
I guess technically they're right. It's not completely the same. But I'm confident enough in the judgement of most of the users involved in this project that no argument needs to be had regarding the obvious degree of similarity. The question becomes whether or not it's acceptable. I'd rather they were changed as a matter of principle - I'd not be happy if another artist's work had been used like this without expressed permission. Ultimately though I don't care enough to argue over it, so if the majority opinion opposes my own then I won't lose any sleep. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the uploader will bother responding here, but one thing we could do easily is to change the colours in Photoshop with the hue options. Changing the pattern would be major work, though. The reds are obviously based on Borealopelta, but there is no reason to believe all ankylosaurs would necessarily be reddish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple licenses are allowed as long as the artist has decided them. But yeah, though unlikely, it could be a fake account. In any case, I think we should try to get the uploader to respond here, some of their other works have also been reviewed, and some anatomical issues have been pointed out that should be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I uploaded the originals initially to use as examples in response to this post but DrawingDinosaurs responded faster than I could. Truthfully I forgot to take them down but seeing as I lack the time to follow up on the plagiarism I figure I might as well leave them on commons.--Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About fourteen months ago (fourteen?!), I created new size comparisons for Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus since the previous ones had the postcranium of Tyrannosaurus instead of their actual proportions (and to show another Gorgosaurus specimen). I overlooked the albertosaurine comparison at the time, but after completely redoing my albertosaurines again, I went ahead and made a new version of our current chart. Interestingly, this time Gorgosaurus was found to be bigger. Any comments on either version? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice update. Wouldn't these and their separate size comparisons need an update though? If I remember well, you made these when the skeletals of Henrique were 8.8 m for Albertosaurus and 9 m for Gorgosaurus, but now it's 9 m for Albertosaurus and 9.3 m for Gorgosaurus, and the proportions are a bit different. Maybe I'm wrong though, and they're already that long here in a way (there are different ways to measure a dinosaur AFAIK).
They are already that way: Albertosaurus was updated last month and Gorgosaurus yesterday, and randomdinos had alreadt updated his skeletals by then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a size comparison showing multiple Irritator specimens, in "honor" of the irritation of Huinculsaurus being published behind a paywall and thus rendering my Huincul size chart inaccurate. If anyone can give me some vertebral lengths for this taxon, it would be much appreciated. Anyways, how does this size chart look accuracy-wise? Should I add any more specimens? Also, are there any old size charts of mine that you'd like to see overhauled? I can't guarantee anything immediately but it would help to give me an idea of what to work on. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely zero measurements for the non-caudal material, which is featured only in a single publication (and irritated me when I made a skeletal). It was some 2005 paper with Kellner as an author than the lead author having a last initial M, thats all I can recall. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really nice! Accuracy and stylistically-wise. Elaine Machado gives an estimate of 5-6 metres for the undescribed possible Angaturama skeleton[Contribuições à paleontologia de Terópodes não-avianos do Mesocretáceo do Nordeste do Brasil], which I believe is the publication IJReid is referring to. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that a skeletal for this guy did exist, so I did the scaling based on it. Once approved, I'll add this to my Huincul faunal chart. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while. I have been working on Enigmosaurus page, and well, a skeletal for it was required. The bar represents 5 solid meters, any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the pelvis is mainly based on the photo in Zanno's article? Also relevant, the restoration used in the article[48] needs some updates, it's belly is too small, and the fingers too thin, probably other issues too (feathering, foot pads lacking). FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially odd about the fingers in that restoration is that those of the left Enigmosaurus seem to be completely lacking in soft tissue and are literally just bare bones, either by mistake or the way they're drawn. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so the only photos we're allowed to use have big watermarks on them, is that okay? also, there's one of the full skeleton and then a few details of the skull and sickle claws. do we want those too? if the watermarks are an issue I can take pictures myself but I don't have a good camera so they won't be as nice. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more pressing concern is if those watermarked images can be released under a CC license. Some confirmation on that would be good. Either way, taking new photos would probably be a good backup plan. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sorry for the wait. got all the permissions and info, here's the main picture. do we want some of the detail shots too (skull, pedal unguals)? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Straight for the infobox. Yeah, any other shots would be great, but I'd say with emphasis on "known" elements, if we can even be sure yet. The skull in profile maybe? Also, since you are not the photographer, it may be necessary to get email permission confirmation through OTRS:[53]FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I know that they are very strict about such permissions on Commons, though. Just so you are prepared for what to do if it becomes an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As one of my main projects for this year, I've started work on an illustrated size chart featuring the most completely-known tyrannosaurid species, in a similar format to the one Fred Wierum made for the dromaeosauridae article[54], since I figured I'd be nice to have a good comparison of the "main" tyrannosaur taxa to highlight their differences in size and morphology. And also because I'd like to make up for ditching my attempted vector chart from 2018[55], which I may also revitalise work on. Anyways, here's the first batch of sketches I've got so far! They were made relatively quickly, so let me know if they're up to scratch before I start detailing and colouring them in.
As for which animals I'll be including in the final chart, here's the list I've worked up:
It would be the best to base as many on the skeletals of Franoys and randomdinos as possible (T. rex, Tarbosaurus and Daspletosaurus based on Franoys, Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus based on randomdinos), unlike how it is now.
If you're referring to my old vector chart, only the Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus are based on GetAwayTrike, which I'll agree is not the most reliable source for skeletals (he tends to not account for taphonomic distorsion very well). The rest are all based on Franoys, except for the T. rex, which is based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Anyways, I've taken that chart off the gallery and linked it instead, since it's not the focus of this section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's anything wrong with basing the Tyrannosaurus (or Daspletosaurus, for that matter) on Hartman's skeletal (the former, after all, was published in a peer-reviewed paper and is currently in the Tyrannosaurus article). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not sure. No green feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are known thus far in the fossil record, but I'm not sure if it's impossible. We'll need input from someone more familiar with the matter, since I'm not having much luck finding articles/papers about it so I'm probably not looking in the right place. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼02:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, structural coloration like iridescence in the feathers of birds is a product of the barbs and barbules on the feathers. On the basis of bracketing, this would not be possible for "stage 1" protofeathers that lack this structure (and melanosomes alone cannot produce a green colour), but I don't know if there are further physical constraints that rule out iridescence completely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I changed the colours for a more plausible brown and yellow to avoid anything contentious. I'll add this to the article if there's no further comment. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, but I wonder whether some of these might have the same issue as mentioned for Chilantaisaurus above, that the femur couldn't rotate backwards past a 90 degree angle? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeouch, apparently so. Good to know that! I'll definitely keep an eye for it in my reconstructions from now on. It'll be rather tedious adjusting the left leg on the Qianzhousaurus, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good reference, there's a skeletal reconstruction in the paper, and I'm pretty sure the images there are CC licensed and can be used here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! The hind feet look pretty odd, don't they? Should the toes and metatarsals be as flat on the ground, or rather be raised by foot pads? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should probably be more upright and pad-bearing indeed. In addition, the manus look much too small to me and some of the overall posture looks a bit wonky. The skeletal could definitely do with some significant adjustments or replacement if anyone's up for doing the work. I might try doing a life reconstruction, but apropos of my artist's block on that Dryptosaurus and a bad cold I make no promises. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I began to work on some skeletal diagrams for Dicraeosaurus hansemanni and D. sattleri, mainly because I didn't think that there would be enough rebbachisaurs left for the month (I was wrong, though, there's still Cathartesaura, Comahuesaurus, Rebbachisaurus, and Zapalasaurus at least, so some of these may pop up eventually). Currently for D. hansemanni I've drawn all the presacrals except for the atlas, the sacrum, 31 caudals, 20 chevrons, the humerus, the pelvis, both tibiae, and the fibula. For D. sattleri I've completed the sacrum, two caudals, the ilium, the tibia, and the fibula. Janensch (1929) & Janensch (1961) have been my resources so far (it's fortunate that Paleoglot exists seeing that I don't speak German. However, I think that I may need to reference Janensch's 1936 paper (Ein aufgestelltes Skelett von Dicraeosaurus Hansemann), since I think that there's a illustration of the mounted skeleton in there. Does anyone have this paper or an image of the said illustration? Another thing that I've been considering is what to do with the skull - I suppose that Bajadasaurus might be a good filler? Any comments on this project so far? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of Janensch 1936. Bajadasaurus has the most complete skull of any dicraeosaurid. However, the skull of Dicraeosaurus hansemanni is by no means poorly known itself and there's an illustrated abstract by Schwarz-Wings with a reconstruction of the skull. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled some parts of Skelett m to get this: [56]. It is pretty obvious that my old Dicraeosaurus silhouette's outdated. I found another useful paper: [57]. I think that I should be capable of getting the astragalus and a few costae from this. However, I still lack a reference for Dicraeosaurus' atlas. As for the skull, I've yet to draw any of it, although I really should. Any comments on the WIP? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the clear points of adjusting the silhouette the material seems to be properly sized and I see no issue with your plans to proceed either. If it is necessary the atlas can be taken from a relative, there is minimal variation anyways. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to take the atlas from Amargasaurus. The unknown regions of the two skull reconstructions aren't very detailed, so I'll have to rely on Bajadasaurus for the unknown bits. I tried scaling the dorsal ribs, but they wouldn't articulate with the dorsals, so I think that I'll have to wait for Janensch (1936) for them. I suppose that I could also use the Wilson skeletal for some parts. I've scaled the coracoid and humerus, and it would appear that Dicraeosaurus has rather longer arms than often depicted... I'll try and post a link to my progress sometime soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What specimen(s) did you base your limb measurements off of? In my collection of sauropod measurements gleaned from the literature, the only Dicraeosaurus specimen with an associated humerus and femur (skeleton O of D. sattleri) has a h:f ratio of 0.61, which is actually lower than the ratio depicted in the Wilson skeletal (0.66). The atlas of D. hansemanni is figured in Fig. 6 and 7 of Janensch 1929. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeleton Q of D. hansemanni preserves a humerus and tibia, though, and scaling off of it does produces a h/f ration of ~.65... not especially longer, so I guess that it's mainly just longer than I depicted it. The problem with the atlas is that it's not figured in lateral view. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Dicraeosaurus bones from site Q known to be from the same individual? It's apparently a multi-taxon bonebed; Giraffatitan and Kentrosaurus specimens are also from Q. Ornithopsis (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize that. Using the humerus of Q as is produces an h/f ratio of ~.61, so perhaps not changing its size (as indeed done in the mount) is the best option. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the figure from Janensch (1936) in Taylor, Wedel, & Naish's "A new approach to determining the habitual neck posture of sauropods based on the behaviour of extant animals" (available for download from Taylor's website: [58])! I should hopefully be moving a lot faster now! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal reconstructions
Dicraeosaurus hansemanni
D. sattleri
I'm almost done: [59]. Any comments on this? I can't seem to figure out how the preserved portion of the neural arch of the atlas fits into the rest of it - does anyone know what I'm missing? (I'm not very good at atlantal topology...) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would just recommend checking out the SVPOW posts on the atlas/axis complex, since thats the best resource I've found for those bones in sauropods. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the neural arch on the caudals should fade out sooner, with the transition to the 'whip' occurring somewhere between Cd30 and Cd40—see Apatosaurus louisae in Gilmore 1936, for instance—unless there's a good reason for all the extra caudals with neural arches. It looks like you're gonna have to re-pose it a bit to get the feet in the right plane. You should probably undo the damage to the left tibia. Nothing else strikes me as a significant issue, though I'm not checking the exact proportions. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of those posterior caudal vertebrae are actually preserved, and they're seen in the skeletals by Wilson and Paul as well, so I can't really do anything about them. I'm still kind of baffled by the atlas but I think that I did it reasonably well (and it's pretty small). The lowering of the hindlimbs and reparing of the tibia have both been done. Here it is, by the way. It looks really, really weird, but dicraeosaurids were pretty weird anyways. How does it look? Up next -> D. sattleri. Then either Brachytrachelopan or Suuwassea. Hopefully. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sequence has to be that long? Since there are large gaps in the sequence and I don't believe the posterior caudals are all from the same specimen, I don't see why you couldn't shorten the sequence considerably. Wilson depicts it with around 35 caudals with neural arches (as in Apatosaurus) and Paul depicts it with around 45–50 (closer to Camarasaurus), in either case much fewer than your 55+. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something, but why are most of the bones brown when the legend notes that "known in the holotype" is assigned a blue color, which I don't see anywhere in the skeletal? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dicraeosaurus sattleri has been completed! Comments? It's really weird, even when compared to D. hansemanni. One thing that I'm concerned about is that I was unable to replicate Paul's 15m length estimate for it - specimens m and M have equal femoral lengths, and D. sattleri has anteroposteriorly shorter vertebral lengths compared to D. hansemanni. Equally concerning is specimen Nr, a D. hansemanni specimen which preserves a femur that's about 5% longer than that of the holotype... Anyways, once these are ready for the article, I was thinking that a multi-image template like the one used above might be useful. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dilong
This image is in the Dilong page but has not been reviewed yet. Those exposed teeth should probably be removed. The feet look problematic too. Also, is this[60]Dilong reconstruction by Nobu Tamura accurate? If so, it could be added to Wikimedia. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several things. Your first source was talking about Spinosaurus, which has a higher-than-average density of neurovascular foramina, and even then it doesn't mention integumentary implications. The second source also has no opinion on lips and at least one of its authors (Naish) is pro-lips. The last two sources are by Carr, who is admittedly against lips, but on weak grounds such as poorly-constrained phylogenetic bracketing. It's disingenuous to claim that the only thing supporting lips is the hypothesis that they help with hydration. Lips are generally more likely considering osteological correlatures, even if rare exceptions do exist. The debate is not fully resolved but a pro-lips consensus does seem to be present among paleontologists. These kinds of endless discussions are tiresome and we don't want to restart them. Since you're a new user who probably started editing just to complain about lips, I'll give you some advice: Don't repeat old weak arguments which we've heard a million times, make sure your sources actually support your opinion, learn proper link formatting, and sign your comments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Witton just stated his opinion, nothing more, nothing less. He hasn’t gone through the same necessary steps like Carr did. Carr’s paper went through peer review process and was published through scientific literature. Witton’s observations and statements have not gone thought he same amount of peer review/scrutiny and never made it to scientific journals. His post is just a blog post, so unless (and until) he goes through exact same steps, it is simply just another person’s opinion. Other paleontologists just seem to ignore this fact for some reason. --- WTJP sockpuppet
I should probably not feed the troll, but whatever. The text of the Carr paper says two things about tyrannosaur skin: it involves flat scales and crocodilian-like sensory organs. Witton also thinks it has flat scales, and various papers confirm the sensative nature of theropod facial tissue. But neither of these contrast with an interpretation with lips. Carr is personally anti-lips based on arguments which have not been formally published (phylogenetic bracketing), so saying that lipless tyrannosaurs is a peer-reviewed argument and that lips are not is misleading. The illustration provided with Carr's paper does portray Carr's interpretations of tyrannosaur integument, but these interpretations are not discussed and many people have noted that the illustration seems more like a diagram than an accurate life restoration. Seriously, I know you have low moral standards due to your disruptive editing and sockpuppeting, but please don't bog down this image review process with half-truths and misleading arguments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"but these interpretations are not discussed" They're discussed in the video.
But it's Carr who explains why the restoration looks kinda weird. And sure, the guy who made the video is an awesomebro because he doesn't think that every dinosaur was feathered and/or lipped...
This was uploaded to the Aquilarhinus page without review. Overall it looks good to me but I'm not the best when it comes to hadrosaurs so lemme know what you guys think! Also, it's awesome to see that a lot of artists I've seen/know on Instagram have been putting up their art on Wikipedia! I'll put up a PSA-ish thing up on there though to try to inform as many people as possible of the palaeoart review pages though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the hands don't look quite right. The unguals are too pointed and there seem to be too many of them (fourth and fifth digits in particular!); I think there should also generally just be more flesh on the hands. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hind leg also looks weird, like it is both turned towards the viewer, but also towards the head. Is that the knee joint pointing right at the camera? Also, aren't the individual scales way too large? FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User Петр Меньшиков uploaded a 3D model of Convolosaurus marri to Wikimedia Commons and asked me to help him send this image for review. We have no reconstruction in an article about this dinosaur and it would be nice to have it, since it is known for several complete fossil skeletons. --HFoxii (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's me again, this time with a new life restoration for Enigmosaurus in order to update the previous one. I decided to illustrate an albino individual, since color mutations are not very popular in paleoart, comments? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but we should probably show idealised versions of animals here, it is not an All Yesterdays experiment after all, but an encyclopaedia, we are supposed to show a best guess at how a normal individual would have looked (we wouldn't use a photo of an albino lion as the main photo in that article either). Anyhow, since they could have had this colour normally, no big deal. But I'm pretty sure the hallux should reach the ground, all toes were weight bearing in therizinosaurs, except the very basal ones. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we shouldn't depict an albino individual unless we have a specific reason to want an image of one. I'd suggest tweaking it to look a bit less obviously albino (e.g. the eyes) and remove the part of the description which says it's albino; for the most part the color scheme isn't impossible for a non-albino individual though. I don't have anything to add regarding the anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't expecting that much discouragement surrounding the coloration, I'll try to change the color of the eye. However, I find difficult to make the hallux more ground-touching, I'm not the best when it comes to photomanipulation. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς01:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be like a prosauropod foot, so it has to be changed pretty radically (which is one reason why they were thought to be related to prosauropods at one point, so not really something we can miss showing). Like here:[61] As for the colouration, well, you could draw it with one hand also since there would probably have been one handed individuals (or any other atypical deformity), but that would also not really fit what we need here, which is to just show how a typical animal could have looked like. Perhaps we should write that into the criteria for inclusion at the top of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made, what about now? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC
The lower jaw is much more strongly curved than the upper, and it looks like as if the beak could not be closed completely. If so, it would not have been able to use its beak for cropping, so this seems unlikely to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens said, the curve of the upper jaw should logically follow that of the lower. According to Mark Witton at least, animals that large would possibly not be that shaggy:[63] Also, their inset tooth rows have been hypothesised to indicate cheeks. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other theropods with curved lower jaws while maintaining a semi-straight upper jaw (Jeholornis or Masiakasaurus), also, my upper jaw have some degree of curvature. Is not like a flat surface. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a skeletal diagram for Suuwassea as a dicraeosaurid, something that I don't think that anyone else has done yet (correct me if I'm mistaken). I did my best to cram the known material of Suuwassea' skull onto that of Bajadasaurus, but my success was... limited. I've come to the conclusion that Suuwassea, Bajadasaurus, and Dicraeosaurus all had rather different cranial morphologies - unfortunately we need more material to confirm this. Anyways, Suuwassea is a super-obscure animal, yet it has one of the most thoroughly done descriptions of any diplodocoid. It's pretty interesting as well, and has a neat name (which, coincidentally, sounds remarkably like Eulalia!). Suuwassea has historically been classified as a diplodocid - something that seems pretty understandable after drawing it. Further information's available in the file description. Comments? How did I do? And yes, the size comparison will updated - someday. Next up is Brachytrachelopan. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The torso looks quite long compared to the other dicraeosaurids done, which is probably because of the elongation of the anterior dorsals because of cervicalization, but still should probably be attempted to be remedied. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. As far as the one dark blue rib goes I don't think distinguishing that a single rib has unknown preservation is necessary, but thats up to you. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Tschopp and Mateus [64] reidentified the bone Harris described as a clavicle as an interclavicle. Other than that point, I see nothing obviously objectionable. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've relocated the interclavicle. The dark blue color also applies to nine of the whiplash caudals, as these are only known from their ends and could represent as few as five caudals in total. Any more comments or is it good to go? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the upper arm and the neck are unusually long for an ornithopod, so that should be visible in the diagram. As well, the tail was probably more elongate than the typical ornithopod according to possible elasmarians like Diluvicursor or the "leaellyna" postcrania. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arm is swept back, I could rotate it further forwards if it would help. The tail's more than half the animal's length and the neck's over twice the length of the skull - is this not sufficiently long? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The neck length wasn't clear because of the curve, it looks closer to 1.5 skull length probably because the neck is straight out behind the head. The upper arm should be longer, as the skeletal by Rozadilla has the shoulder too high up the side of the body, and even then in the diagram here the humerus doesn't look over the length of the forearm. Tail length is a bit more subjective since the closest probable relative with a tail is Isasicursor, and in the skeletal on its article the tail is significantly longer than double the rest of the body in length. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram comparing small Morrison Formation theropods
The Morrison coelurosaur size comparison diagram should be updated to include the recently described troodontid Hesperornithoides, and it might also have to include the ceratosaur Fosterovenator because the latter genus is clearly a small ceratosaur possibly related to Elaphrosaurus judging from the fact that Dalman (2014) erroneously classifies Ceratosauridae under Carnosauria and accidentally assigned Fosterovenator to Ceratosauridae, when he meant to assign the genus to Ceratosauria incertae sedis.
Dalman, S.G. (2014). New data on small theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Como Bluff, Wyoming, USA. Volumina Jurassica. 12 (2): 181–196.70.175.134.8 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Ah yes, this old chart. I've really got to update it. Here's a list of everything needed that I can see:
Stokesosaurus: Not too bad, although the feet and ankles could use some more work, and the axial column's not too good. Since I added fuzz to my Timurlengia, this should also be fuzzy.
Tanycolagreus: Not bad, but not good either. The legs look weird, the arm's weird, the rest is subpar. Needs fuzz.
Coelurus: Not too bad, but could use an overhaul with a boxier skull (following Tanycolagreus). Needs fuzz.
Ornitholestes: Pretty poor - metatarsal orientation, leg shape, arms, flesh on fingers, and some other soft tissue details all off. Also - needs fuzz (I'm detecting a recurring theme here...).
These fixes are rather extensive, so they may take awhile, but I should be able to have them done by the first week of November. Fosterovenator is far too ambiguous for a size comparison currently, and it doesn't seem to be a coelurosaur, so it's outside of the chart's scope. Thanks for reminding me to work on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noasaurids are also small theropods, so you could restore Fosterovenator as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid (the paratype of Fosterovenator has been removed from Ceratosauria by Skawinski et al. 2017) because noasaurids are almost about the same size as Stokesosaurus and Tanycolagreus.70.175.134.8 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Here's the first step in the update - Ornitholestes. It's still based on Hartman's skeletal. I've given it fuzz this time, and added long filaments for wings on the arm (seeing as it's basal to Compsognathidae). I'm wondering if the long advanced tail feathers were a bad idea - I might go back and change that. The posture is sort of intended to show a hesitant step. Are the feet too chunky? Has anything else gone wrong? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the other two updated individual size charts. Any comments before the main image is updated (Coelurus & Stokesosaurus are both ready) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment is that the forward weight shift of the Ornitholestes would imply the other foot is farther forwards than it is in the diagram. The rest of the elements look fine. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the promised Brachytrachelopan, but much more straightforwards by far. Suuwassea was used as the basis for the silhouette, and, along with Linwulong, helped to fill in for the unknown material. The holotype of Brachytrachelopan is not described in as much detail as that of Suuwassea, Amargatitanis, or LingwulongDicraeosaurus, and this is the only photograph of it that I could find: [65]. It's difficult to interpret, so it may take awhile (though I aim to complete it by the end of March). Comments on either dicraeosaurid? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amarga is fine theres really not much to comment on. As far as Brachy, yeah thats really all that there is so its one of the more problematic taxa. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cnemial crest of Amargatitanis is differently shaped and more complete than you depict it. Only the distal margin of the cnemial crest is incomplete; its low and elongate shape is a genuine feature shared with other dicraeosaurids other than Suuwassea. Other than that I don't see anything that you should change. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't have it quite right, IMO. As far as I can tell, the margin of the cnemial crest is essentially complete except distally--there shouldn't be any greyed-out region at all anterior to it. See this: [66]Ornithopsis (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of Amargatitanis, how accurate is this image by Levi bernardo? The hindlimbs immediately strike me as extremely skinny, based on my skeletal the tibia just barely fits inside the shin. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I work on the Angolatitan and tyrannosaurid images above, I thought it'd be a nice idea to redo the first contribution and artwork I ever submitted to Wikipedia, my old Neuquenraptor! Which, looking at it two years later (WOW, I cannot believe it's been that long already), has not aged well. I don't think it even got reviewed, as it's wonky in various ways and inaccurate to what fossil material is known. I based the new illustration on Slate Weasel's recent skeletal, which I've put in place of my also wonky size chart[67] on the article. Lemme know if there's anything else I should fix on the restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your artistic skills have only gotten better over the years, nice! It would seem you need some longer covert feathers[68], I don't think you would even be able to see where the primary and secondary feathers attach, but now there is a weird junction between them by the wrist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I overlooked that the primaries look like they attach to the wrist rather than the second finger, but you could hide that if more of the finger was covered by coverts, and the first finger was free of them. Sort of like here:[69] Here's a diagram of Archaeopteryx showing where the primary feathers should attach:[70]FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were definitely attaching to the wrist, so I just changed the outlines so that they lead to the second finger, and also moved the first finger slightly to the left to avoid ambiguity as suggested. Hopefully that's better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I made that skeletal less than a year ago?! Time flies! It did have a few issues, including the lack of flesh on the feet and the femur being rotated too far back, but I have hopefully fixed those now. Fortunately neither of those were replicated in your life restoration (I'm not too familiar with maniraptorans, so I can't really say anything about its accuracy). Thanks for reminding me about this! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! Even with the (now fixed) flaws it was still leagues better than my size chart though, haha. And let's not forget the even older and less accurate version of that chart that's still being used in some articles on other language wikis [71], gonna be replacing both of those with your skeletal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the final skeletal of the month: that promised Brachytrachelopan skeletal. It's neck is really short. I scaled the tail to the same length as the dorsal series of D. hansemanni, so its appearance as extremely long is probably just due to the neck's shortness. This one was pretty tricky to do, it seems like dicraeosaurids fall into these groups: well-documented (Dicraeosaurus, Bajadasaurus, Suuwassea, and Amargatitanis), well-known but not well-documented (Brachytrachelopan, Amargasaurus, Lingwulong), and those that I have virtually no information on (Pilmatueia, Dystrophaeus, Dyslocosaurus). Some of the scaling of the vertebrae went a bit funkily, and the type specimen seems rather crushed. How well did I do in restoring this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to really say, the neck is short as was known, and the tail is more reasonable than other restorations I've seen. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything obviously in need of change. The head in the silhouette looks like it could be angled down a bit, though, perhaps. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've angled the head further downwards. I'll begin working on that size comparison now that the skeletal making part is done. I considered trying Amargasaurus, but it's not too well documented, the neural spines are rather distorted, it's too late now, and there's a good Hartman skeletal for it anyways. Thanks for all the feedback throughout the month! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no primaries in this reconstruction. (And why even show the silhouette of the feathers in a skeletal restoration?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing reconstructions and determining if any of them have some sort of inaccuracy. This one clearly has. The fact it was published in a scientific paper doesn't make it mistake-proof. Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, we have before, and in this situation the change I see as necessary is simply adjusting the silhouette so feathers come from the second digit as well, a well-established rule of paravian feather arrangements here. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there have been some pretty awful reconstructions in peer reviewed papers, see for example.[72] Others that seem good otherwise also have issues, like this one.[73] So they are certainly not exempt if we find some issues. In this case, it should be an easy fix. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I recently got back to my expansion of Siamosaurus for GA and FA, here's a skeletal reconstruction for a series of caudal vertebrae from the Khok Kruat Formation, possibly belonging to that genus. Based on photographs from Adun Samathi (2019)[74]. Let me know if there's anything I need to fix! Especially since I'm still rather inexperienced with skeletals. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fauna of Allen
Fauna of Bayan Shireh
Fauna of the Yellow Cat Member
Fauna of Hell Creek
Kwanasaurus williamparkeri
Akainacephalus johnsoni
Vespersaurus paranaensis
Gnathovorax cabreirai
Lajasvenator ascheriae
"Omeisaurus" tianfuensis
_BHL21155479.jpg)
.jpg)
Cryolophosaurus with speculative crest
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Oplosaurus tooth
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
Silhouette (except brow horns) from File:Triceratops BW.jpg
Sauroposeidon & Maraapunisaurus taken from Carpenter (2006), Supersaurus & Diplodocus taken from Hartman
Silhouette taken from Hartman
Patagotitan from Carballido et. al. (2017)
Tyrannosaurus taken from Hartman, Giganotosaurus from Paul, Carcharodontosaurus & Mapusaurus from Sinkkonen
Tyrannosaurus from Hartman again
Silhouette taken from Hartman
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Segnosaurus_galbinensis.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baryonyx_life_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNaD7iKVQAALBrw.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stenonychosaurus_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,w_728/v1555918253/shape/mentalfloss/trexautopsy_004.small_.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chilantaisaurus_tashuikouensis_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erlikosaurus_right_pes.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstructed_beak_and_skull_of_Erlikosaurus.jpeg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://www.gastondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/nothro08_fs.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Soowsl_MIng/Wuw4ecQxoTI/AAAAAAACkac/BrYEqGuUJTgZB7fX0g2E0XwOj-fP7aRAQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/LPP-PV-0042-Romualdo_Spinosaurinae--2018_Aureliano_Ghilardi_Buck_et-al--%2540AlineGhilardi.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hesperornithoides_skeletal_reconstruction.png){kind=link}
![[45]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinacosaurus_Jack_Wood_2017.png){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Talarurus.png){kind=link}
![[47]](https://i.imgur.com/5RJcRwn.png){kind=link}
![[48]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enigmosaurus-Mating-Ritual3-2D.png){kind=link}
![[51]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptorfull.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utahraptor_price_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Dromaeosaurs.png){kind=link}
![[55]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/File:Tyrannosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek.svg){kind=link}
![[56]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YidamzZLGMQ/XmPDGj9JbAI/AAAAAAAAAsA/DupeUYf9xqgVMXKBFJG0C3GnZE2ClnWkgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP1.png){kind=link}
![[59]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ue_0dWrCyk/Xmz3SRUJx3I/AAAAAAAAAsk/eTB5U2Hx8IcCJdBmy4j25nznMsLm3b-_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP2.png){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Therizinosaurus.png){kind=link}
![[62]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segnosaurus_hemimandible.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison_by_PaleoGeek.svg){kind=link}
![[68]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicken_wing.svg){kind=link}
![[69]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dromaeosaurus_Restoration.png){kind=link}
![[70]](http://knolik.com/pictures/00/00/0000613.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison.png){kind=link}
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png){kind=link}
