:But otherwise the diagnostic traits of both species seem to be present. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 03:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
:But otherwise the diagnostic traits of both species seem to be present. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 03:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
== ''[[Megalolamna]]'' restoration ==
== ''[[Megalolamna]]'' reconstruction ==
[[File:Megalolamna paradoxodon.png|thumb|]]
[[File:Megalolamna paradoxodon.png|thumb|]]
Noticed the lack of a reconstruction for the ''[[Megalolamna]]'' page (which itself is in severe need for expansion), and went along with drawing the shark myself. Based its features off of extant lamnid sharks, mainly the great white and porbeagle, primarily because of its dental characteristics and suggested ecology being similar to them. --[[User:Damouraptor|Damouraptor]] ([[User talk:Damouraptor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damouraptor|contribs]]) 13:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Noticed the lack of a reconstruction for the ''[[Megalolamna]]'' page (which itself is in severe need for expansion), and went along with drawing the shark myself. Based its features off of extant lamnid sharks, mainly the great white and porbeagle, primarily because of its dental characteristics and suggested ecology being similar to them. --[[User:Damouraptor|Damouraptor]] ([[User talk:Damouraptor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damouraptor|contribs]]) 13:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Once an image has been approved and added to an article, its section can be archived.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged, 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 seperate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[5], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Made another prehistoric shark, this time Squalicorax falcatus. It is based on the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), with features like the fins' shapes being derived from modern lamnids (due to their comparatively close affiliations compared to other extant sharks with anacoracids) and requiem sharks (as many species likely filled ecological niches and behaviors akin to S. falcatus). And yes, the upper caudal fin is suppose to curve in the angle it is shown in. The coloration also echoes the latter group, with species like the silvertip shark and oceanic whitetip shark serving as prime inspirations. As with my ginsu shark reconstruction, I aim at replacing the older Squalicorax art currently present on the wiki page, as it is rather inaccurate and aesthetically unpleasing, at least in my opinion. I hope this shark will get get better representation in paleoart than it has in the past, so I appreciate the potential for this to make it into the article. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damouraptor First I would like to ask if you actually have access to Shimada and Circumurri (2005), as last time I checked I think it was paywalled and in order to get that skeletal reconstruction someone ought to have posted it elsewhere. (If you don't have access to the paper, just let me know and I'll see what I can do (I'm not a scientist, I'm simply an ordinary person who managed to get access to a lot of papers)) But you are certainly correct on the assumption that Squalicorax is essentially a lamnoid that was carcharhinoid-like, and I really like how you tried to reflect this. However, I would like to note that Squalicorax is still a pelagic shark and that it must have features that any pelagic shark has including fins and bodies designed for long distance and at times fast swimming.
So one major thing that could use some tweaking is the angle of the caudal fin; it's too bent down and designed for shallow life. If you can raise the angle of the upper lobe of the caudal fin (keep the lower lobe as it is), it'll make the art a lot more pelagic-like. I recommend taking inspiration of this change from lamnids and confirmed pelagic requiem sharks like the blue shark. Another thing is that appears that the head kind of deviates from the original Shimada and Circimurri (2005) reconstruction (such as a less flat dorsal). I would caution this as the head reconstruction is the most accurate based on actual well-preserved head fossils and recommend something like vertically shrinking the head region a bit. Here's an image with some of the possible tweaks in place: https://i.imgur.com/UQ27fEx.png
Still, don't let this artwork down! It's so much better than that unpleasantly creepy current one and just simply needs a few easy tweaks that can be done without going back to the drawing board. I absolutely love the texture inspired from whitetip sharks and your willingness to make art to represent extinct sharks. With some easy changes, this one probably could make it into the article. Macrophyseter | talk20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have made much activity in any of his relevant plantforms since late 2019, it's possible that he may have stopped doing paleoart for at least some time. Macrophyseter | talk06:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions were rough eyeballs with the intention of the assumption that Damouraptor would know what I would mean and go from there using the research he would be making. As a result, it was never supposed to be the most accurate tweak and at this point I have noticed some details that might be a bit contrary to what we know about the shark's anatomy (including some anatomical contriadictions that I overlooked such as the width of the pectoral fin and the size of the caudal vertebrae). If you can, see if you can get a copy of Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), which is the paper that details the anatomy of Squalicorax and has a nice skeletal reconstruction. Here's a pasteboard of the skeletal reconstruction [6]. Macrophyseter | talk06:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made new edits on the original image after reading about some of the anatomy and following the silhouette of the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005). I didn't touch the top of the image very much at this point, but what are your thoughts? ESonho (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canid size chart request
Hi, I was told by FunkMonk that requests regarding extant fauna are also accepted here.
Would it be possible to make a size chart (with human silhouette) of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? Wolf, Jackal and Fox.
Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.
Anyway, the shoulder heights are: Grey wolf = 80 cm Golden jackal = 45 cm Red fox = 35 cm.
Yeah, since it is unlikely there will ever be a similar request page for extant animals, and since we have already had size comparisons that incorporated extant animals here before[7], I thought it would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple things stick out to me on the Gordodon. First is the ear hole, which shouldn't be there as pelycosaur-grade synapsids wouldn't have any visible external ears. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of the "cross-bar" tubercles on its neural spines, which should at least be visible on the sail above the 'hump' at the bottom (the presence of those tubercles all the way down the neural spines might also go against the interpretation of a 'hump' at the bottom, but that point seems more debatable). I'm a bit unsure about the skin texture with rows of large rounded 'scales', but it doesn't seem so egregiously wrong as to be detrimental to the picture in my opinion. DrawingDinosaurs (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the long absence. And thanks for realizing and pointing out the innaccuracies of my reconstruction. During this month I will remake this one as well as the Lisowicia and also upload some fossil animals without images yet. And also create my profile here on Wikimedia. Juan(-username-)12:20, 04 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my marine reptile size comparisons. I've been playing with the idea of making a rogue's gallery or marine reptiles size comparison, and am considering finally doing it.
Taxa in need of review
It’d be kinda redundant to have both dorsal and lateral size diagrams (but that’s just my opinion), and for the Tylosaurus size diagram, you’ll have to ask Orthogonal Orthocone who took it down in October without giving a reason. It looks like it might’ve been an accident when s/he was shuffling text around User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just one file, sort of like my Hibbertopterus (I'm still not done with it?!) By the way, how accurate is this Placodus skeletal: [8]? I love marine reptiles but lack much knowledge on them thanks to paywalls (seriously, it would be cheaper to buy 4 copies of the GSP field guide than to get access for 30 days on some papers!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unorthodox tail fluke, though? I'd expect something more like this (and what you have in the diagram):[10] Also, the fluke shouldn't really make the tail longer, as its tip would follow the length of the bony tail. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This recontruction by Nobu Tamura is currently the only image of Umoonasaurus that we have. It is rather old and needs some corrections:
The nostrils are inexplicably huge
The paddles have a very oar-like appearance and don't account for the powerful musculature supported by the limb girdles. They also are missing the trailing edge
It is missing a caudal fin
Points two and three follow Witton's The Paleoartist's Handbook. Does anybody want to make the above changes?
I plan to draw the skull of this animal in dorsal and lateral views whenever I get time which may be weeks, or months if things go really badly :(. For this drawing, should I use a color key or in-image abbreviations?
I've started to have a go at it, and will upload when finished. I use the clone/stamp tool for simple outline readjustment and painting out or drawing in lines and shrinking ears and nostrils, airbrushes to add in nostrils and ears, perspective to roughly distort something, smudge to smooth out unwanted texture or patterning and creating strangely-shaped new regions (i.e. caudal fins), rotate to change positions, scale to fix too big/small areas, multiple layers if I'm extending an appendage (i.e. neck elongation). I see that Umoonasaurus would have had quite a puny caudal fin based on a chart by Lythronax: [11]. Any recommendations for additional tools to use or other stuff to change? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be doing this already, but what I've found useful for being precise with additional elements of images I was adjusting (such as the caudal fin and larger paddles) is to draw the outline of these with some base colour, and then fill out the outline, rather than to try drawing these additional areas with the clone stump or any other imprecise tool Then they can easily be filled out afterwards with whatever tool you want. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Burgess Shale
A variety of animals from the Burgess Shale. Here’s the description I wrote for it.
Deep in the early Cambrian ocean, below the shadow of the Cathedral Escarpment (A giant rock shelf formation), life goes on as normal. Bioluminescent Amiskwia swim in groups, trying to escape the carnivorous Opabinia. It can walk on the sea floor with legs, or swim through the water with undulating fins.
Among the algae, strange sponge relatives called Choia exist, holding themselves just above the rock surface. Hallucigenia sparsa feed on the marine snow that falls, catching it on hairy tentacles and shoving it in their mouths. Aysheaia feed on sponges called Vauxia, which grow on the rocky substrate.
Preying on hard shelled animals like trilobites, using its armoured antennae to break open armour, Anomalocaris dwarfs everything. It is followed closely by a shoal of Pikaia, which survive by feeding the scraps left behind when Anomalcaris finishes messily ingesting it’s prey with a horrifying circular mouth part. It can see Opabinia with the best eyes that would ever evolve for millions of years, only rivalled by dragonflies and possibly griffinflies.
The Opabinia, though it has 5 compound eyes, still has a more limited resolution, and doesn’t notice the Anomalocaris swimming towards it through the gloom of the depths.
First of all I want to clarify that this is a beautiful piece of art, and that all my comments focus solely on its worth as a portrayal of modern paleontological notions. For example, I don't believe that there is enough empirical evidence to justify the bioluminescent Amiskwia, despite the fact that it is a very creative and visually appealing concept. You have made good arguments for bizarre interpretations in the past (your bright green Hallucigenia, for example), and I would like to see if you have further elaborations on the matter. Just make sure not to infringe upon Wikipedia's "No original research" clause (WP:NOR) too much. Also, I was wondering whether you were aware of the several studies questioning Anomalocaris's role as a predator of hard-shelled animals. It probably wouldn't affect the illustration, but it would certainly affect the "plot" you seem to be crafting in the description. Speaking of the description, it was the only thing which led me to notice some of the background critters, such as the Hallucigenia, Pikaia, Aysheia, and Vauxia. Their relative invisibility is justifiable considering the murky composition, but still a bit counterproductive if the piece is viewed as an educational piece of art. In conclusion, this piece is very well-made and creative as a piece of original artwork, but I'm not sure if it functions well-enough as an educational tool to enhance or elaborate on the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Considering how the bioluminescent Amiskwia seem to be the sole light source in the piece, the illustration would not really function if they were removed. I'll see what other reviewers think of it, but am personally unsure whether it passes Wikipedia's standards or whether the bioluminescent Amiskwia are too speculative (or justified by too much original research) to allow to be used on a site which advertises itself as an encyclopedia. It's a wonderful illustration though, and it's 100% worth posting elsewhere. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. While the bioluminescent Amiswkia is speculative, I believe there is no evidence against it either, and I wouldn’t ever suggest this in article. Bioluminescence is widespread throughout Eukaryota, and there are even bioluminescent species of Chaetognaths, which are some of the closer living relatives of Amiskwia. Especially considering the believed deep sea habitat and the fact that we don’t have any living animals in the grouping Amiskwia was apart of, I believe that the bioluminescence in this animal is harmless speculation, as with the colouration of most extinct organisms.
Regarding the Anomalocaris, whether or not it fed on shelly fauna is still debated. Personally I fall on the side that it exploited the weaknesses in shells by shaking and contorting prey, before using its jaws to either bite open the shell or just suck out soft tissue from the breakage (this stance is supported in some articles, though other articles oppose it, hence the debate. No firm conclusion has been reached). The Aysheaia, Hallucigenia, and Vauxia are not the main subjects of the image, and are merely there to flesh out the environment should the viewer inspect it closer. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up good points, especially about the existence of bioluminescent chaetognaths. However, the abilities of modern bioluminescent chaetognaths seems to differ quite a lot from the bright solid glows of those in your illustration.[12] In addition, I'm not the only reviewer here, and some editors may have more comprehensive criticism (especially considering how I am no expert on Burgess Shale fauna). Hopefully there will be enough activity here that you would get another substantial evaluation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know little about invertebrates, but as I noted on the Hallucigenia talk page, we should steer clear of including our own original research on paleoart, we should only reflect what has been previously suggested by researchers. And this advice is not something to be taken lightly, as we may risk a ban on all user made paleoart if we don't follow this rule, as it has created problems several times in the past. Believe it or not, some editors have suggested that usermade paleoart should not be allowed at all, with much drama to follow. We don't want that again, so any such images that breach the OR rules in an obvious way will not be used. So no, this is not the place for "All Yesterdays" style experimentation, which we should maybe make clear in the guidelines above. I have started a discussion about this general issue here[13]. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am against depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence here. As far as I know, bioluminescence is rare in gnathiferans (to my knowledge, it is not known in rotifers, gnathostomulids, or micrognathozoans, and is rare and unlikely to be the ancestral condition in chaetognaths) thus its presence in Amiskwia is a level 3' inference. As I said in the OR in paleoart talk page, I think speculation should be avoided except when necessary in the context of Wikipedia articles; depicting Amiskwia with bioluminescence is both unnecessary and likely to inspire the unjustified paleoart meme of bioluminescent Amiswkia. This isn't a paleoart gallery, it's an encyclopedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the bioluminescence issue, this piece misrepresents the sizes of the Burgess Shale fauna. Opabinia ranged from 43 to 70 mm [14] and Amiskwia ranged from 7.4 to 31.3 mm [15], so Amiskwia was about one-third the length of Opabinia. The Anomalocaris seems rather large, but perhaps not implausibly so. Furthermore, Amiskwia is a fairly rare animal, so I'm not sure depicting large groups of them is a good idea. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well rarity of Amiskwia in the fossil record isn't indicative of rarity in the Cambrian, just rarity of fossilization which is to be expected with soft bodied organisms (even in the Burgess Shale). There's this study that says that it's possible many creatures were bioluminescent in the Cambrian as a warning display to predators, and so many reconstructions of Cambrian fauna are incorrect. It doesn't specifically identify Amiskwia with hard evidence of bioluminenscence, but if I'm reading it right, it's saying it's possible that any (especially smaller) creature could have had it. Of course, it probably wouldn't have been so bright, and his entire explanation relies on the idea that the evolution of eyes started the Cambrian explosion (which doesn't make any sense because unless it's the mantis shrimp basically nothing in the sea relies on its eyes), so really, we're kind of in the wind if bioluminescence was common or even a thing in the shallow seas of the Burgess Shale User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know it's been months, but I only just saw this. The article you linked doesn't mention bioluminescence at all; it's talking about iridescence, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Bioluminescent animals don't look like the Amiskwia in this image—as far as I'm aware they generally aren't bright enough to cast a light on surfaces—and moreover, bioluminescence in Amiskwia is not supported by phylogenetic bracketing. Moreover, my other objection, that the scale of the animals in this image is inaccurate, remains unaddressed. As such, this image "differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements" (i.e. body size and capacity for bioluminescence) and meets the criteria for removal stated at the top of this page. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
Macrauchenia trunkless
It appears that macraucheniids had more conventional looking nostrils, something similar to a moose if this relatively recent study comparing the skulls of various extinct & extant herbivorous mammals is anything to go by. (LINK) Perhaps these two images should be edited. Other Macrauchenia restoration on Wikimedia should probably be labelled inaccurate, as they depict the genus with odd elephantine trunks. Monsieur X (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The study I read (see talk page) also proposed a saiga-like snout, which isn't that far off from what's shown. Could be a bit shorter, though, but I think it's kind of too early for us to do anything, it seems to be very preliminary ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the talk page and I think we should split the difference. Perhaps someone should edit shorter saiga antelope-like trunks on the mother & calf Macrauchenia, but edit Nobu Tamura's restoration to show moose-like nostrils. Either way, I do believe that the other Macrauchenia restorations on the site are rather inaccurate by modern standards. Monsieur X (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NT's restoration is pretty much saiga-like already, so I don't see why it would need to be modified, though. If anything, it should be a bit shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was thinking since it was rather simple looking in comparison to Olllga's, it would be more easier to edit. Should I put out a request for a new image instead? Monsieur X (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of a moose-like snout? Well, no one will stop you, hehe. Personally, I'd like to see some more studies on the issues first, and it seems some are underway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking more in the lines of a image comparing the two ideas, but I might sit on that idea for moment. I could be wrong, but I think the traditional view of Palorchestes might also be going through similar scrutiny. But I'll leave that discussion for the Palorchestes talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diplodocid heads have historically been restored in various ways: a) skull, b) classic rendering of the head with nostrils on top, c) with speculative trunk, d) modern depiction with nostrils low on the snout and a possible resonating chamber
Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I've been busy. Hmm, looks like a interesting idea, to show the skull and the trunked and trunkless versions. I guess that the trunkless version should be the moose model recently proposed, although in Darin Croft's book "Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys" appears a version with normal lips and narials located very high in the head, the reasoning behind it model is not explained there, just why it probably lack of a trunk. Well, I can make some sketches, by the way there is a diagram that would be very useful: [16] --Rextron (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering! An interesting article, it does highlight the need for more peer reviewed studies on age old ideas that go unquestioned or unchallenged. I have seen other artists with similar ideas for Macrauchenia, though I have no idea if there are more studies on this subject at the moment. As for the comparison image, I think it should be similar to the "diplodocus" chart, with the skull and the three different interpretations. Like the the old flexible elephantine trunk depiction, the small saiga antelope-like trunk and the more recent moose-like suggestion. Monsieur X (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly content with this interpretation. Now it looks like a camel with moose-like characteristics. Which seems to line up with our understanding of Macrauchenia. With the taxa appearing to be generalists, like the two mentioned. Calling FunkMonk, do you have any opinions or criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I wonder if that "slope" of the head should begin further anterior, though? Seems like it begins even before the bony nostrils, comparing to this interpretation:[18]FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have the same doubt, what if was a inflatable structure? ;) Anyways, later I'll modify it to make the trunked version.--Rextron (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit of the first image mostly looks reasonable. However, the edited version of NT's image makes Macrauchenia look like a bog-standard mammal without an expanded snout. I think both should be revised so that they look closer to Rextron's interpretation posted above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Nobu's illustration, definitely looks much better. I don't know why I hadn't paid more closer attention to Rextron's diagram & artwork when I was editing Nobu's art, compared to when I was editing Olga's artwork..... Any more criticisms & critiques? Monsieur X (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. I wasn't initially sure about the placement of the nostrils, though I think the artist has restored the animal yawning or perhaps braying like a horse or donkey, which would explain the nostrils. It's definitely a lot more stockier than some other restorations, but I have seen other artists also restore them this way. My only complaint would be somewhat wonky looking feet (Not sure if its missing a toe on each foot or if its just a perspective thing). The image itself also needs to be cleaned up a bit. Monsieur X (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eosimops restoration
I found this image of Eosimops a while back. Looks a bit emaciated compared to other Pylaecephalid restorations. On that note, are there any images of Eosimops fossils to see if it's anatomically accurate? Monsieur X (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the neck is almost certainly too long and the overall shape of the head seems incorrect, and it's artistically rather lackluster overall. Definitely needs improvement, and there's a 2013 paper that redescribes Eosimops that would doubtlessly be useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realized recently that the size comparison in the megalodon article was removed, possibly to it looking to much like a great white. I have been thinking about creating a new size comparison for adding O/C. chubutensis, and having a less great white-like look. I also have been considering doing a life restoration for O/C. megalodon, or perhaps O/C. chubutensis. Here is lineart for a generic otodontid: [21], based on the shortfin mako, smalltooth sand tiger, and basking shark. If it's good enough, I'll proceed with the size comparison and life restoration. Pinging Dunkleosteus77 and Macrophyseter, our main prehistoric shark editors. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the generic otodontid lineart could be a possible representation for some of its members like Otodus, Cretalamna, Megalolamna, etc, but not likely for those in the' Carcharocles' genus, at least starting C. angusteidens; it doesn't seem to well represent a form designed for the extreme strength megalodon may have possessed, but rather a more generalist morphology. The body shape I'm more used to would be that of what could essentially be described as a beefed-up lamnid, which appears to be the appearance most used in DA that isn't derived from Carcharodon. This [[22]] drawing of a generic Carcharocles shark presented by Kent and Ward (2018) would be a more ideal representation. Macrophyseter | talk00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, darn it, I forgot about Cretolamna. Looks like I've gotta make the first dorsal fin smaller, the second one larger, the pelvic and rear fins more triangular. I'll post a new version once I've fixed the current one. Perhaps I should go for Megalolamna, as we don't yet have a life restoration for that... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shaidng has been added: [24]. Apparently Megalolamna was an inshore shark, so I'm thinking of coloring it a bit like a sand tiger shark, with a brownish hue. I found the paper that described M. paradoxodon, it's been very useful: [25]. It suggested a phylogenetic placement for Megalolamna between Cretalamna & non-"Carcharocles"-grade Otodus, which I think the image already resembles. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly based on the photo of a "Cretalamna" body fossil that used to be on its Wikipedia page (which I removed), which is actually a new species of Lebanese odontaspidid. As such, this reconstruction needs to be reworked and should be removed from the page for the time being. There are some other aspects of the soft tissue that are incorrect, like the teeth in the lower jaw not being visible. I recommend using photographs of lamnids like porbeagles for reference.Carnoferox (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a few weeks back I had another DA request to update the existing diagram, which I have been working on. At the moment my WIP has primarily been using the Gottfried skeletal, which extrapolates from the Great White but is more robust generally, especially the jaws, with larger fins. The very rough WIP can be seen here: [26] This has taken me a while because I have been trying to fact check the Wikipedia articles for the lengths and estimates of the relevant animals. I'm not too fussed about which silhouette we use because Meg is only known from teeth and vertebrae which don't say much as to overall build and proportions. Maybe a generalised/generic silhouette is the way to go, but ultimately, any silhouette is going to be made up and be speculative. That said, I'd be happy to hear what any of the shark editors think. In my version, I was going to add question marks in the Meg silhouettes, as I have done with some of the really fragmentary sauropods, just to make it clear to the viewer it's speculative. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ?s are a good idea perhaps you should add the maximum size for the whale shark. Also, it seems like O. (C.) megalodon loses to the whale shark for the prize of the biggest shark ever, if only by a tiny bit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's become apparent looking into shark measuring is that even though there are standards, those standards can be interpreted differently or that different terms are being used interchangeably. Generally speaking there is 'Standard Length' and 'Total Length'. Standard length excludes the caudal fin; some might measure to the base of the caudal fin (precaudal length), it's possible that some are measuring to the notch on the far side (called Fork Length). Total length includes the caudal fin but there are two ways people measure it. One way is the shark positioned in a life pose and measured between the snout and tip of the caudal fin. (between pegs); this is similar to how it might get illustrated in a scale chart. The other way is by measuring the standard length and then just adding on the caudal fin length. This can quite drastically change the perceived size in a scale chart as it does not take into account the angle of the caudal fin. (Not dissimilar to scaling a dinosaur silhouette to the length of the silhouette vs measuring along the curves of the vertebral column.)
The are a lot of reports of large ~18m whale sharks, however, I'm currently not aware of any that have detailed measurements. One '18.8m' individual was measured as being 15m SL and then they added on the tail using an equation to get the TL. I know of two reports with detailed measurements from Indian fisheries, one is a 12.18m male and the other a 14.5m female. After trying to use the measurements to illustrate them I realised they probably contain mistakes and/or typos (these are older reports that predate portable computers, so these would have been written down by hand and typed up at a later date). The SL of 12.18 male was reported as 10.23m. After illustrating it is seems that 10.23m is the actual TL and then later this got mistakenly changed to SL and then the authors added on 1.95m of caudal fin. [27] The 14.5m individual hasn't got the same level of detail in measurements but I suspect it was actually 11.5m and there has been a typo, otherwise it's proportioned like no other whale shark I've seen. Another possibility is that it was 14.5m meters and some of the measurements have been placed in the table incorrectly. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a new WIP for the Megalodon update [28]. At the moment the largest I have found in the literature is estimated at 17.9m and the average size, across geologic time, according to Pimiento&Balk 2015 is ~10m based on 544 teeth. The whale shark is scaled to 9m because they mature at about 8-9m. The Wikipedia article and the original version state average adult as 9.8m and cites Guinness Animal Facts&Feats, I can't get a book preview, can anyone confirm that? They get larger; Guinness records claims the largest accurately measured is 12.65m near Pakistan in 1949 but looking into fishery records it seems that individual was 11.58m (I have yet to find a copy of the original source which was published in a weekly magazine) so I'm not sure where the Guinness number comes from? McClain et al 2015 support an individual estimated at 18.8m as the largest. The Great White is scaled to 4.7m which in Gottfried 1996 sample was the smallest mature female. I might also include the largest female which was 6.1m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other day, a new user reverted the old chart back which is probably not surprising considering the subject. Because the old chart was so widely used and many of the image captions became obsolete with the loss of the whale shark, I've decided to upload under a new file name, inserted above. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a potential update to the megalodon scale chart based on Shimada 2019. [29] Shimada suggests only using anterior teeth for estimation which is claimed to be more reliable. (The 17.9m estimate used previously is based on a lateral tooth). Shimada estimates the tooth with the tallest crown height to be 13.5-14.2m TL based on new equations or using the tooth with a tallest total height and the Gottfried equations 15.3m. Currently I've gone for 14.2m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to modify the old one too to newer sizes so its not outdated in every page its used? I don't have the .svg editing ability so I'm just wondering the possibility. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. The original intention was for the new one to replace the old one but because I decided to remove the whale shark it creates issues with image captions relating to the old chart. That said, there are some problem users over at the wiki commons that reverted my update. I then decided to update the description on the old image, which was full of errors and misleading statements (see the image history and talk page) but they reverted those as well. The old image doesn't represent the science very well. The idea that there is a 'conservative' and a 'maximum' is also problematic in my eyes; which of the many estimates do we decide is 'conservative'? (I don't think those words even appear in the literature until Shimada 2019). 20m estimates exist but one is purely hypothetical based on scaling trends in the great white and assumes a questioned 7m GW existed. Shimada 2019 shows that another ~20m tooth based estimate is a mistake. Admittedly, considering how many estimates are out there, deciding which estimates to show in a scale chart is difficult. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like File:Longest dinosaurs2.svg and File:Largesttheropods.svg. I'm counting 6 estimations for max size: 13 m by Randall 1973; 25 m by Schembri and Papson 1994; 25 m by Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996; 16.5 m by Jeremiah 2002; 18 m by Shimada 2002; and 15 m by Shimada 2019. If we're doing average size, we could use Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996, 10.5 m and 14.3 m for males and 13.3 m and 17 m for females; or 10.5 m by Pimiento and Balk 2015 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in terms of layout? Finally got a full copy of Gottfried 1996 who do use the phrase 'conservative maximum TL' for their 15.9m estimate. Either way, the existing chart's 'conservative' is too large for Gottfried 1996. Shimada 2019 effectively resizes this estimate to 15.3m after remeasuring the tooth in question. I personally think for this chart we should stick to more recent estimates, ie Shimada 2019 should be used over Shimada 2002. Shimada 2019 also shows that many of those estimates above are not reliable or have made mistakes. I have no issue mentioning larger estimates in the text but I don't think we should show them. Regarding 'Average'; there is 'average megalodon size' including juveniles & adults (ie Pimiento and Balk 2015), or 'average adult megalodon' (ie Gottfried 1996 10.5-14.3m for males); I have currently gone with a global estimated average of 10.5 m as suggested by Pimiento and Balk 2015 and also happens to be the size that Pimiento 2010 consider being adults & Gottfried's 'smallest mature male'. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris reconstruction inaccuracies
I noticed this reconstruction of Anomalocaris has a few inaccuracies. The big one is that the Burgess Shale species A. canadensis did not have the tail "streamers" (they're only known for the Chengjiang species, A. saron). Additionally, though the low level of detail makes it hard to tell, it appears to lack setal blades on the back and a head shield. Something about the proportions also seems off, but that might just be foreshortening. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the work in progress (WIP): [30]. The lower jaw is based on a CT restoration [31] (Fig. 6). Upper jaw curvature has been based on Edestus, which may not have been a good thing (perhaps Sarcoprion would be better?). Postcranium is a cross between Caseodus and Fadenia[32] (Fig 12 & 30). Any input? Do we have any Pal(a)eozoic fish experts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason to think it had an Edestus-like arrangement with upper and lower whorls instead of a Helicoprion-like arrangement with only a lower whorl? Ornithopsis (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fish expert, so I'm not really sure. I do think the updated appearance looks better—as far as I can tell, Edestus is unusual in having similar tooth whorls on the upper and lower jaws (compare to e.g. Ornithoprion and Helicoprion), hence my asking if there was a good reason for the original Edestus-like appearance. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an additional creature: Bandringa. I will eventually give it a more creative color scheme (and probably a big green eye, as seen in many modern lineages of deep-sea cartilaginous fish) and perhaps a background. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to find a good source of information on Bruketerpeton. I see you have a source but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is considering its age and how it is a popular science textbook rather than a peer-reviewed study. The illustration doesn't look like it has glaring errors relative to Gephyrostegus, though I am unsure of whether the eardrum would be visible. Most animals with eardrums evolved them independently and have specific adaptations of the stapes and temporal region coinciding with such adaptations. Gephyrostegus doesn't have any real evidence for such features, due to stapes not being preserved and the temporal region having an unspecialized and broadly concave rear edge. As a close relative, I doubt Bruktererpeton would be any different. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will remove the eardrum (it looks like our current Gephyrostegus life restoration also has an eardrum, so I'm guessing that it needs to be removed too). I'm pretty sure that the skeletal in the book is taken/redrawn from a scientific publication (many of the skeletals are credited as being from The Osteology of Reptiles, for example) although they don't cite their source beyond stating that the author is Boy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, claws didn't really evolve until amniotes. Casineria has been claimed to possess claws based on the tapering and curved unguals, but Marjanovic & Laurin (2019) showed that the tips of the unguals were not pointed, unlike the case with true claws. They also placed Casineria within a gephyrostegid grade of tetrapods, along with Bruktererpeton. So I think that tapering and curved (but not keratinous) finger tips would make sense for Bruktererpeton. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I realized that the head of my Mystriosuchus doesn't match the perspective of the body, so I'll have to fix that (probably by changing the angle of the neck). I also have to upload my colored Cobelodus (see above). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries
Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries until 2007
The timeline should be updated thanks to new discoveries of Archaeopteryx specimens since 2007. It also should take into account the renaming of "Pterodactylus" crassipes as Ostromia and the erection of Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi for the Maxberg Archaeopteryx specimen.68.4.252.105 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Basilosaurus
I'm not quite sure what to make of this honestly; it was posted here without comment by an anonymous IP whose only edit record is here, and likewise the only actions of the commons user who uploaded it was just that. The image itself is a known illustration from deviantART[34], but there it is clearly watermarked and the full resolution is not available unlike this image. It's licensed as their own work, which lines up with the lack of watermark and high resolution, and a reverse image search doesn't turn up any other examples of the image outside of deviantART and Wikipedia, let alone without a watermark and at this resolution. I'm not sure how else this could be uploaded if it's not the original artist, but I don't know if we can be sure of that and let the image stay up on commons as a Creative Commons image. Thoughts? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you that I don't see any real possible other way for someone to have uploaded this work if it wasn't there own, and following the nice guideline of assuming good faith I think that the lack of any alternative that we can see as possible means that we should assume this is their own work. I think its possible there is an underbite in the art, although that could be perspective, but I don't know enough about Basilosaurus or its relatives to say much else on the accuracy. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the B. isis skulls look like they've got a bit of an underbite (the species isn't specified here). I will say that the perspective does make the tail look a bit unusual, but this image does quite a nice job on the head - unlike virtually every single other restoration that we have (expect maybe this one: File:Basilosaurus BW.jpg). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pectoral fins seem too far back; in whales, they are just behind the head and neck. I'm not as confident on this next issue but the dorsal fin seems very far forward compared to other reconstructions. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be a good time to review the other Basilosaurus restorations[35] we have? Most of the others were uploaded before the paleo review page was started... We need to apply the "inaccurate paleoart" tag more generously, as this is often not done even when an image is deemed such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a gallery below of our other images (I actually was thinking of doing something like this soon!):
I have no clue what the heck that head's based on
Tail very thin
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head doesn't match bulky body
Original of the former
Too deep body
"Demonic" shrink-wrapped head
Should have much more oral tissue going by modern whales
General proportions
Shrink-wrapped head, "surfin' serpents" meme, no dorsal fin
I think the last one can be excused and used as a historical example. The ones with the demon heads could probably be modified more easily than the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the least inaccurate and probably most worth fixing would be Dmitry's and Pavel's but I agree they all have inaccuracies. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give those two a shot, anything else that should be fixed in them? Seems odd that the raised area around the nostrils would be so obvious in the living animal, or what? Maybe the one with the thin tails too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps modify Pavel's one following B. isis, as Dmitry's is B. cetoides? That way, we can have a restoration for each species. Also, Pavel's has a strange constriction in its profile after the pelvis, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, I'd imagine it would not even be discernible, but even most modern restorations seem to show it. Also, modern whale skulls give little indication of what the living animals look like... FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basilosaurus had 10 teeth on either side of the jaw, I’m only counting 9 (but it’s kinda blurry if you zoom in that much, so I don’t know). The head seems about the right size, I don’t know why it’s been called shrink wrapped, but I will say the top of the skull seems really bony (like it’s an exact outline of the skull) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my long periods of inactivity, I'll try to be more productive (although I may not succeed, as I'll be pretty busy for quite awhile). Anyways, here's another Liopleurodon update. I replace the old flat skull with the Noè et. al., 2003-style head, in addition to giving it a Rhomaleosaurus-style caudal fin. How does it look? (As a little side-project, I did a very rough scaling of the Monster of Arramberri using Liopleurodon and got a pliosaurid that was a little over 9m.) Additionally, I plan to upload some more marine reptile size comparisons once this one's approved (these include Muraenosaurus, Pliosauridae, and Sachicasaurus, not to mention updates coming for Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus). I'm also open to requests. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Eurhinosaurus update. Looks more like a real animal now. The skull's based on Jaime Headden's skull diagram, which we still haven't uploaded here yet. Any comments on the updated size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more weekend in October means one more skeletal. Here's my first non-archosaurian skeletal - Gallardosaurus. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that can't already be found in the file description. However, there appears to be what looks like part of Cv5 preserved in the specimen, but nothing about this is said in the paper, so I've left it in light gray. Was this the right choice? I'll ping Eotyrannu5, who's done a much more complex pliosaur skeletal, for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked someone else to comment on this one, since I'm not a marine reptiles guy, and he said it looked fine, so I will echo that sentiment. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting up this recent PaleoEquii art for review for the sake of it. I think it looks really good, and I personally know that the artist is quite knowledgeable on Camrbian fauna. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The shape of the tail looks a little off. I count eight segments in this reconstruction; Ooedigera had seven. The terminal segment looks too pointed. Would there have been a narrow, rayed fin along the margins of the tail like that? I'm not extremely familiar with vetulicolian anatomy, but that seems different from other reconstructions. Also, if I'm reading Vinther et al. 2011 (the original description) correctly, the tail would have been somewhat more asymmetrical dorsoventrally and had a more prominently scalloped dorsal margin of the first four segments. The body also doesn't look particularly laterally compressed, which Ooedigera is described as being. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's all that needs to be changed? According to Vinther et al., "a broader flattened region extends ventrally all the way from segment 2 to 7 and dorsally between segments 5 and 7", and they repeatedly emphasize the importance of this dorsoventral asymmetry. Your reconstruction doesn't look anything like that. Based on my interpretation of the text, it should look something like this [38] (apologies for the quickness of the sketch, it just needs to get my point across), with a scalloped dorsal margin along the first few tail segments, and no 'fin' along the margins. In addition, the dorsal margin of the tail should probably be approximately aligned with the dorsal margin of the body, as in other vetulicolians, not dorsoventrally centered. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to PaleoEquii, who said "I think that's all that needs to be changed" after changing one detail, without responding to any of my other criticisms. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it looks better than our current reconstruction which is somewhat reminiscent of a bejeweled vacuum cleaner (no offense to the creator). It's in lateral view so I don't think dorsal anatomy is going to be very prominent, and it should be a pretty easy fix. Just make the back end of the tail a bit more bulbous on the top, and the first few ridges a bit steeper. As for my former comment about shading, it actually looks fine the more I look at it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one more than the old one too but that just makes it all the more important to make sure this is up to high standards of accuracy. I'd like for PaleoEquii to either revise this image in response to my critique or justify his interpretation as opposed to mine. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue (the tail fin) has just been fixed, and I think that the rest of the anatomy is consistent with what is known of the animal. It was a soft-bodied creature and I wouldn't doubt that it was capable of some variability in its body shape. As it stands, the body looks taller than wide, which resembles the fossil and corresponds with the described lateral compression, the extent of which is not fully set in stone due to the 2D preservation. And the tail looks to be positioned above the dorsoventral midline, as it is above the body's gill slits. Perspective may be responsible for some ambiguity there, in addition to the clearly convex dorsal surface ("egg-shaped", according to the paper's etymology). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right that the body is within acceptable bounds of accuracy, but I still have some concerns about the tail, to be honest. I've never seen a reconstruction of a vetulicolian with a thin, seemingly translucent, rayed tail fin like this depiction, so I want a source on that, or for it to be changed. Near as I can tell, the thinner fin-like region of the tail is still composed of the same shell material as the rest of the tail. The shape also still looks off in a few details--the peaks of the scalloped axial region edges don't seem to line up with the segment boundaries in some places, when they probably should. The axial region (i.e. the non-fin portion) is described as consisting of "hourglass-shaped" segments and that appears to refer to the concave dorsal and ventral margins of each segment of the axial region. Finally, the seventh tail segment is more or less triangular in Ooedigera, which is not how it looks in this image--and it doesn't look angled in a way that would explain the difference either. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for the tail segments, they should go inwards rather than outwards so that in dorsal view a segment would have an hourglass shape, the ventral side of segments 2–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, the dorsal side of 5–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, and the ray fin is highly implausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk07:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the tail fin is consistent with tunicate larvae and especially conodonts and lancelets, which seem to resemble the "bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome" model quite well, especially compared to the oddly derived shape of ambulacrarians. And responding to dunk, the hourglass shape is meant to be in lateral view, not dorsal view. The scalloping persists throughout the tail as far as it appears in the fossil. From my interpretation of the source's text and imagery, the illustration is completely consistent with the fossil evidence. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conodonts, tunicates, and lancelets don't have shells on their tails, so I'm not sure they're the best model. Given that the life reconstructions of Nesonektris in its original description (which is a reliable source) lack such a fin, I'd like a source justifying depicting it to the contrary, not just supposition. Also, the shape of segment 7 is clearly inconsistent with the fossil in my eyes, and the shape of the rest of the tail still looks off to me in various respects, as should be evident by comparing my sketch to PaleoEquii's painting. I'm pretty sure that the transition between the axial region and 'fin' ventrally should also be concave, to complete the hourglass shape of the axial region ("there is a broad axial region with concave margins on each segment, giving each of the seven segments an hourglass shape"), but note that that transition between axial region and 'fin' is more a matter of mediolateral thickness of the segmented region than transition from a segmented structure to a thin translucent rayed fin. FanboyPhilosopher is, however, right that there is no reason to depict the segments as convex in dorsal view (as the tail is not preserved in a manner that would show that). Ornithopsis (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the segments still don’t have an hourglass shape in lateral view. The dorsal aspect is fine but the ventral aspect is convex where it should be concave, so each segment right now ends up sort of saddle shaped (if I’m looking at this right) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. That, the structure of the fin, and the shape of the final segment are my main concerns left with this image, and I'd really like to see those concerns addressed because we definitely need good vetulicolian art like this on Wikipedia. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoEquii: So really, there's only 3 fixes and then we're set:
1. Make the tail segments hourglass-shaped rather than saddle-shaped
2. Remove the ray fin
3. Make the final tail segment sharper (like how it was in the original version)
The tail should be fine now. I don’t see the harm in ornamentation or even simple colour on the tail fin? The fossil itself isn’t exactly pristine. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks saddle-shaped (both the dorsal and ventral sides should be concave, right now the dorsal is concave and the ventral is convex). The ray fin would be more likely if it were a chordate, but it wasn't, it had armor, so a ray fin is not very plausible User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "ray" fin is fine, it looks like its supposed to except for the colouration giving the appearance of rays, but a striped pattern isn't a dealbreaker. I can't comment on the rest tho. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of an hourglass figure at this point is simply down to perspective. As for the fin, Ooedigera had a much softer body than Chengjiang Vetulicolians. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments: first of all, this is an educational website; if it's misleading but not demonstrably wrong that's still a concern (although admittedly not a dealbreaker). However, more to the point: the "fins" of Ooedigera are laterally compressed extensions of the segments, not a separate structure, as I understand it. They should be segmented like the axial region, not a separate unsegmented structure. I'll also link to my revised sketch of it; I still think that various aspects of the tail anatomy in PaleoEquii's reconstruction look wrong to me [39]Ornithopsis (talk)
At this point he has told me that if you all are not satisfied with his illustration, then Ornithopsis's sketch would be a better replacement for the article's current artwork. Wikipedia is kind of an afterthought for him and he's more invested in his current work. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything incorrect enough about it to not be used, it seems to be a matter of interpretation of the description. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii is a better artist than I am, so I'd rather his work be used than mine, once my concerns have been addressed in some way. My concerns aren't just a matter of interpretation. The "tail fin" of vetulicolians is essentially a sclerotized extension of the segments, not a separate unsegmented structure as it appears in this image. Unless somebody can provide a citation indicating otherwise, that's still a problem with this image. I can try to make adjustments to PaleoEquii's image to bring it to my standards of accuracy if he isn't interested in editing or defending it himself. Also, Fanboyphilosopher, since you seem to be acting as PaleoEquii's envoy, could you please tell him that it would be nice if he posted his images for review rather than adding them directly to articles? I promise I'm not going to always be this hardass about it; it's just a matter of principle. I do have a question about his latest Ursulinacaris reconstruction, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii, it might be more efficient to upload basic sketches of animals you're reconstructing, which we can critique and you can very easily change, and when the basic sketch is deemed accurate, then you flesh it out completely. Also, I'm not entirely certain, but the eye seems very advanced for a Cambrian creature. I'd think the eye'd look more like that of a nautilus or maybe a compound eye. Were you trying for a photoreceptor look like what you did here? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eyes had already become extremely complex by the Cambrian. Anomalocarids, for example, had dichromatic vision, extremely powerful compound eyes with large retinas, and stalks. To view all Cambrian eyes as simple is incorrect. A more apt comparison for Anomalocarid eyes would be those of crabs and dragonflies. PaleoEquii (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoEquii's reconstruction of the eye looks fine to me. I had more of a question/comment than outright criticism, in this case: given that Ursulinacaris is likely to be the most basal hurdiid, given the anatomy of its frontal appendages, is it a good idea to reconstruct it with a Hurdia/Aegirocassis-like head shield? I would think that a smaller head shield (like Tamisiocaris and Peytoia) would be more likely with phylogenetic bracketing. If you think changing it isn't justified, I won't argue further on that point though. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers at the ROM have uncovered whole-body specimens of Stanleycaris from the “Thick” Stephen Formation recently. Don’t know when it’ll be published, but it’s already been in the PalAss conference. As for Ursulinacaris, no phylogeny has included it, but I and some other researchers find it close to Pahvantia, mostly based on the gracile nature of the endites. Think of it as “informed speculation”. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, that's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Fair enough on Stanleycaris, but wouldn't that only support my concern that a basal hurdiid (such as Ursulinacaris seems to be in the absence of published evidence otherwise) shouldn't have a Hurdia-like head shield? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no body specimens of Ursulinacaris, nor published phylogenies, nor any published ideas on what the whole animal looked like. I’ll be honest, I don’t see the problem. I’m not saying it’s one way or another, this is my interpretation. I could defend my interpretation, but it doesn’t really matter if we aren’t allowed to do “original research”. This interpretation of the animal, as far as published literature is concerned, is just as valid. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I also disagree with using solely original research to support a speculative reconstruction, I don't think that's a problem here. As said, the source doesn't offer a phylogeny, and instead notes "Crucially all hurdiids show unique characteristics in their frontal appendage morphology when compared to other members of the family, with no apparent sequential acquisition of characters that would provide resolution from a phylogenetic analysis". It also says that Pahvantia's paired setae may be homologous with the paired endites of Ursulinacaris and non-hurdiids. So there isn't really a clear phylogeny to engage in phylogenetic bracketing, and using Pahvantia as a basis for the carapace reconstructing is no worse (and may be better) than other choices. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly satisfied with your explanation, but as I said, I'll drop it as I admit it's too hard to prove either way. However, upon closer examination of the appendages, I note that you appear to have depicted it with the endites reducing in size beginning on the sixth podomere rather than the eighth--i.e. with only three pairs of elongate endites instead of five. I would have assumed the rest were hidden by the carapace, but the position of the shaft endite seems to indicate otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be happy to discuss it more on another platform, but I’m simply following the rules set out here. There are five pairs of elongate filtering endites, and two smaller, reduced endites after them. PaleoEquii (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. It still needs work; the five elongate endite pairs should all be close to the same length, around twice that of the associated podomere (podomere 7 endite height to podomere height ratio is 1.3 in your reconstruction but 1.9 in the holotype) and the reduced endites should also be longer (podomere 8 ratio is 0.7 in your reconstruction but 1.5 in the holotype). The segments also don't exhibit the change from deep but proximodistally short in proximal segments to more elongate in more distal segments (podomere 5 height:depth ratio is 2.3 in the holotype and 1.5 in your reconstruction; podomere 8 ratio is 0.75 in the holotype and 1.75 in yours). Ornithopsis (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be working on the Ursulinacaris any further; I’ve decided it would be best for me to only upload here infrequently at most. Use it or not, I do not want the Ursulinacaris illustration edited. PaleoEquii (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that PaleoEquii has blocked me on Twitter as they feel that my criticism of their work has been unfair in its intensity, and I feel that may be the cause of their decision to not upload work to Wikipedia as well. I apologize if they feel I have been unfairly harsh towards them; it was not my intention to be a jerk but it seems that I may have been. If they wish, and others here agree it would be for the best, I am willing to refrain from participating in reviewing any of their future uploads. Aesthetically, their work is far above the standard of much of the paleoart on Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to lose that because of my rudeness. I only wish they were more open to fully participating in the paleoart review process. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with what happened offsite, but your comments here strike me as quite reasonable. The spirit of this review process is to ensure that our images hold up under all kinds of technical scrutiny. It is not a gallery, and it is not DeviantArt (and I think many uploaders - not to point fingers specifically - forget that). If PaleoEquii is not willing to have this image edited, and if there are still clear outstanding issues of accuracy or plausibility, we have no choice but to tag it as inaccurate, regardless of how high-quality it may be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scale looks fine if you're using the standard Doswellia lateral view skeletal first published by Weems (1980). I would personally make the legs more robust, though that's more personal preference than anything. I would also specify that it's based on Doswellia kaltenbachi, rather than Doswellia sixmilensis. The dorsal view in Weems (1980) may be an interesting opportunity for top-down size comparison, and would also be good for depicting the unusual width of the animal. Lastly, Doswellia is a non-archosaurian archosauriform like Vancleavea, just to let you know. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Half of me's still thinking that Doswellia is an abberant carnivorous aetosaur instead of a proterochampsian. I've strengthened the limbs a bit. I may eventually add in a dorsal view. Here are three new size charts for the time being, and a REAL aetosaur (Aetosauroides), which is actually my first pseudosuchian size comparison. It's quite a bit smaller than the specimen's estimated length in the paper, but it is still within the size range provided, so I hope that's okay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's fine to show the animal jumping, although I was unaware that there was some doubt about lagerpetids being saltatorial. I can add another leg if you really want. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe there is a larger specimen of Aetosauroides - the specimen PVL 2052/1 (skull) had an estimated length of 25 cm, along with a body length estimate of 2 m, in Casamiquela 1967. It is reported to be "1 1/4 times larger than" what I take to be the holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I requested him to put up the images he put up. You can message him on Deviantart about it.
Yeah, the foot claws should be there, the shortish hair seems nice, though, alluding to Mark Witton's recent blog post.[42] Can't say much about the identity issue, but contacting the Deviantart user seems the only way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What particular modifications do you think are necessary? I assume that Bennett's assessment that Scleromochlus had a sprawling stance and a nearly plantigrade foot are the main ones, but are there any others? I feel like it's worth mentioning that Bennett's assessment that it is not an avemetatarsalian has been met with some skepticism among researchers online (e.g. [43]) so it might be wise to not assume that Bennett's reidentification of it as a stem-archosaur is definitive. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The osteoderms have been known since Benton's 1999 redescription of the taxon (and were observed in the original description but interpreted as gastralia). I'm not sure why Tamura's reconstruction lacks them, but it might just be the low detail of the image. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all these modifications, it would probably be easier to draw it from scratch... The original is almost too rough to spend time saving. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New Lemurosaurus reconstruction
Lemurosaurus
The current life restoration on the Lemurosaurus page is perhaps a bit zoologically improbable and/or terrifying to small children, so I decided to make a new one. What do you all think? I'm aware that this is not the Dryptosaurus reconstruction I said I'd do on the dinosaur page a few weeks back; I hit a roadblock on that one but hope to finish it soon. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly looks better. Based on for example this[44] diagram, the back of the mandible should be deeper? Your shading makes it look like its depth is the same for its entire length. It also seems to be much narrower right behind the "chin" which isn't visible in the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The inferred range of Zygolophodon and Miomastodon
Wang et al. (2020) revalidate Miomastodon as a distinct genus from Zygolophodon based on comparisons of Zygolophodon gobiensis (Osborn & Granger, 1932) and Zygolophodon tongxinensis (Chen, 1978) with the type species of Miomastodon, M. merriami but also the Zygolophodon type species and gomphotheres, placing both species in Miomastodon. Therefore, the current map showing the range of Zygolophodon (taken from [46]) may have to be revised whereby the purple patches for North America and parts of East Asia are changed to pink to reflect the distribution of Miomastodon following Wang et al. (2020).
Shi-Qi Wang; Xiao-Xiao Zhang; Chun-Xiao Li (2020). Reappraisal of Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn & Granger and Miomastodon tongxinensis Chen: the validity of Miomastodon. Vertebrata PalAsiatica in press. doi:10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.20031070.175.133.224 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Images by Concavenator
The user Concavenator[47] has uploaded some nice paleoart, which should still be reviewed here to be safe. I'll add dinosaurs here too, just to keep it in one place. Mostly looks good as far as I can see, but the Camarasaurus perhaps has too many hand claws, and the Concavenator has too sunken skull fenestrae? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the ones I can comment on go, Deinotherium and Australopithecus look alright, the Camarasaurus is good beyond the hands, and the Concavenator looks good to me, fenestrae as they are, except the for seemingly identical fingers and possibly the feathers. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the toes are too short in the Entelodon? The hind feet look a bit too stumpy, compared to for example this skeletal of a relative:[48]FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They kinda remind of Disney cartoons (especially Australopithecus which sort of looks like Baloo when he was dressed up like King Louis in the Jungle Book), which isn't something wrong, I just thought it's kinda funny. I don't really understand your comment about the Entelodon hooves. I will say for Australopithecus that that is a very muscular child with a very wide range of facial movement and expressions for such an early hominin (though that may just be the Disneyfication) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean with the "Disney" style, but that shouldn't be a problem for most of them, as long as the anatomy is correct. But yeah, the apes probably shouldn't be smiling as much... As for Entelodon, it's not so much the hooves, more the distance between them and the toe-foot joint (compare with the same distance in the front feet), there should be "more toe" before the hoof begins. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is the Australopithecus mom be swinging at the very end of a small tree branch with a baby precariously perched on her back? They had a pretty humanlike physique, they wouldn't have been so adept at swinging around in the trees as orangutans, and do even chimps hold their babies on their backs when climbing or do they hold them on their bellies? Also, what's in the background for the ground sloth one? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these restorations look good, though I do agree that the Entelodon looks off. Not sure what's going on with the Concavenator, but it looks like it has a sail on its on arms, rather than quills, spines, feathers or whatever it had. I think the Camarasaurus tail looks a bit short, but that could just be me. The visible fenestrae, the identical fingers & visible front toes are easy fixes though. I also feel like it's for the best to spilt the images of Decennatherium, Tetralophodon & Machairodus.
Hello, I find these images of the American lion to be far too pale, paler even than the African lion. These are otherwise nice images but not easy to recolour. What do people think of this attempt by User:PawellMM at the Graphics Lab? ~ R.T.G09:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The retouching of the second image by Sergiodlarosa introduced far too much blue where the previous image was only slightly saturated. As well, I think the discussion of their colour shouldn't be divided between here and the talk page it was on already, so I'm declining to comment on that. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion should be kept here, as this is more widely watched by the relevant people. But as I said on the article's talk page, if we want to follow that paper, which only presents a minority view, we should follow it more precisely. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Longisquama
This image has not been reviewed yet. Tamura's more recent Longisquama reconstruction[49] seems slightly different anatomically (though it's too small to properly compare). If there are no problems, this is the only good Longisquama image that is not a fossil photograph (the only skeletal reconstruction posted here was declared inaccurate by its own author[50]. I wonder if the dinosauromorph-like legs in this life restoration were based on that skeletal?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a possibility, although we don't know any leg material for Longisquama so we can't really say for sure. I also see what looks to be some shrinkwrapping of an antorbital fenestra, which is unlikely to have been present. We aren't fully sure about its relations (it could be a basal drepanosaur), though I would bet that it had a much more sprawling posture than currently depicted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Szymon Górnicki uploaded his art to various articles without having them reviewed, any thoughts & criticisms of his work? They look pretty decent in my eyes, though the Dinosaurian version of Smok appears to have a pronated hand & overall looks a bit off in my opinion. Monsieur X (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lifting the arms of Smok could also put the hands in that position I think. In any case, it seems to have claws on the fourht and fifth fingers, which it probably wouldn't, and the perspective of the toes seem weird. Also, seems like the Lisowicia has skin covering its, err, tooth beak? I now see many of our other dicynodont restorations also show this, but is that likely? Also, Lisowicia has three very similar restorations, is that warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The croc-line reconstruction of Smok probably shouldn't be digitigrade. It also should only have three manual unguals, not five. It also looks a bit long-legged and short-bodied to me but I haven't checked the measurements. Lisowicia should not have a visible external ear, and even if it did have one it wouldn't be in that position. In at least Sangusaurus the caniniform process of the maxilla appears to have been covered by a beak, but I don't know if that can be applied to other dicynodonts. I see no value in having all three illustrations of Lisowicia on the page as is; only one—preferably the scale image—is needed. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there's so many Dicynodont restorations that cover the beaks with skin. I thought it was just a paleoart meme that caught on somehow, or perhaps it was based on the platypus' skin-covered beak? Anyway, I definitely think that there's too many similar looking restorations on the Lisowicia article, The two prior were enough. The location of the nostrils looks a bit strange compared to the other restorations. Monsieur X (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of finding any better sources, I found a Twitter discussion in which Christian Kammerer provides evidence for a keratinous sheath covering the caniniform process in Placerias[52], explicitly in the context of the beak covering the processes. The position of the nostrils doesn't look too problematic to me personally. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a strictly lateral view the tail is definitely too short, having compared it to Hartman's reconstruction[53] which it appears to be based on. I think the intention was for the end of the tail to be foreshortened away from the viewer, though it doesn't quite come across that well. A few other anatomical bits and pieces to mention; Silesaurus and Stagonolepis have the same manual ungual problem as Smok, and the ear on Metoposaurus is in a funny position, and should correspond to where the otic notch would be.DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as published sources go on the dicynodont beak issue, the redescription of Sangusaurus[54] explicitly indicates that the beak probably extended onto the caniniform process (describing the position of the posterior margin of the beak correlates as being on the posterior margin of the caniniform process), and gives no indication that this is an unusual extent for the beak correlates. Diictodon is also described as having keratin on the caniniform process [55]. Lystrosaurus has also been figured with a beak covering the caniniorm process [56]. Crompton and Hotten (1967) describe the beak extending to the Mundplatt, a membrane they suggest extended to the posterior margin of the caniniform process. All in all, it seems clear to me that dicynodont beaks did include the caniniform process, and I can't find any indication it was otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, anyone for rounding up our dicynodont restorations that show the skin covered part of the beaks so they can be corrected? We could just do a section with a gallery where anyone can add images as they find them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus & Mojcaj's Titanophoneus
Here's something a wanted to do for a couple of years now! Any thoughts on my edits to Bogdanov's Anteosaurus restorations? I hid the teeth under lips, removed the ear holes, made the skin around the skull less tight looking & cropped & sharpened the first image. Monsieur X (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the lower "lip" looks pretty smooth compared to the upper one, perhaps also give it some shading so it looks like it protrudes more along its length? If what I'm saying is even understandable... FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do get what you mean. Funny enough, I did actually think of putting some more "texture" or something to the chin, but didn't think anyone would noticed due to how compressed & pixely the originals were. Anyway, I'll fix it up tomorrow. Monsieur X (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, another thing I noticed with DB's images is that they often don't have an entirely white background, but is would probably be best if they did, since many of them are used in cladograms, for example, which looks odd with these sometimes bluish or greyish whites. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get where Bogdanov got those proportions from at all. The anteosaur with the most complete skeleton, Titanophoneus, looks nothing like that and very little of the postcranial anatomy of Anteosaurus is known. Compare with my Anteosaurus[57]. I never got around to finishing getting my image reviewed, and looking back at it I'm dissatisfied with it so I might revise it. In particular, I gave it too much of a sprawling stance and I wouldn't give it visible ears if I redid it. As for your edits, the lips don't look great to me, but I don't have any other significant issues aside from my fundamental concern about the proportions Bogdanov gave it. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he based the proportions of the animal on more distantly related Dinocephalians? Anyway, I've tried to change the length of the body & tail to better match Titanophoneus, though I was being a bit conservative. Also, I won't edit the second image until the first is critiqued. I would also like to apologise for taking so long to respond. Monsieur X (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, where does the claim that Titanophoneus has 60 caudals come from? Kammerer's review of the Anteosauria indicates that a complete caudal series is not known. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you might be able to guess, I still think the tail and body look rather short. I also think the hind legs look a bit short, but that might be a product of it being in a crouched pose (it's worth noting here that dinocephalians walked with their hind legs nearly erect). Orlov (1958) reports that there are 38 caudals preserved in Titanophoneus specimen PIN 157/1 and estimates the complete sequence of caudals as having contained at least 60: "Общее число предкрестцовых позвонков у титанофонеуса не менее 33; хвостовых сохранилось 38, но, по-видимому, было более 60." When I did my own Anteosaurus reconstruction, I took that into account; I don't think I could make the tail significantly shorter while remaining consistent with the fact that there are 38 preserved caudals and Orlov's interpretation that numerous caudals are missing. Remarkably, Orlov's Titanophoneus skeletal (the classic one that everyone copies) actually has too short of a body compared to the number of vertebrae he reported; his skeletal has only 26 presacrals of which 5–6 are cervicals, contrasting with his statement that it had 33 presacrals of which 7–8 are cervicals. Again, I took this into account when making my own. It's also worth mentioning that anteosaur trackways have tail drag marks, indicating a tail long enough to reach the ground in an upright-limbed walking pose. I am, incidentally, working on revising my Anteosaurus reconstruction right now, and will post it here at some point if it's desired. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the tail, body & even the neck longer on Dmitry's restoration. Any more critiques & criticisms that I should take into account? I have a sneaking suspicion that I should've made the tail even longer.... Anyway, all this talk of Titanophoneus has made me think that some of images for the genus may need to be reviewed/re-reviewed. Monsieur X (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better now. The tail could probably be longer, but it now looks long enough to be at least consistent with what's known (after all, according to Orlov, less than two-thirds of the tail is preserved so there's probably some room for interpretation in the exact length). The limbs now look a little short to me, particularly the hind limbs, but that might just be the crouched stance. My one significant remaining critique is that I think it would look better with the teeth fully covered by lips. I'll post my revised Anteosaurus for review when I complete it, which might not be for a few weeks—I'm juggling a couple of projects at the moment. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I also updated Anteosaurus landscape some time ago. For the sake of simplicity, I've also placed my edited version of Mojcaj's Titanophoneus here. Any thoughts & critiques? Ornithopsis, I'm a bit cautious to fully close the mouth of the Bogdanov's Anteosaurus due to a previous mishap with Dmitry Bogdanov's Titanophoneus. But I might do it if I get the OK from other users as well. Monsieur X (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So... pliosaurids have returned - and they're now vivid purple. I've scaled H. longirostris, but I didn't include it since I couldn't find length estimates for it. Hopefully I've reinflated the torsos sufficiently. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely obscure one today, a bizarre Megaloceros relative with the most extreme cranial thickening of any known mammal, and one of only two deer species ever to have inhabited Africa , and suprisingly recently with latest known dates of 4500-4000 BC. The image is directly redrawn from this image, so I don't think there should be any serious accuracy concerns. The skull is of a really old individual which is why there are no visible sutures. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the photograph itself is so it's not that easy to work around. Only the proximal cylindrical part of the antler is preserved, so I'm not sure there would be much to show regardless. A partial proximal antler ia shown on fig 15 of the paper, but I'm not sure how how it would be orientated relative to this specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Euparkeria
This image differs a lot from Gregory Paul's skeletal reconstruction[60], having a more robust body (and tail), an excessively rectangular head, strange legs and a seemingly digitigrade stance. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too fond of this illustration. The jaw seems detached from the cranium, the ear hole is missing, the back has an unusual arched shape, and there are too many osteoderm rows. I'm much more fond of Taenadoman's interpretation. Nobu Tamura's newer CGI version is also decent. I'd be fine with slapping an inaccurate label on this one, we've got better equivalents so touch-ups would not be necessary. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of NT's newer version[61] before I archive this section, am I the only one annoyed by the odd perspective where the plant in front of it somehow covers its head? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This skeletal reconstruction was drawn in 2015 and doesn't cite any sources, and because only a mandible and teeth are known, extrapolating other anatomical details such as posture or a sagittal crest of a Miocene ape is, in my opinion, unsafe because post-cranial anatomy is poorly known for Miocene apes, and I'm unaware of one with a sagittal crest. Also, the front view of the skull is far too narrow. This is the actual mandibleUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a drawing of the holotype. Since I literally just traced it, I'm gonna assume it's good to go and put it on the article. I figured I might as well mention it here User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the OR is extreme enough for that complete skeletal that it might be grounds for deletion. Nice drawing of the jaw. Looks like it was done freehand? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Scanisaurus size comparison and maybe other stuff
Speculative life restoration of Scanisaurus cf. nazarowi, based on related taxaSize comparison
Been a long time since I was here. I'm currently working on Scanisaurus, an obscure and dubious plesiosaur from Late Cretaceous Scandinavia and though I recently ensured that it wouldn't be an imageless article by getting some of images of Scanisaurus fossils up on commons, it's still somewhat lacking in imagery. I realize asking someone to do paleoart for it is a bit far (though if someone wants to that's fine 👀) but perhaps someone wants to do a size comparison for it? Help would be greatly appreciated :)
The material referred to Scanisaurus is very limited, everything we have on its appearance (about 4 to 5 meters long, relatively short neck for an elasmosaurid) can be found in my current draft. The only decent modern restoration of this genus in particular can be found on the page labelled as page 155 of this open-access paper, maybe that could be useful for making a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a quick restoration myself, should be fine since I followed what was in the 2018 paper for everything, but some of you might want to have a look at it anyway. All that's needed now is a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done quite a bit of work in expanding Cartorhynchus and I think it could use a size comparison. A (somewhat low-res) skeletal is available in Fig. 2 of this paper: [62] Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the silhouette. Would you prefer the animal in the water or on land? I probably won't finish the size chart until Friday (I've been really busy lately). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have questions regarding the copyright of images taken of Paleolithic artwork, (which I suppose can be considered to be paleoart in some sense, given many of the depicted animals are extinct). My question is whether they would be considered public domain as images of art (as the artists of the work are long since deceased), or the respective copyright of the image taker. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, the answer is no as the Canvas is 3d, per commons discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the rock surface is flat, it is as 2D as a painting. I think we would mainly have problems if a painting was painted across a bulging rock area where the photographer would actually have to be able to take a choice of angle. But we shouldn't show for example rock formations in the same photo, and only crop to the painting itself. Likewise, if the frame of a public domain painting is showing in a random image we find on Google, the frame should be cropped out, because the photographer holds the copyright to that 3D part of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing of a cave painting of Megaloceros giganteus at Cougnac
Another unusual one at WP/Paleoart today, a drawing from a photograph (which can be found here). I'm not sure if cave paintings have ever featured here before. I tried to authentically portray the line thickness for the charcoal, which is why the line thickness varies so much, the left edge of the drawing isn't actually drawn, but is part of the cave morphology. The image is a bit warped as it isn't drawn on a flat surface. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine, I had a similar image in the Columbian mammoth article (Relationship with humans section), I had uploaded a trace someone else did, but I ended up retracing it myself to be safe (see discussion under image review here:[63]). FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a selfmade photo of a user who seems to have photographed a replica on flat surface, so that should be fine, and the photo should also get a PD old tag along with the CC tag. The second one is also usermade, so that should be fine, and it illustrates the point of cave paintings on non-flat surfaces. If that photo had just been found on a Google search and uploaded as PD, it probably wouldn't fly because the cave walls (if it is not just a cave replica) are obviously not flat. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parocnus serus skull
An extinct ground sloth from Hispaniola. Drawn from a rather spectacular photo, missing the jugal (apparently a common taphonomic issue with Caribbean sloth skulls). I think the teeth are also loose from the sockets (at least in the upper jaw) as they look overly long and I saw another caribbean sloth skull in a paper which was noted to have this issue, which looked very similar.Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of different levels of interpolation of the range from the single find in central Chile, as indicated on the first image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been preparing an expansion for the Peloneustes article (you can see it here), so I thought that this would be a good time to upload this diagram. I've had this image for a while (ever since I worked on Gallardosaurus). I followed the reconstructed skull diagram in Ketchum & Benson (2011) pretty closely, since Peloneustes actually has a pretty decently preserved skull (pliosaurid crania apparently cave in quite frequently postmortem). I scaled it to this specimen (NHMUK R4058), although I could scale it to a different one. Comments? Feedback on the article draft would also be welcome, I worry that it's too extensive. It also appears that one of my main sources, Andrews (1910-13), is in the public domain. Is there any special procedure for uploading stuff from BHL?
Here are two other semi/vaguely-related things on the subject of British fossil reptiles from the days of old: Here's a restored Megalosaurus skull for a skeletal I'm working on (restored with Torvosaurus (gray & purple), Dubreillosaurus (yellow), Afrovenator (red), and generic elements (orange), and I just realized that I forgot about Wiehenvenator somehow). I don't think that I'll be ready to post anything else on this subject for quite a while, so that's why it's here and not at WP:DINOART. Additionally, I've been working on updates for my Ichthyosaurus size chart. I scaled a silhouette based on Hartman's skeletal to a skull length of ~55cm, which should have produced a preflexural (snout to tail bend) length of 2.8m according to this paper, but instead gave me one less than 2m. Any recommendations about what to do? (Sorry for this massive post). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peloneustes skull looks good. The length of the description is not unheard of, but I think it's a bit too jargony right now. Focusing on autamorphies and comparative anatomy will probably help you cut it down.
I did a Ctrl + F for 2.8 m in the Massare paper... this figure seems to be based on their assumption that skull (or "jaw") length is 20% of preflexural length in Ichthyosaurus. What this would mean is that the preflexural vertebral column is four times the length of the skull. From eyeballing Hartman's skeletal this doesn't seem to be the case. One possibility is that Hartman's skeletal is not I. communis — there is, after all, more than one species. This plaster cast of what should be a complete I. communis specimen matches the 20% ratio: [64]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On BDL or archive.org uploads, I zoom is as much as possible before downloading the images there, and then I crop and colour correct them. Here is an example from the same paper I think, at archive.org:[65]FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pliosaur skull looks fine, I don't know enough to comment on the Ichthyosaurus, but I am aware that the Megalosaurus has a jugal preserved. From that through cross-scaling via Torvosaurus you get a lower skull roof and consequently a more Torvosaurus-like long and deep snout. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Megalosaurus: The jugal (it's green instead of blue, this was mainly to distinguish which institution the specimen came from, something that won't be present on the finished skeletal diagram) seems to cross-scaled correctly with Torvo. I do notice that it articulates with the maxilla more posteriorly than in Hartman's skeletal, so that may be part of the weirdness. I'll look into it. Here's the version with Wiehenvenator parts: [66]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diprotodon skeletal mounts and skulls
It has come to my attention that most museum display mounts of the skull of Diprotodon are inaccurate, and are based on skulls that have been distorted by crushing, due to the heavy pneumatisation of the cranial portion of the skull. Accurate models and drawings based on uncrushed skulls are displayed on the right. Drawing of uncrushed specimen3d model of uncrushed diprotodon skull, showing penumatised endocranial sinuses in blue. The paper the 3d model and drawing are from states that the nasal turbinates were not restored, but I don't think this is a huge issue for external morphology. EDIT: fully rotatable 3d model of uncrushed skull is hereHemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the external nasal bones are among the most likely parts to be broken off, so they are debatable. I think one of the main issues is the ventral-anterior dorsal-posterior bar on the cranium that connects to the Zygomatic bar and the orbit in the museum specimens, which simply doesn't exist on the uncrushed specimens and is an artifact of dorsal-ventral crushing of the endocranial sinuses, this also causes issues with the overall profile of the top of the cranium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best we can do is probably use a photo in the taxobox where the error is less apparent. I doubt we'll get an up to date mount any time soon, if one even exists. We can add a tag like the one here[67] on Commons photos where it is obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image description clearly states that the image represents the Pleistocene, which renders the argentavis identification the most unlikely. I would suspect that the bird represents either a smaller teratorn or a condor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I don't think any of them were identified in the original upload, but we can be sure it's Megatherium at least, since the same drawing of it was uploaded separately. But it lived alongside Glyptodon, didn't it? We can just remove the reference to the bird, might be a condor, who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that I'm very excited to share - a size komparison of Kronosaurus queenslandicus! Our current size comparison is a bit odd-looking, with missing teeth, no trailing edge on the hind flippers, and no caudal fin (which can be inferred to exist through Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and cryptoclidids). I relied heavily on the Devourer of Gods thesis while creating this. One thing that I noticed is that the "Plasterosaurus" silhouette only came out at ~12 m when scaled to the 2.6 m mandible - perhaps scaling it to the 2.9 m report would be better? To create a rough "skeletal" for reference, I sliced up a photo of the mount in GIMP and reassembled it with McHenry's skull. After making this, I'm considering making charts for Sachicasaurus & "K." boyacensis. Any comments on this size comparison? Please analyze it brutally - Kronosaurus can be a contentious taxon. Also, does anyone know if any work's being done on the "Richmond pliosaur" (actually a polycotylid)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Kronosaurus Korner website confirms that it's a polycotylid and explains that the "Richmond pliosaur" nickname was made back when scientists thought that polycotylids were pliosaurs. [68]. As far as a know, the specimen is still taxonomically undescribed but the website states that phylogenetic analyses were made on it. For my take on the reconstruction, it is much better than the old one currently in the article. I haven't studied too much about Kronosaurus, but I have a few comments. First, I think that there should be some indication given in the diagram that the Harvard Mount is inaccurately long since people might think that the mount is depicted as the "upper estimate" of Kronosaurus. Second, it seems to me that the parietal crest for the MCZ 1285 proper reconstruction looks too short. Great job on the diagram! Macrophyseter | talk17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What exactly should the parietal crest look like? Right now it's both slightly longer and taller than in the McHenry (2009) skull reconstruction (although I'm not sure that that reconstruction accounts for the fact that pliosaurid posterior crania tend to cave in significantly). The labels can be changed pretty easily, perhaps to something like 'MCZ 1285 - Historic Reconstruction' and 'MCZ 1285 - Revised Reconstruction'? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note we have a photo of the "Richmond pliosaur" on Commons[69], which sat unidentified on Flickr for years with only a Swedish description. Not sure what we can use it for until the specimen is described, though... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Macrophyseter, I've made the parietal crest a bit taller, akin to what I did in the Sachicasaurus and "K." boyacensis size comparisons below. I've revised the labels, too. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a size comparison of one of Kronosaurus' Colombian cohorts, Sachicasaurus vitae. Sachicasaurus is huge, complete, and published in a freely licensed paper, so its size comes with a greater degree of confidence than that of Kronosaurus. It's about 10.1 m long here, which is close to the estimate of 10 m provided by Páramo-Fonseca et. al. (2018). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean 2 and 3? Not until I read your comment, but going by table 2, the neck seems okay, as does the precaudal series based on rough guesses & added cartilage after Kronosaurus. Table 3 deals with appendicular elements, most of which are in perspective here and therefore don't have determinable lengths. Table 1 was used to scale the skull, and with it, the animal. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I tried to do initially, but I realized that something wasn't right when the scale bars for the skull and body didn't match by a significant margin... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the third promised pliosaurid - "K. boyacensis (which may in the future become Sachicasaurus boyacensis). It came out at about 9.7 m, a bit on the lower side but well within the range recoverd by McHenry (2009). The silhouette is based on the photogrammetric reconstruction, Kronosaurus, and Sachicasaurus, with the proportions cross-checked against the provided measurements. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the new models by Петр Меньшиков (Peter Menshikov). He plans to create animation with them. Are there any errors? In the future, I will add even more files to the gallery. HFoxii (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Grendelius is really lumpy, the quadrupeds are all missing their manual unguals, and the Austriadactylus is missing a rudder and its teeth don't match up with the fossils. I haven't done any rigorous comparisons yet, so there may be even more anatomical problems present. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today were uploaded models of Tashtykia primaeva (known only by teeth and based on relatives), Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine and Atopodentatus unicus. HFoxii (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general aesthetic terms, the splotchy skin patterning and dark background make these restorations look unappealing, which detracts from their potential educational value. In specific terms, proterochampsians lack a fifth toe on the foot and have an enlarged second toe, unlike what the Pseudochampsa piece illustrates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a few plesiosaurs, it's time for an ichthyosaur! Here's a new Ophthalmosaurus size comparison. The current size comparison has a few problems, including the label (O. discus is a jr. syn. of O. natans, and O. natans is most likely Baptanodon). Despite the label being O. discus, it seems to clearly be based on File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, which is O. icenicus (and Ophthalmosaurus proper). The head shape in the current chart also gives the impression of gills, which Ophthalmosaurus/Baptanodon obviously didn't have. I drew my Ophthalmosaurus based on Scott Hartman's skeletal and the skeletal diagram in Lawrence (2008). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, it seems the eye should be modified, since it seems to take up the entire sclerotic ring, when only the inner ring should define the visible part of the eye? I've been thinking of this for years without knowing what to do, hehe... And the old diagram also has this issue, maybe we could use it for Baptanodon after all if fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the above image by making the eye smaller and removing the ear opening, which I haven't seen illustrated in other ichthyosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since a non-bilobous tail has been illustrated previously, we may as well keep this as a historical example. Does this imply anything for Cymbospondylus, though, which is sometimes found to be more derived than Mixosaurus (although more basal just as frequently, it seems)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a bunch of parvipelvian size comparisons. I scaled G. mordax, but I didn't include it since I could find no length estimates/skeletal diagrams with scale bars. The scale bars in the Keilhauia figure were off by a considerable margin. Ichthyosaurus was quite complicated to update. Hauffiopteryx was pretty straightforward. I'm also throwing in Arthropterygius, since it got no feedback when I first sent it through here. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly sometime over the next few days, it would have to rely pretty heavily on Ophthalmosaurus and Baptanodon though. I was going to see if anyone else wanted to make the size comparison, but considering that nobody's made one in 355 days since first requested, I may as well take a stab at it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah, it doesn't help there doesn't seem to have been any published length estimates of it? But if we know the length of the skull, it could be extrapolated from relatives? I wonder if it would be considered too much original research... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb would be to avoid making a size chart unless a length estimate exists or some sort of size-indicating diagram (i.e. the one in the Grendelius paper) appears in a peer-reviewed academic source. I realize that I violated this with Choconsaurus, it seems... oops. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can probably wait then. The article is also pretty image heavy as is. I didn't add a size comparison for Catopsbaatar for the same reason, no overall size estimates exist. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recently remembered a discussion about how short the tail was on Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus for something that was supposedly "croc-like". I had a look at various other Anteosaur restorations & found that Nobu's artwork to be lacking said long tail. His Anteosaurus also appears to be missing the various "bumps" or "warts" found on the skull. Speaking of the skull, it does seem a bit long. Monsieur X (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoGeekSquared's Atlanticopristis illustration is in dire need of updating. It's basically just a copy of the extant Pristis, which is very inaccurate. Sclerorhynchoids like Atlanticopristis are not sawfishes (pristids), but are actually most closely related to skates (rajiforms). Inaccuracies I can see include the rostral denticles all being the same size and the fin arrangement, which are characteristic of pristids and not sclerorhynchoids. I've written a summary of sclerorhynchoid paleobiology with a reference list here: https://incertaesedisblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/onchopristis-is-a-sawskate-not-a-sawfish/
I agree with your comments on life appearance. Given that we have soft tissue outlines of sclerorhynchoids (whether they form grade or otherwise) it's not very parsimonious to reconstruct them as sawfish clones.
That being said, I disagree with your comments on phylogenetics. Sclerorhynchoids have been unstable historically and they have come out close to Pristis at times. I am wary of pushing the Villalobos-Segura et al. topology too strongly at the expense of NPOV. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The phylogenetic analyses of Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) are the first to include sclerorhynchoids as far as I know. Previous papers placing sclerorhynchoids with pristids were not based on any analysis, so they should be disregarded. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Granted, it appears to just be Sclerorhynchus, but the analyses of these two papers both include sclerorhynchoids: [72][73] There is probably an argument to be made for taxon and/or character sampling but I'm not sure it's grounds to totally reject this work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They include a single sclerorhynchoid (Sclerorhynchus), not multiple sclerorhynchoids. Taxon exclusion is of course a problem with these analyses; Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) not only include more sclerorhynchoids but also other batoids. Additionally, the dataset of Claeson et al. (2013) (which was re-used by Underwood & Cleason [2019]) is missing important characters like rostral denticle replacement, wood-like rostral cartilage, etc. that distinguish sclerorhynchoids from pristids. It is also missing the 8 synapomorphies that sclerorynchoids share with other rajiforms. I don't think these analyses are anywhere near good enough to challenge the findings of Villalobos-Segura et al. and can be safely ignored. Carnoferox (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some images of Onchopristis with this skate-like anatomy circulating on the internet and was wondering what it was based on, so nice to see an explanation! Wasn't even aware that we had such substantially-preserved sclerorynchoid fossils. I'll get to work on making a new restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could even include dermal denticles like those seen in Onchopristis and Ischyrhiza, since I think Atlanticopristis is more closely related to them than to Sclerorhynchus. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. Btw, he didn't comment here but suggested to me on Discord that the colour pattern is probably not the most plausible given the animal's niche, ecology and relationships. I'll be re-colouring this with a more skate-like pattern when I have time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thylacoleo restoration by SERGIO GAUCI
Added to the article by SERGIO GAUCI without review. While it doesn't look too bad in thumb view, close up it looks terrible as it is composed of copies of the same hair image that look like they've been stretched in MS paint. The hind legs also look unaturally thin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an Effigia size comparison. Effigia looks really weird, although that's probably due to it being a pseudosuchian trying really hard to be an ornithomimid. My main questions are - 1: that's a really prominent Mt V in the Nesbitt & Norell skeletal. Is that probable or would it have been swept forwards and level with the other metatarsals? 2: Despite the scale bar clearly indicating a ~3m animal, Nesbitt (2007) estimates a length of only 2m. Which estimate should I follow? Or is this due to multiple specimens? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nesbitt remarks that "Metatarsal V could articulate to the anterolateral surface or the posterolateral surface of tarsal 4." That, combined with the morphology of the metatarsal, might be why it's reconstructed like that.
The larger and more complete of the skulls is 17 cm long. I'm inclined to believe that there is a mistake in the scale bar; if you scale the skull to 17 cm, what is the full length? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Crush skeletal looks intermediate between the two others that we've discussed, so I think that I'll use it as a reference when I get around to updating the chart later on this week/month. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Plotosaurus size comparison, the first mosasaur chart by me that matches my new style. I hope to add another (Plioplatecarpus and perhaps Prognathodon), as well as update Platecarpus, Goronyosaurus (finally getting to things that don't start with "P"), Clidastes, and Tylosaurus. How does this first one look? I wonder if the skulls are perhaps too small (they're larger here: [75]), as the holotype (smallest one) should have a total length of 4.2 m according to more than one source. Hmm... Plotosaurus would look an awful lot like an ichthyosaur if it had a dorsal fin... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main differences appear to be that Lindgren et al. reconstruct a longer axial skeleton and larger flippers than Camp, as well as a slightly deeper torso (due to the incomplete ribcage)... but the verts also seem to be scaled differently. Not totally sure what's going on there but it could be due to the composite nature of both reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled down the postcrania to match the 46cm skull length and 4.2m total length. The proportions are now intermediate between the Lindgren and Camp skeletals. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Plioplatecarpus. I was planning on doing Goronyosaurus today, but I probably won't get around to it until tomorrow. Comments? It's length is slightly over 5 m, which is a bit shorter than the 6-7m estimate here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page: [76] from North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources that has a supposed Plioplatecarpus skeletal cited to Carroll (1988), a publication that I can't seem to find with Google Scholar and isn't listed on the Oceans of Kansas website. Any clue what publication this might be? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a random Opetiosaurus. I wonder if the 30m Tylosaurus in its description is an error in translation and actually 30ft... same with Clidastes... hopefully. Anyways, how does this basal mosasauroid look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a diagram of all the "important" Tylosaurus species (except T. pembinensis, but Hartman's skeletal covers that) here: [78], so this will be a major reference for the Tylosaurus update when it comes. Additionally, would halisaurines have had bilobous caudal fins? If so, then the "basal ichthyosaur" shape would have evolved at least three different times in Mosasauridae (as the basalmost mosasaurine known, Dallasaurus, preserves claws [79]). Then again, so did flippers, apparently. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another random Triassic reptile size comparison, this one depicting Askeptosaurus. I made the human silhouette pale gray to put more focus on the reptile. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This 19th century illustration is commonly seen in textbooks. Because of this, I think it is useful to evaluate its accuracy. The pterosaur doesn't seem to be a real species - or is it an inaccurate Scaphognathus?. Are the shapes of the brachiopatagium and uropatagium correct? I thought the wing was slightly more 'rounded' and the (cr)uropatagium didn't touch the tail. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also needs a bigger propatagium, I reckon. It does look like early reconstructions of Scaphognathus[80]: remember, the holotype does not preserve a tail [81] so it would have been restored based on other Pterodactylus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind the new policy on historical images we have. We shouldn't edit this image whether or not it's inaccurate; if somebody wants to make a new version of this image that's fine, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it has always been an unwritten rule that historical images remain historical. But yeah, those teeth, the pose, and the robustness of the skull and neck vertebrae makes it pretty clear it's Scaphognathus (which was of course also considered Pterodactylus back in the days). FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undersized Wadiasaurus scale diagram
Wadiasaurus diagram by Smokeybjb
This scale diagram for the dicynodont Wadiasaurus indicus may be undersized. It's based on a skeletal diagram in Ray (2006) which seems to reconstruct the skull at around 15 cm in length. However, Wadiasaurus has been described as a "medium-sized" to "moderately large size" kannemeyeriiform (which can get quite big). Moreover, Roy-Chowdhury (1970) and Bandyohapadhyay (1988) both estimate a skull length of about 40 cm. The various published skull diagrams are composites based on specimens from multiple age classes, though they also seem to be based on the same specimens. Unfortunately, many of the earlier publications do not have scale bars, and instead have scaling information like "1/4 natural size", which is only really useful in a print copy. Can anyone who is more experienced with scaling try to edit the diagram or resolve this conflicting information? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Sources:
Roy-Chowdhury (1970): Two new dicynodonts from the Triassic Yerrapalli Formation of central India.[82]
Bandyopadhyaya (1988): A kannemeyeriid dicynodont from the Middle Triassic Yerrapalli Formation.[83]
Ray (2006): Functional and evolutionary aspects of the postcranial anatomy of dicynodonts (Synapsida, Therapsida).[84]
I've given it a go of scaling up the silhouette to match the ~40 cm skull length estimates[85], and I can upload the replacement SVG if everyone else is happy with it.
I couldn't find any reason to doubt the ~40 cm estimate, and although detailed measurements of the skull are lacking I did find a paper (Ray, Bandyopadhyay & Appana 2009[86]) that contained measurements of limb bones from different size classes, including individuals ">60% adult size" that corroborate the large body size (some of the largest bones are almost as long as the animal currently in the diagram!). I made a rough scale based on these lengths, which produced a larger animal and a skull length noticeably exceeding 40 cm.[87] However, this is based on some conjecture on my part, and also relies on Ray's skeletal being correctly proportioned (which it may not be given Wadiasaurus is known from a bonebed), so I'd personally stick with the first diagram based on skull length alone. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hind paddles I think are just a result of perspective, I can try and make this more obvious. I honestly forgot why I changed the caudal fin... I'll make it more cryptoclidid- and less non-polycotylid-xenopsarian-like soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of elasmosaurids (not quite cryptoclidids, but cryptoclidoids), consisting of an update (Hydrotherosaurus) and a new one (Kawanectes). Caudal fins assumed to be present based on Brancasaurus, Styxosaurus, and Albertonectes. Size estimates based on the handy table in the Kawanectes description paper. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, admittedly a little belatedly, I have also updated my Elasmosaurus so that it is based on other elasmosaurines instead of Hydrotherosaurus. Comments? Also, HFoxii, you may have to re-upload the translated version. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: the image I used for the sillouete has its head facing forward, making the head not as odvious, you guys are free to tidy it up if you like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe's Ventures (talk • contribs)
Looking at the Nature paper, the Dinornis with the raised foot here has a silhouette which exactly matches that of the one in the paper. Silhouettes are copyrightable, and the Dinornis image in question has a license that does not allow it to be modified or published under CC BY-SA 4.0. We cannot use such images without explicit permission from the author (in this case, all of the authors). While the proportions of an animal must match up with those of the known material, the silhouette needs to be original. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is certainly a copyright issue. A silhouette directly based on a copyrighted image probably won't fly, so they would have to be redrawn. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well that sucks, i apologise for any issues with copyright, i can send the orgninal imagine if you guys wat to edit it or make your own
I've recently been expanding Tatenectes, and it's currently on the verge of GAN. I have three images that I'd like to add to the article, but they have yet to be reviewed.
[88] Here is a work in progress for the life restoration. Coloration, more detail, and some refinements will be done eventually. This is based on the O'Keefe et. al. (2011) skeletal. How does this look? Comments on style as well as accuracy are welcome.
I've drawn a restored Tatenectes pelvis based on Fig. 6C in O'Keefe et. al. (2011). I've inserted a color key into the file description. Comments?
Dmitry Bogdanov's Megalneusaurus has yet to pass through review. I notice that it's missing a caudal fin (or at least has a very strange one), but Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and Seeleysaurus should be sufficient to demonstrate that a fin should be present. Is anything else amiss with this image? Does anyone wish to try editing it (I'm not super-good with editing Bogdanov's images)?
I'm not too knowledgeable about plesiosaur anatomy unfortunately, but I think the restoration looks good! There was a recent paper claiming plesiosaur tail fins were horizontal[89], I wonder whether that is controversial? I can try to edit the pliosaur fin, any references for how it should look? As for the pelvis, I wonder if it would be clearer on a white background? The outlines of the individual bones are kind of obscured (I know they are implied, but it make sit a bit hard to make out the shapes I think). As for paleoenvironment, any maps showing how the ocean it lived in looked at the time or something? That was nice in the Elasmosaurus article, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for some reason I always thought that the caudal fin had three lobes, one on each side and one on top (not sure why). I'm not really sure what to do here, perhaps Lythronaxargestes might know? It doesn't seem like we have any maps of the Sundance Sea, unfortunately. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vertical and horizontal arrangements would be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what to think about Sennikov'S argument. It is based to a large extent on an analogy with manatees, and he seems to think that the tail had an active role in locomotion. He also makes conclusions about the Seeleysaurus haplotype but it is not clear whether he has examined it first hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored cross-sections of the torsos of Tatenectes (left) and Muraenosaurus (right). Note the much flatter shape of the former, and its thickened midline gastralium
For the paleobiology, a diagram showing the cross-section of the body, ideally compared with a "normal" plesiosaur, would be perfect I think, since this is the most distinctive feature of the genus. I guess this would be an easy one to make for you? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a diagram showing a pachyostoic bone? A bit hard to imagine how it looks. And I misread, that's why I suggested an image for paleoenvironment instead, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, looks great and will be a very helpful illustration I think! Though I agree with FunkMonk that a white background looks cleaner and would fit better into the article, but decision is yours of course. I maybe would place the scale bar to the lower right corner, respectively, so that it is clearly separated from the drawing (right now, at first sight of the thumbnail, it looks a bit as if the scale bar would be part of the cross-section, which is slightly distracting). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the scale bars to the top right corner, since they fit better there (I put them in the torso initially since there was a big cavity there). I do prefer the black backgrounds since I personally find that they make the bones stand out more (and help remove some of the ambiguity introduced by outlines), although I can change them if anyone is really, really opposed to it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been at work on updating this old size comparison lately. I've decided to include T. proriger, T. nepaeolicus, and T. bernardi in addition to T. pembinensis. The skeletals from Nicholls (1988) were helpful as a start, but as I went further, issues clearly began showing up, such as the fact that the skull shapes don't conform very well to the actual remains. I'll list my current progress for each species below:
T. bernardi - Done. It used to be restored with many, many vertebrae, which made it different from Tylosaurus and much bigger. Following the revised vertebral count Jiménez-Huidobro & Caldwell (2016) and skull length of 1.6 m from Lindgren (2005), it turned out to not be much bigger than T. proriger.
T. proriger - Partially done. I've decided to include two specimens for this one, the first being Osborn's T. "dyspelor". The second will show the largest known specimen, which I think is Bunker. Does anyone have any measurements for Bunker, beyond a skull length of ~6ft?
T. pembinensis - Partially done. I've scaled a silhouette based on Hartman's skeletal to match the 1.21m skull length for MM V95 in Bullard & Caldwell (2010). However, it doesn't seem like a low enough total length estimate has been published for this not to count as OR. As in T. proriger, another silhouette depicting the largest specimen would be nice to include. This, from what I can tell, is Bruce, which is supposedly larger than Bunker, but I can't seem to find any bone measurements for this specimen. Does anyone know of them, or of a source providing a size estimate for this species?
T. nepaeolicus - Done. Everhart (2002) provided a pretty good overview of the subject, making scaling relatively easy.
The sheer number of mosasaurs needed for this size comparison will probably necessitate a different format, most likely something akin to Steve's megalodon size comparison. Any comments on anything above? Sorry for the huge post. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Figured skulls, details in description
Wonderful timing given that I have been working on the article myself (currently in sandbox draft), I was going to ask you to remaster the size comparison one of these days. It's great that you're giving attention to most of the major Tylosaurus species rather than just the most well-known ones. I would highly suggest though that you also add T. saskatchewanensis to the diagram as its quite anatomically well-known for a non-Kansas Tylosaurus and is one of the few species included in stable phylogenetic studies. Here's my comments:
T. proriger- For some reason, it seems that exact measurements on the Bunker skull haven't been published (either that or not easily found), despite the thing literally being on display at the Kansas University Museum and in many other museums as replicas. I've seen other rigorous amateur works facing this problem and simply estimating the skull at a flat 180 cm without much insight due to the lack of available information. I recall hearing from someone that the skull measured around 175 cm, but I have been unable to locate that source. Scientific sources roughly estimate a crude length at 12-13 meters without much insight, but IMO I would find Triebold Paleontology's replica length of 13.7 meters to be possibly reliable given their repute. However, I think that the people who've handled the specimen should know the exact measurements of at least the reconstructed skull. Maybe you can contact Mike Everhart or another paleontologist working in Kansas on this.
T. pembinensis- The Guinness World Records measures Bruce at 13.05 meters. However, given that the skeleton was mounted years before Bullard & Caldwell (2010), I believe it's likely that it may have too many vertebrae as erroneously estimated by Nicholls (1988). I do not know of any reliable information regarding the length of the specimen's skull; I had seen a number of claims that it measures around 180 cm but they don't seem to be backed up at all.
T. saskatchewanensis- It's represented by a nicely preserved skull and a good amount of postcranial material. The Royal Saskatchewan Museum made a bunch of skeletal replicas of the holotype, which measures at 9.75 meters. The skull length is stated to measure 132 cm, although it's not clear on whether this refers to the lower jaw or not (you could try confirming using the photograph of the skull which is D in the figured skulls on the right)
Since there are a lot more than five species in the Tylosaurus genus, if you think it would be informative you could try adding three remaining known species, although they are all from very fragmentary remains and so their estimates are pretty crude. One of them (T. borealis) has had its length estimated. Scientists haven't even considered attempting length estimates for the other two species, but it is possible to get a crude estimate via a few formulas that roughly translates crown height to total body length. An MS thesis by Garvey (2020)[90] reverse-engineered the measurements made by Everhart (2002) and formulated ratios that can, in theory, estimate the total length of a Tylosaurus using the crown height of a tooth (There's no exact formula calculating TBL using tooth crown height but there is a formula that specifically calculates the ratio between midline skull length and total body length, which can be used as a bridge with calculations of the hypothetical length of the midline skull from the teeth using the Tylosaurus skull measurements provided. The measurements show a rough ratio range of crow height-midline skull length by around 1:21-26 depending on tooth position). However, you may want to take these with a grain of salt because it could teeter on the edge between original research and application of basic mathematics.
T. borealis- Technically not yet a validly recognized species since its been described earlier this year by an MS thesis and probably won't be formally described anytime soon (which is why it's not in the taxobox) given that it took 12 years for T. saskatchewanensis to be formally described since it was identified as a new species by another 2006 MS thesis. Only fragments of the snout and jaws are known, but the author of the thesis estimated its total length since it has enough material for the holotype to be estimated at around 8.83 meters in TBL.
T. ivoensis- This guy is only known from isolated teeth, vertebrae, and some skull fragments, but the teeth can measure up to 6.2 cm in height, which is very big for Tylosaurus. Although it is also known from isolated vertebrae, I'm not much aware of many postcranial-body calculations. Using the estimated crown height of the largest known tooth (6.2 cm) and running it through a range of crown height-midline skull length-total body length ratio, I yielded a length range around between 10-12 meters.
T. gaudryi- The holotype skull has some good teeth in it, but I haven't been able to find any quantified measurements of the teeth. However, there are a number of photographs with reference scales, and so using those I estimated a crude crown height of around between 4.6-5 cm (eyeballed), which roughly translates to a crude TL of around between 7.4-9.8 meters. Let me know if you want to try examining it yourself.
T. iembeensis- There are currently no available described specimens to this species since the holotype went missing and reported fossils from a recent expedition to Angola has not been described yet. As a result, I don't think it's possible to estimate its length for the time being.
Let me know on any developments. I'm really excited to see how the revamp will turn out.
Here's the current WIP: [91]. Scaling Bunker to a 1.8m skull length produced a 12.5m TL, so I think that should suffice. I've also added the juvenile T. "kansasensis". "T. borealis" may warrant looking into, but as for the others, I think that I'll have to refrain from including them due to OR issues (my rule of thumb is to not make a chart unless a length estimate or reconstruction with a scale bar has been published). As for T. saskatchewanensis, the scale bar seemingly indicates the skull and mandible are under 1m in length. Additionally, the only photo of the mount we have seems to be skewed by perspective. Do you know of any resources for constructing a lateral view (i.e. photos, body segment measurements)? Thanks for the really helpful comments above! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great so far. Ignoring all of the crude estimates species is probably the best, I provided them just in case they could be of use. For the saskatchewanensis skull figure, I think this picture does it more justice [92]. As for constructing lateral view, I know that the more rigorous skeletal reconstructions made by the amateur Deviantart community scale individual vertebrae to construct body segment measurements/proportions. Basically, you simply need to know the vertebral counts of the species and then reconstruct the skeleton by scaling each individual vertebra to get the proportions; if you're trying to make a skeletal reconstruction this would be tedious but I think its easier if you're simply trying to get body proportions. Regarding T. pembinensis I think you would be better off to simply ignore Bruce for the time being and just use the holotype measurements and Hartman's skeletal.
An interesting thing to note is that the validity of T. kansasensis is still disputed. Most recent mosasaur papers recognize the synonym, but that's only because most of them are co-authored by Caldwell and his students (i.e. Jiménez-Huidobro and other University of Alberta students) or simply are not focusing on the subject at large. Not everyone agrees with Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016). This is also the case with T. bernardi, as the majority of studies that go into its taxonomy are co-authored by Caldwell and his students; there is a group of scientists that still think Hainosaurus is a valid genus based on dental characteristics, although I haven't found any followups to these arguments. However, I have only been able to find two studies that specifically put to the test Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016)'s arguments for kansasensis synonymy. One of them (Stewart & Mallon, 2018) argues that the proposed ontogenetic trends of T. nepaeolicus with T. kansasensis as a juvenile form is inconsistent with the reconstructed growth trends of T. proriger and offers a good chunk of rebuttals to the arguments of Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016). The second one Zietlow (2020) used a size vs maturity-conscious construction of a T. proriger growth series and found that the holotype of T. kansasensis is more ontogenetically immature than the T. nepaeolicus specimens AMNH FARB 124 and 134, which was interpreted as being evidence of the former being an immature synonym of the latter (I personally find some issues with this conclusion since it seems that only the holotype was tested despite the taxon being known from at least 13 well-preserved specimens compared to the poorly represented latter). Due to the given lack of consensus, I would personally recommend that T. kansasensis specimens should be recognized as a tentative (albeit disputed) valid species and be labeled as such for the time being until followups are published.
Going a bit out of the scope of the scale diagram, because we have a photograph of Triebold's Bunker replica with all of the vertebrae in the skeleton visible, we could be able to estimate the length of the Bunker skull by scaling all of the vertebrae and then subtracting the total reconstructed column length from the given replica length (13.7 meters). We can also do this with Bruce if we can count all the vertebrae in the skeleton (Or use Nicholls (1988)'s count) to find skull length, although I believe that the Guinness World Record's length may be inaccurate since it may have been measured without respect for skewed perspective (some parts of the skeleton bend sideways).
Does the T. pembinensis holotype have a length estimate, though? I can't find one for it (the citation in the article doesn't appear to back the ~12.2m length up), so it may have to end up being removed from the chart entirely. Also, what's the specimen number of Bruce? As for the T. kansasensis? juvenile, I'll probably just remove it to avoid taxonomic controversy. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any explicit length estimates for T. pembinensis with the corrected vertebral count, but the passage in question seems to refer to this excerpt at the end of the first paragraph in the introduction to Lindgren (2005):
"With an estimated total length in large, presumably adult, individuals of about 13 m (see discussion below), H. bernardi is one of the largest mosasaurs known, rivaled in length only by Mosasaurus hoffmanni Mantell, 1829 and ‘Hainosaurus’ pembinensis Nicholls, 1988."
However, given that the paper cites Lingham-Soliar (1995) for the length of M. hoffmannii (which he puts at 17.6 m), it's unlikely that this implies that they explicitly mean that T. pembinensis was measured at around 13 m, although it could be. Given that we have a vertebral count for T. pembinensis, I strongly recommend that you should use Hartman's skeletal as a reference for MM V95 or construct your own skeletal reference using the given count.
Regarding T. kansasensis, given that its the most well-represented after T. proriger if its a distinct species, I would still include them in the size comparison. You should simply label them as Tylosaurus 'kansasensis'. Macrophyseter | talk22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've identified the specimen catalog for Bruce, which is MDM 74.06.06. Nicholls (1988) has a table of measurements for the specimen, and when comparing the dentary length with the V95 skull I've estimated a lower jaw length of around 1337 mm. The lower jaw length of V95 is 1321 mm. Also, I've realized that Hartman's skeletal appears to have a lot less pygal vertebrae than reported by Bullard & Caldwell (2010) (7 vs 20), although it could simply be a difference in interpreting what defines a pygal vertebra. This means that the tail of T. pembinensis could be longer than reconstructed by Hartman (the dorsal vertebral count are consistent). Macrophyseter | talk23:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the second WIP. I've added three T. "kansasensis" specimens based on Everhart (2005) and Everhart (2008). T. nepaeolicus was used to restore the postcrania, since it is another small tylosaur and, as discussed above, quite possibly its senior synonym. I think that Bunker's okay for the moment. I haven't yet gone further in my attempts with T. saskatchewanensis, although I definitely did not intend to create a full-blown skeletal of it. Hypothetically, with enough views of the skeleton, I should be able to chop up the photos in GIMP and turn them into a rough reference for the silhouette (not the best thing ever, but it'll work in a pinch), although just having the body proportions and modifying T. pembinensis to match them should also work. Speaking of T. pembinensis, I tried scaling Hartman's skeletal to a mandibular length of 1.337m, but only got a TL of 9.5m (also, Bruce's specimen number would be MDM M74.06.06, I believe). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The " surrounding kansasensis should be changed to single apostrophes like 'kansasensis'; as far as I know that is the convention of writing out such taxons. For T. pembinensis, as I've pointed out in the above Hartman's skeletal has around 7 pygal vertebrae while Bullard & Caldwell (2010) reports 20; I have not fully counted the number of postpygal vertebrae in Hartman's skeletal. The number of cervical and dorsal vertebrae in the skeletal seems consistent, so I guess you simply have to elongate to tail to accommodate the missing tail vertebrae. In case you don't have the full paper, the vertebral count in the paper is as such: 7 cervicals, 29 dorsals, 20 pygals, 36 precaudals, and 74 caudals ("’Precaudals’ are defined as those vertebrae anterior to the first chevron bearing caudal, and ‘caudals’ as the vertebrae posterior to, and including, the first chevron-bearing caudal."). Also, I think it would be important that you make sure the estimates for the Bruce skull are optimal, as there may be multiple ways to estimating depending on what skull features you are comparing with V95 in Nicholls (1988). I compared dentaries (because I believe that comparing more posterior bones like quadrates may not account for differences in anterior extension), but you can get different yields when comparing different bones. I'm wondering why you mentioned your belief about the specimen catalog of Bruce when I just stated it earlier... lol
Also, if you're going to do T. borealis, I made a mistake with the length stated earlier. 8.83 m actually refers to the length of AMNH FR 221. The actual length was stated in text to be between 6.5-8 m. When going through the thesis appendices, I've calculated that the length yield would be approximately 6.94 m when using AMNH FR 221 as a proxy and 7.93 m when using T. nepaeolicus as measured in Everhart (2002) as a proxy. So that means you can try scaling either of the two models to the given lengths, but you'll have to confirm the accuracy of my calculations. Macrophyseter | talk07:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a loose suggestion, I'm wondering if also referring to specimens by their nicknames alongside their catalog numbers (i.e. Bunker and Bruce) would work out. Macrophyseter | talk07:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled T. 'borealis', it came out at 6.5m so I'm happy about that. I've corrected the labels for T. 'kansasensis', although I realize that I may have to update the silhouette after this. Adding Bunker's nickname shouldn't be a problem. Regarding T. saskatchewanensis, do the 1.32m MSL and 9.75 TL come from the description paper (I don't have access to it)? Scaling Hartman's T. pembinensis skeletal to such a skull length produces a TL of ~9.5m. As for T. pembinensis, the reason I restated Bruce's specimen number is because you initially left out the M in front of 74, which, weirdly, leaving out makes all the different in whether or not Google Scholar produces search results. The big issue with T. pembinensis seems to be this: Are there actually any published size estimates in the academic literature for it, beyond rivaling T. bernardi? If there are none, this may actually force us to have to abandon including this species, which, seeing as it is supposedly the largest, would be rather unfortunate. Additionally, just as an experiment, I scaled Hartman's T. pembinensis to a 1.8m SL and got a TL of 12.8m.
I have just thought of a way to potentially deal with Bruce, though. By roughly approximating the body proportions based on the former vertebral count, then scaling the silhouette to ~13m, it should, hypothetically, be possible to reapply the modern proportions and thereby produce a silhouette for this specimen. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but it is at least a possibility, similar to the photographic method you mentioned before. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread Bullard and Caldwell, and I'm starting to think that the study intended to mean that T. pembinensis had 7 cervicals and 29 vertebrae between the cervicals and caudals, based on the explanation in text that that is the number of vertebrae they could count in such region, but they could not differentiate between dorsals or pygals due to preservation. It's a bit confusing because they still say that there are 20 pygals in the vertebral series chart despite likely contradictions. But with that sort-of clarification, that would bring the vertebral count down to one that is a bit shorter than T. proriger. That basically means that T. pembinensis should be smaller than T. proriger given the estimated size of the skull. Here's[93] a modification of Nicholls (1988) I made (T. pembinensis above, T. proriger below) with the extra vertebrae removed in Williston style; It's not certain where the pygal series starts but I've placed its count at 7 as that's the standard diagnostic for Tylosaurus. As it turns out, that number is also around consistent with Hartman's skeletal; for some reason, his skeletal has two cervical vertebrae missing (which should be an easy fix, just split the neck, add two additional cervicals, and reconstruct the body from there). So in all, it's probably accurate all along to get around the 9.5 m range, although it could be slightly different when you add the possible two missing cervical vertebrae. After all, Bruce was likely reconstructed with too many vertebrae as implied by Lindgren (2005) (makes me wonder why the Guinness World Record declared it scientifically accurate years after it was found outdated), and he probably didn't consider how much reduction in size accounting for the extra vertebrae would get when comparing it with T. bernardi since that's not the focus of the paper. Also, I did not realize that you put the M before the 74 on the catalog, apologies for that stump!
Regarding T. saskatchewanensis, the 132 cm MSL is from this passage in Jimenez-Huidobro et al., (2018): "The type specimen of Tylosaurus saskatchewanensis, RSM P2588.1, represents a large tylosaurine mosasaur with a skull length of 132 cm." The 9.75 TL actually comes from the length of the reconstructed skeleton on display at the museum, whose length is stated in multiple sources by the museum. Here's a link to the specimen's official museum webpage [94]. If it helps, here's what I think is the vertebral count based on what I'm getting from Jimenez-Huidobro et al., (2018): 55 vertebrae anterior to chevron-bearing caudals (7 cervicals, 39 dorsals ("from presumed last cervical to first pygal"), 9-10 pygals) and >31 caudals (>18 intermediates and >13 terminals; both series are incomplete).
Regarding T. kansasensis, this[95] blog claims to have contacted Everhart regarding the Triebold skeleton, and he reportedly claimed that the flippers are too long, although nothing was specified. 21:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This is mainly a preliminary reply, hence its brevity, but there are very good reasons for not trusting that blog: [96]. Additionally, that post apparently seems to consider T. 'dyspelor' valid, despite it resting comfortably within T. proriger for years. I will probably refrain from updating the T. 'kansasensis' silhouettes, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the third WIP: [97] For T. saskatchewanensis I scaled the skull to the published length (after all, it's not as if scale bars are infallible); swapped out the short, broad T. pembinensis flippers for the more elongate T. proriger ones; and elongated the torso until the TL was 9.75m (I think that the museum website should be good enough for the chart). Does Nicholls (1988) actually give a length estimate of 9.5m for T. pembinensis, though? This chart seems to be from that publication, but it doesn't include T. pembinensis, which is rather odd. Other than that species, the technical side of the chart is basically done. I am slightly concerned about the gigantic size of the image (which is rather inevitable when you try to fit no fewer than ten tylosaurs into one diagram) and how it forces the text to be so small. I'm wondering if there's a better way to label them. Any ideas? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the controversy surrounding David Peters. But unless he's someone who straight-up lies about his correspondences, I don't think his reputation discounts what Everhart said to him. His claims derived from such may be absolute BS, but I'm concerned about what Everhart said. Regarding T. pembinensis, I don't think Nicholls (1988) gives explicit length estimates, but she has a chart comparing the lengths of T. pembinensis with T. proriger.[98]. The image you linked was basically Everhart using Nicholls (1988)'s two drawings which were convenient because they both represented Tylosaurus proper and 'Hainosaurus'. But as I have said earlier, Reconstructions prior to Bullard & Caldwell (2010) are bound to be oversized due to the extra vertebrae. I'm pretty sure there are no published up-to-date explicit estimates for the length of T. pembinensis. But this does not mean that making a scale attempt is unverifiable, because again, you can derive from Hartman's skeletal with corrections where necessary and scale it to the estimated length of the skull; I'll still let you know if I do find a published length, though.
Regarding formatting, you could experiment with grouping different specimens of the same species together to save both horizontal and vertical space. Here's a crude example I made[99], but have some creative liberty. Macrophyseter | talk01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the fourth and final WIP: [100]. There are now a total of eleven tylosaurs in the (very colorful) chart. You are probably right that the claim cited to Everhart is correct, as Peters goes on to claim that T. 'kansasensis' had distinctively large flippers anyways. I scaled a T. pembinensis silhouette drawn based on Hartman's skeletal to the mandible length in Nicholls' reconstruction (1.7m), and got a TL of 11.8m. Since estimates have never gotten more precise than "rivals T. bernardi in size," and it's less than 50cm shorter than T. bernardi here (12.2m), I think that this is about as good as we can ever hope for. I listed it as MMMN V95, since that apparently was the primary basis for the reconstruction. I've rearranged the key and superimposed the smaller silhouettes upon those of their larger kin, and also marked the 2m one as a juvenile. Unless there are any glaring errors, I will upload this version to Commons soon! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! However, I think there is still a problem with T. pembinensis. The mandible length (from dentary to surangular/articular) for MMMN V95, which is complete, specifically measures 132.1 cm per Nicholls (1988)'s measurements[101]. A diagram of the specimen's skull in the same paper puts it at a similar size[102] (above is by Bullard & Caldwell (2010), lower by Nicholls (1988), both scaled to the 10 cm scale on the bottom), although Bullard & Caldwell (2010) lowered the estimate of the MSL to 12.1 cm. The skeletal diagram in the same paper doesn't specify what the skull's length was reconstructed from, but it contradicts the lengths of MMMN V95 as established earlier in the paper if it's at 1.7 meters. I have said before, I believe that the "rivals T. bernardi in size," claim by Lindgren (2005) is likely outdated given that the claim was made prior to the revision of T. pembinensis's vertebral series by Bullard & Caldwell (2010). Other than that, everything else is fine; I really like how the superimpositions turned out. I think T. pembinensis should be scaled down to the explicitly published skull lengths and the size diagram would be as good as finished. Macrophyseter | talk18:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with extrapolating a length from a smaller T. pembinensis skull is that doing so is almost certainly in violation of WP:OR, a line that anything we do here with T. pembinensis comes dangerously close to. The only loophole that I can really see here would be to label the specimen as Bruce, which could be what the figure is scaled too (the other two specimens certainly are too small), could rival T. bernardi in size, and probably is the largest specimen of this species. As much as I'd like to scale it to the more complete skull, I don't think that the available literature is going to allow us to do so. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would necessarily be WP:OR, rather I think it would fall more into Wikipedia:Combining sources (I am aware that this is not an explicit rule), given that we are basically building the size comparison by utilizing only the explicit information given by Nicholls (1988), the skeletal by Hartman, and the validation of the latter by Bullard & Caldwell (2010). This means that it can be verified via these three sources. But if you really think otherwise, then all we can do is either elongate the model to Bruce's "official" length based on the skeletal provided by Nicholls (1988) scaled to the Guinness World Record length and label it as an outdated estimate or simply remove T. pembinensis entirely. I don't think it would be a good idea to label the current scale as Bruce and cross fingers that the skull in Nicholls (1988) might be from such given that she was never clear on that, which puts verifiability to question.Macrophyseter | talk19:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload the new version with MM V95 (apparently it lost the "MN" somewhere along the line...) scaling. You're probably right that this is the better option considering WP:V, and, after all, I can always remove it if objections are raised. Thanks for all the very useful advice, I've discovered a whole lot about Tylosaurus through updating this chart! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring V95 as MM is fine. The new diagram is really nice, I'm glad that the Tylosaurus article is finally getting better updated visual representation it deserves. Thanks for revamping it! Macrophyseter | talk23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're at Tylosaurus, feel free to bring up any life restorations[103] you'd like to use that need modifications, I added bilobed tail flukes to some of them some years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see File:Tylosaurus proriger12DB.jpg get a proper tail fluke and skull update (the current "updated" one does not do any justice). I've been intending to have it updated for use in the Tylosaurus article and recently attempted to try updating it myself, but I don't have sufficient knowledge in Photoshop to replicate the texture for the tail fluke. Macrophyseter | talk21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought it was inaccurate in its very snake like posture also (if they were mainly propelled by their tails?), but if you think it's worth saving, I can give it a try. I guess the artist's own corrected version[104] is a better starting point? And I think your longer comment you deleted was interesting, maybe you can include it here collapsed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never considered the restoration to be that snake-like, but I can kind of see how one can see it like such. If you want, maybe you could try editing the trunk portion to be more straight and robust to make the posture look more carangiform. I also forgot to mention that per Lindgren et al., (2014) we know that T. nepaeolicus had dark-colored skin (which seems to be interpreted as having countershading with the dorsal half of the body having a dark coloration similar to that of the leather-back sea turtle, but the paper itself wasn't very clear on this), but it seems that most of the usable Tylosaurus restorations we have have light grey skin. While all of the restorations are specifically either T. proriger or T. pembinensis, its possible that those species had similar cases of dark skin. Maybe it's possible to darken those parts in File:Tylosaurus proriger12DB.jpg and also in File:Tylosaurus pembinensis 1DB.jpg and File:Tylosaurus-proriger.jpg?
As for adding the tail fluke in the original restoration, here's a crude sketch that I made prior to attempting to add textures, mostly based on Hartman's skeletal:[105]. Part of the tail with the fluke drawn over it was edited to bend 40 degrees downwards from the horizontal plane, meaning that it's bent lower than it is in the original. Macrophyseter | talk23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for dark coloured T. nepaeolicus, I just noticed there is a free NT image of it:[106] Can it be used as is? Because then we'd at least have one image of the correct species with the right colour, and then I think we could be more lax with the others since they, after all, are not the same species (belonging to the same genus says little about colouration in extant animals). FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both images are great! I've added them to their respective articles. You are right about the fact that T. nepaeolicus having dark skin doesn't necessarily mean that the other species have to have them as well; I was hoping that the dark-skin findings would be represented somewhere, but the new image solves that. Macrophyseter | talk23:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added labels, but it says the dimensions for the sacrum are 35.1 mm (1.38 in) in length, 87.2 mm (3.43 in) in width, and 78.8 mm (3.10 in) in height and I'm not entirely certain what each measure refers to exactly (is height anteroposterior or superoinferior?). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if the published figure doesn't have a scale bar, it's probably best not to guess. But the labels are an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They say the sale is "1x" (twice the size). Assuming they didn't change their print format recently, the page size is ISO 216 Size 4. According to their Guide for authors [108], 2-column figure width is 18 cm. So the scale for the Figure width would be 9 cm. Figure width cannot clearly be seen since the figures have no border, but it is the same as the width of the text columns and horizontal bars elsewhere in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Beelzebufo size comparison, any thoughts? I'm not very good at drawing frogs, so I'm not sure how realistic the flesh outline is. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that in the first image, the outline of Beelzebufo is clearly derived from Nobu Tamuras drawing in the latter image, but is totally uncredited. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't think so. I've distended the belly a bit more, and also rested the knee on the foot, as modern frogs often do. Previously I had it crouched like a more nimble frog (i.e. dendrobatids). Does this look froggier now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just started work on a life restoration of Ankylorhiza since the article's devoid of images (and surprisingly didn't even exist until a few days ago). Here's what I've got so far for the early sketch; comments are highly appreciated since mammals aren't my forte, but I tried my best using the paper's skeletal and reference images of living dolphins and other whales. I know Macrophyseter and Dunkleosteus77 have done a lot of editing on cetacean articles before, maybe you guys have some thoughts? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼15:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout August, I've decided to make size comparisons for variety of Permian tetrapods. I've identified ~40 possible taxa suitable for this purpose. Here are three, or, actually, two. To my slight embarrassment, I didn't realize that we already had a Diictodon size comparison until after uploading mine, so the third diagram is a bit superfluous. The other two are currently lacking size comparisons, though. Any comments on these? I must admit that my understanding of dicynodont anatomy is a little rusty. I'm currently working on Suminia. The extensiveness of this little project becomes will depend upon how much time I have. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! I'd say your overall anatomy is looking fine, just a few comments on specifics. The lower limbs on the Endothiodon could do with being bulked up, SAM-PK-K011271 preserves much more robust pairs of radii/ulnae and fibulae/tibulae than was incompletely constructed for the AMNH mount. The forefeet could also be upsized by almost twice as much as well based on SAM-PK-K011271, it really makes the AMNH mount look dainty by comparison. This last one's possibly optional, but it's been noted that a number of Endothiodon skulls preserve a massive pineal boss that looks a bit like a "bone periscope" in Kammerer's words[109]. It may only develop in the largest individuals, but seeing how the diagram is scaled to SAM-PK-K011271 it might be worth including.
Endothiodon is outrageous. I've added a bit more flesh in the caudal regions of Dicynodon and Diictodon, too. How do these updates look? Suminia and Procynosuchus have been uploaded, any thoughts on those? Next up will be gorgonopsians, probably Lycaenops and Rubidgea. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Rubidgea, and it's pretty big! Its reconstructed canine teeth are so long that I couldn't think of a way to cover them with lips without giving the animal a ridiculous amount of oral tissue, so they are exposed here. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Christian Kammerer has told me on Twitter that he thinks the canines of Rubidgea were probably covered by lips [110]. My best guess as to how that would be possible is that the jaws probably couldn't close as tightly as is shown in most depictions of the skull, so the canine wouldn't protrude past the lower jaw. That aside, it looks kind of weedy to me—are you sure it shouldn't be bulked up some more? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to beef it up a bit, does this look better. I tried to rotate the jaw further, but I still can't seem to get the canines to fit within lips, and I believe that I've already been rather liberal with the flesh on the underside of the mandible. Additionally, here's a Lycaenops, any thoughts on that? There was also a Scymnognathus (apparently Gorgonops now) skeletal in the Lycaenops paper, so that taxon's probably what will come next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more - Gorgonops and Titanophoneus. Comments? Also, I can't seem to get the cite book template to work properly on Commons, does anyone know how to do so? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything clearly objectionable about the Titanophoneus. It's possible you should consider tilting the Titanophoneus and Jonkeria heads downward slightly; if I recall correctly, the heads of all dinocephalians exhibited a downward tilt, albeit not to the extreme of tapinocephalids. See fig. 8 of [111]. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing—you might want to check the tail length on Moschops. The tail of the famous mount is mostly reconstructed; the complete vertebral column of Tapinocaninus shows that the tail of tapinocephalids was a good deal shorter than previously believed. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pantelosaurus has been completed (note that the cited source refers to it as 'Haptodus' saxonicus). Palaeohatteria will come tomorrow. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little late, but here are size comparisons for Edaphosaurus, Lupeosaurus, and Gordodon. I noticed that the newer skeletal that I based E. cruciger on had a significantly shorter tail than the older skeletals used for the other two species (and Lupeosaurus, for that matter). Should the tail lengths of these long-tailed ones be reduced? Is there anything else that seems off? Ianthasaurus will be next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oculudentavis holotype size comparison with human hand.
I noticed there wasn't a size comparison for Oculudentavis so I made this. I decided the animal/fossil is fairly significant, even if the exact classification is unclear. The diagram shows the currently described fossil material (skull in amber) with a bee hummingbird for scale. I know Oculudentavis (most likely) isn't a bird, so the hummingbird might feel out of place, but I thought it might make a good reference anyway, Thoughts or comments? SlvrHwk (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SVPOW links to a link to a chinese language article which gives much more detail on the situations, in which it states that they managed to find a second specimen with a postcranial squamate morphology. In SVPOW's translation it states:
The reporter found that the key to retracting the manuscript was "the authors discovered that research progress has been made on a new, more completely preserved specimen from the same locality." The team realized that the skull of the new specimen was very similar to HPG-15-3, but the postcranial skeleton showed a typical lepidosaurian form and should be classified as a lepidosaur. This indicates that HPG-15-3 is likely to belong to the Lepidosauria, contrary to the initial conclusion.
does the source say anything about Irish elk inhabiting the North Sea? A lack of fossils from there is most likely because no one digs at the bottom of the sea. Also the source shows fossils from the tip of Denmark so why is that cut off here? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this paper discusses a specimen from the North Sea (which is mentioned in the article), but it's only 10 km from the current shoreline (I think it's the pink dot off the coast of the netherlands on the map). There's no specific discussion about the North Sea, but I thought it was a reasonable interpretation of LGM map. The denmark one is because just below the tip of Jutland is a specimen, the map also shows for the time period that the specimen comes from (34-55 kya) the area immediately north was covered by an ice sheet. It's also not entirely accurate in other areas as it includes parts of the Alps which were glaciated and therefore uninhabitable, but since the area of the Alpine glaciation varies during the last ice age it's not really mappable. Hemiauchenia (talk)
The water doesn't recede that far until after the beginning of the Holocene, and your source says the northernmost limit was 58°N which is north of Denmark, and also the southernmost extent was 43°N so the bottom line is a bit too northerly User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, that that the grey zones on the maps mean that the area was glaciated at the time, which it is immediately to the North of the Danish specimen on the 54-35 kya map. I think that the upper latitude limit refers to the specimen from the Scottish Highlands and the ones near Lake Baikal. Stuart et al 2004 and Vislobokova 2012 show ranges that extend deep into the caucasus and to the coast on the ukranian region, but the 2019 paper notes that many previous records were base on misidentified red deer, so I'm trying to work on securely identified records only. Also 43 degrees North looks pretty close to the Pyrenees and Balkans records from what I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I just was at a museum with some Danish specimens yesterday but didn't take photos, but they're very fragmentary anyway, so probably of little use for the article. I have a book about Danish fossil mammals that says Megaloceros has also been found in Scania, Sweden, but that's absent from this map. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Late Pleistocene remains of giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus Blumenbach) in Scandinavia: Chronology and environment" They are only known from the very SW tip of Skane, I have modified the map to accomodate this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will look a bit better when cropped, so that it just includes Japan on the right edge and Sri Lanka on the bottom edge; the range would be a bit more in the centre, it would also be larger, making it easier to spot the details. This is a purely subjective style consideration of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have illustrated the two species of Promexyele , P. peyeri (top) and P. bairdi (bottom). How do they look? I also apologize if the formatting is bad in this, I am very new to adding things here
Noticed the lack of a reconstruction for the Megalolamna page (which itself is in severe need for expansion), and went along with drawing the shark myself. Based its features off of extant lamnid sharks, mainly the great white and porbeagle, primarily because of its dental characteristics and suggested ecology being similar to them. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[6]](https://pasteboard.co/J9OFW5X.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mV0_w-4tB0/XESLVrH08BI/AAAAAAAAAg8/lVS0kRJRuJALEr4q2YNI-XFRAHQAEcAUACLcBGAs/s1600/Liopluerodon%2BBW%2Bedit.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Makhaira_rossica.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bx503MmNs30/XOGdCIS6f5I/AAAAAAAAApU/Xn2v9mYpT_QJjAK9Fvnf7-Hf-ElPIGIpgCLcBGAs/s1600/g5110.png){kind=link}
![[22]](https://pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png%7C//pasteboard.co/IfEc6kA.png){kind=link}
![[23]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gBNJYmVLF1A/XOU3Od31fPI/AAAAAAAAApg/9pZhlTRJ8sESf_v_FvW0NFBjUDZoPjyYgCLcBGAs/s1600/Oto1.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--txJps65n-k/XOW_8UwkUUI/AAAAAAAAAps/gI-jxycj4A4pVXS986ssSbHfMQdej5kYACLcBGAs/s1600/Megalolamna%2BLineart.png){kind=link}
![[30]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JMVk4jHhALs/XP_0lMv422I/AAAAAAAAAqA/Cw4Fq_ojGhsUGITj2FSWqXUzd-EThyGcACLcBGAs/s1600/Toxo-WIP1.png){kind=link}
![[33]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BLthaBF4Qao/XQLBHp0CKkI/AAAAAAAAAqM/pm1mXFoOHCsQyEcB5jXjZeVvmaB26QURACLcBGAs/s1600/Toxo-WIP2.png){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilosaurus1DB.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gidley-1913-Basilosaurus-cranium-neck-reconstruction.JPEG){kind=link}
![[44]](http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/therapsida/images/Lemurosaurus-skull.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burnetiamorpha.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daeodon_shoshonensis_skeletal.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anteosaurus_magnificus_BW_lateral.png){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euparkeria_NT_small.jpg){kind=link}
![[65]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metriorhynchus_superciliosus_.jpg){kind=link}
![[66]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hEN32JBFusE/XtGhDka-QWI/AAAAAAAAAuA/43dPbnqEj6MpG1xiKb_2FvLm8dbGHa8PQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/MegaloSkullV2.png){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eryops_megacephalus_skeleton_front.JPG){kind=link}
![[69]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_plesiosaur.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mixosaurus_BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[78]](http://oceansofkansas.com/YoungMosasaurs/MosaSizes.jpg){kind=link}
![[80]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/The_ancient_life-history_of_the_earth_%28Page_246%29_BHL16764420.jpg/564px-The_ancient_life-history_of_the_earth_%28Page_246%29_BHL16764420.jpg){kind=link}
![[81]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Scaphognathus_crassirostris_cast_-_Pterosaurs_Flight_in_the_Age_of_Dinosaurs.jpg){kind=link}
![[85]](https://i.imgur.com/bRNwi1E.png){kind=link}
![[87]](https://i.imgur.com/Wxraxpk.png){kind=link}
_Size_Chart.png){kind=link}
![[88]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3kq0Sq4kaC4/Xw4lkLcr0PI/AAAAAAAAAzY/NM9Iw8mkdfYARcHvDGQ_XXemtegCGJ2EgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Tatenectes-WIP1.png){kind=link}
![[91]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fgPLveaN5n8/XxrihtZ7BxI/AAAAAAAAAzk/2c9ru_7wPGciCSHkQ9-zcUqBX_yY7F4JwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Tyloscale-WIP1.png){kind=link}
![[92]](https://pasteboard.co/JjaHQh1.png){kind=link}
![[93]](https://pasteboard.co/JjDSbK9S.png){kind=link}
![[97]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7pyp87AvvJc/Xx9wRkEC7ZI/AAAAAAAAA0o/x8xK--TV-qwGidGA51sYQbNriUmk02cKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Tyloscale-WIP3.png){kind=link}
![[98]](https://pasteboard.co/JjFscNg.png){kind=link}
![[99]](https://pasteboard.co/JjFGGM6.png){kind=link}
![[100]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sxOek6IhiWo/XyAqTh18ZNI/AAAAAAAAA00/29qTVNqmuJ0BnnuqJc2ynPX57w4E8KVCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Tyloscale-WIP4.png){kind=link}
![[101]](https://pasteboard.co/JjLuM6Q.png){kind=link}
![[102]](https://pasteboard.co/JjLMJSe.png){kind=link}
![[104]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TylosaurusDB2.jpg){kind=link}
![[105]](https://pasteboard.co/JjbLqsv.png){kind=link}
![[112]](https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7834/46193231235_fb0dfcb3de_b.jpg){kind=link}
