Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Discontinued yearly archives: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged, but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be marked as such on Wikimedia Commons with the "Inaccurate paleoart" tag[8], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews). Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page: Criterion sufficient for using an image: If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria sufficient to remove an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Brontoscorpio chasing a Cephalaspis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Click here to submit a new image for review Images in review Lips for sabertooths I've noticed that for dinosaurs, we've started reconstructing them with actual lips so that the teeth are sheathed away and protected from the elements. Why hasn't the same been done for sabertoothed cats? Having them outside in the open is surely quite destructive for the teeth, and the only animal which does this is musk deer which shed their fangs seasonally (which most certainly was not the case for sabertooths)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) If even taz can do it... There has been some discussion of this on blogs, and at least Mark Witton has argued against it.[9] And since no serious studies or paleoartists (Mauricio Anton would be the gold standard for modern mammal paleoart) have endorsed it, we probably shouldn't either. Even Tasmanian devils often have exposed canines, so not sure why it should not be possible for prehistoric predators (musk deer are certainly not the only animals with exposed fangs). I think we might be going a bit overboard with completely hiding the canines of for example gorgonopsians on older artwork here (pinging Monsieur X), as long as it is not demonstrably inaccurate, we should let the artists themselves decide. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC) To quote the relevant part form Witton's post: "If this is so, only especially long teeth which project a considerable distance from the margins of the skull and lower jaw should be considered strong candidates for permanent exposure. Select examples might include the canines of certain mammalian carnivores (e.g. Smilodon and other machairodont felids), the tusks of fossil elephants and their relatives, and the larger tusks of dicynodonts. We should also note those fossil reptiles – such as certain crocodyliformes, pterosaurs and marine reptiles – where entire toothrows are composed of dentition so long that their tips extend well beyond the margins of the jaw skeleton. Such extensive dental apparatus would seem to preclude the development of any sheathing tissues, at least akin to those exhibited by from modern animals, and these animals probably had fully exposed toothrows in life." FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC) I'm definitely ok with any reverting or re-editing any of the things I did in the past. Some of them probably haven't aged well. Though, I generally tried to avoid covering long sabres, as seen with Bogdanov's Smilesaurus. Monsieur X (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Personally, I don't think it's likely the canines were exposed all the way to the root, so I think such restorations could at least have that part painted over. But if the tips poke out, as I did in my only ever gorgonopsian restoration[10] (I should probably remove that ear hole?), I don't think anyone could call it downright inaccurate, since there are modern mammals like that (as shown above). FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Well, reading Witton's post above, he does say "We have to concede that the dentitions of many fossil animals frequently shown with exposed teeth – particularly theropod dinosaurs, gorgonopsids and other carnivorous stem-mammals – are relatively no larger, and in some cases a great deal smaller, than those enclosed inside the oral tissues of living animals. . . For these species, it is very difficult to justify why their teeth should not be covered". Also by Witton's argument, scimitar-toothed cats (and Thylacosmilus?) shouldn't have exposed sabers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC) In any case, we have no authoritative sources arguing for covered canines in the animals in question, and we shouldn't really be first movers, but follow published precedence. If someone wants to depict some of the animals with covered canines, that's fine, but we shouldn't run around fixing images that are not demonstrably inaccurate or tag them as such. There is no scientific consensus on whether Tyrannosaurus had lips, for example (Thomas Carr notably argues it didn't), so we can't say restorations that shows it without are inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Not to dip too deeply into irrelevant discussion, but Carr appears to be in the minority wrt Tyrannosaurus being lipless. The D. horneri paper, to my knowledge, put very little emphasis on how its facial scales would've affected the presence or absence of lips, and Scott Hartman has a very good article going into the less-discussed osteological tip-offs for liplessness. Spoilers, it's not quite as simple as tooth length. https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/the-lip-post1 In general, lips seem to be the rule to which musk deer, crocodiles, tasmanian devils etc. are the exception, presumably for various reasons, and so probably should be treated as such in palaeoart. Some have even pointed out that many extant birds have conspicuous lips closer to the corners of their mouths, where the beak tissues don't reach. It seems like the general consensus at the moment is that machairodonts had exposed sabres, and, for as much as my hobbyist opinion is worth, I'd agree. The fragility of their sabres does admittedly throw that somewhat into question, but perhaps they were kept intact by some sort of behavioural tendency which, of course, wouldn't have fossilised. Witton seems to lean towards the sheathed-fangs camp wrt gorgonopsids, though equally reputable artists have depicted them as exposed, so that one seems currently to be free game. God knows what was going on with Thylacosmilus at all at this point, though the size of its sabres are reminiscent enough of machairodonts to probably justify exposure. Given how many animals have lips compared to how few don't, I personally think lips should be incorporated by default until such a time as a paper comes out discussing, or even disproving, them more thoroughly in extinct taxa, dinosaurs very much included. --TKWTH (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC) One problem is that most of this is discussed on blogs and personal websites. Carr's papers hold proportionately more weight for our purposes, because they're some of the few about the issue that have actually been peer-reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC) It should be noted that none of Carr's papers actually discuss this topic. His opinions are well-documented elsewhere, but have yet to be formally described in a peer-reviewed environment. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Didn't the one with the "crododile scales" imply it, at least in the figures? Anyhow, yes, there is very little published about this issue, are there any actual publications that suggest lips? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Acrophyseter and Acrophoca File:AcrophyseterAcrophoca2020.png @Xiphactinus88: just uploaded this image to the articles. I don't believe the snakelike motion being depicted here is anatomically possible for a cetacean. The eyes are too big on both animals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC) @Dunkleosteus77: Why is not possible? Watch some video with whales and you will see. The eyes probably too big for Acrophoca but not for Acrophyseter. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC) It looks like it's swimming side to side like an eel almost, or maybe it's as flexible as a sea lion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC) I tried to create something unusual and made this too unrealistic, I see. I didn't know about such Wiki's Paleoart review at all... I'll be more accurate with pictures in future. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC) I look forward to seeing your future artwork   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Since Acrophyseter is one of our few paleo GAs without a proper life restoration, I was thinking of doing one, but I have never attempted to draw a realistic whale before. Any sources you would prefer I look at if I do this, Dunkleosteus77? Restorations of it I could see on Google also differ in how far the "snout" protrudes from the head, or rather, how far the "melon" is expanded forwards. What would be best to show? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) [11] here's a good published restoration on p. 466   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Cool, so a long snout before the melon? FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) that should be fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Here's a sketch[12], Dunkleosteus77, any thoughts? Based on our skull photo and photos of modern whales mainly. Why is it often depicted with a large dorsal fin when modern spermwhales don't (even the pygmy ones)? And any preferences for colouration? FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC) If we assume that the common ancestor of all toothed whales had a dorsal fin, then the dorsal fin for sperm whales would be a basal trait and may have been present in more basal sperm males such as this one. Because it wasn't a deep-sea predator like the modern sperm whale (instead, a more coastal predator), the counter shading may have been more defined   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Here's a basic pattern, before I start adding details[13], any thoughts? And do we have an idea where the blowhole would be? Now I've added it vaguely on the front top of the head. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Mimetaster restoration by Added to the article by Franzanth without review. The restoration looks quite nice, however, the front pair of limbs seems a tad too large (Compare with the restoration in Kuhl and Rust, 2010).Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC) This reconstruction was actually painted over a 3D model based on Kuhl & Rust' diagram but I can see that the slanted perspective does give the impression that the front limbs are too thick. I've updated the file to mitigate this. User:Franzanth (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Peloneustes Life Restoration Hello all, sorry about all of my inactivity lately. I'm hoping that I'll manage to carve out some more time for on-wiki activity now, and my Peloneustes project is one thing that I'm aiming to finish up. Our current life restoration of Peloneustes seems to be quite inaccurate. Here are some things that I notice: The teeth are too small, it seems. It also appears to have lips - pretty sure that this wasn't the case for plesiosaurs. The paddles lack trailing edges The paddles are significantly too small - the hind paddles of Peloneustes were nearly as long as its torso: [14] The tail lacks a caudal fin and is too thin With all of these issues, I'm almost wondering if it might be easier just to create a new life restoration instead of editing this one (I may also create an in-situ life restoration for this guy anyways, since I think that the article could become quite long). Any thoughts on this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Yeah, though it should be doable for someone with Photoshop skills and knowledge of plesiosaur anatomy (not really me), there's probably better chance of someone just making a new one... FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Speaking of NT's sauropterygian images, the Sauropterygia navbox has been recently edited to show a variety of illustrations (by Nobu Tamura and DiBgd), none of which have passed through here as far as I know. Some of them seem to have significant errors. I've posted them all below for review: Placodus - huge, pointy osteoderms - the osteoderms of P. gigas are actually pretty small and rounded - [5] Placochelys Keichousaurus Lariosaurus Pistosaurus Macroplata - missing a caudal fin as per [6] Attenborosaurus - missing a caudal fin (within bracket of Rhomaleosaurus + Peloneustes) Hydrorion - skull seems to be too massive? Cryptoclidus - odd perspective, super tubby with super stubby tail, flippers shrink-wrapped, far front flipper appears dislocated, doesn't really match up with this skeletal: [7] Leptocleidus - missing caudal fin (within bracket of Brancasaurus + Umoonasaurus) Dolichorhynchops - paddles lack trailing edge Elasmosaurus I've noted some errors that I saw in the captions. Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC) We deemed the Elasmosaurus acceptable for its FA but I agree with your comments on the other restorations. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I also heavily edited the Elasmosaurus following a discussion somewhere (the original version can be seen in the file history here[15]). Shouldn't be too hard to add flukes and enlarge paddles in some of the others, but I'll wait and see if more comments come up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Since there was quite a bit wrong with the above Cryptoclidus, I went ahead and made a new one in lateral view, based on the Brown skeletal. Does it look okay or is it too crude? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC) The level of detail looks good to me! One can always add a couple of wrinkles and creases to the skin here and there to make it look less smooth. While I'm not really an expert on these, one thing I'm wondering is whether the paddles could rotate vertically all the way up like that, or if it's just something that's done out of convenience in skeletals to make the bones of the paddle more visible? FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC) If you mean rotated up to the point where they're at right angles with the torso, then no. I haven't intended to make them look like that here, although it may still not be a bad idea to rotate them outwards more. Additionally, while speaking of plesiosaur image updates, I've overhauled my Peloneustes skull diagram (posted at the top of this section for spacing concerns). It previously was basically identical to the reconstruction in Ketchum & Benson (2011), but since all known skulls of Peloneustes are crushed at some level, there is presumably a bit of leeway when it comes to restoration, and I've avoided using the reconstruction in the paper where possible for this. De-crushing specimens and restoring bones was pretty tricky (I sure won't be attempting Simolestes, that's for sure!). Anyways, I'll look into updating my Cryptoclidus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Probably relevant: Carpenter [16] indicates that the flipper of Thalassomedon could have rotated to 49° above the horizontal axis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) The Cryptoclidus has been updated. Adding the skin folds in strategic places does help! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I gave the Macroplata a sort of tail fluke based on that shown in the linked paper. Can't say how accurate it is, but I also changed its colour to something more probable than bright green... FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Definitely better than the older one. Further investigating reveals that not all's well with the skull - the snout could be a bit deeper, I'm not too convinced with the lipped posterior jaw seeing as the teeth are pretty consistent in size, the cranium extends too far back and seems to extend posteriormost at mid-height, and the paddles don't seem to have enough flesh. Here's the paper I referred to for the skull information: [17]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I tried to do the fixes to the head and fins you mentioned, of course not sure if it's enough. Seems these will take more work than I thought... I could probably fix them quickly if I knew better what to do about each of them, but my plesiosaur knowledge isn't too great. But if further explanatons can be given for each image, I can give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The new head looks nice. I've laid out the entire known skeleton of Macroplata based on the above paper, and it reveals that the problems seem to be even more extensive than I feared. First of all, the head is about 50% too large. The neck and tail could be made a tad longer, too. The forelimbs seem to be missing the gigantic shoulder muscles that plesiosaurs would have had (the front edge of the paddle would probably appear straighter as opposed to starkly convex as it is now, and the paddle should be broader where it joins with the body). The distal edge of the paddle looks a little rumpled, I'd assume that it would actually be pretty smooth (not sure why that concavity's there). I can't believe I missed it before, but the hind paddles should be the large of the two pairs, seeing that Macroplata is a pliosauroid. They are significantly too small at the moment (the epipodials don't actually fit into the paddle) and probably shouldn't be so pointed (although the distal limb elements are unknown in Macroplata). Also, I'm not totally sure about this, but the limbs might be rotated to far down at the moment. Hopefully this is helpful! (Additionally, now that I've whipped up a schematic, I may create a Macroplata size chart in December, once all the stuff for November's done.) Also, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and add my Cryptoclidus to the navbox. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Quick follow-up regarding the head: It's actually artificially small in my scaling attempt. For comparison, the skull should take up ~12% of the TL, the neck ~27%, the trunk ~26%, and the tail ~35%. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Kronosaurus I've created this Kronosaurus, thinking that it could perhaps replace the Attenborosaurus in the navbox if deemed sufficiently accurate (since that would show a great diversity of plesiosaur body plans). How does this look, both accuracy-wise and stylistically? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC) The hind flippers also look like they are maybe rotated further up than they perhaps would need to be? But like before, I don't know what their range of motion would be. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC) The high-level phylogeny of plesiosaurs is not stable but I think there's a reasonable case for rhomaleosaurids being close to pliosaurids. You may want to consider a rounded tail fin like that inferred for Rhomaleosaurus: [18] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Paraentelodon File:Paraentelodon 2020.png This life restoration of Paraentelodon intermedium was added by Xiphactinus88 to articles without review. HFoxii (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC) It seems kind of wonky overall, very big hooves and eye. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC) The artwork is a bit crude and doesn't mesh well with the photorealistic background. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC) I made this picture especially for animal’s demonstration. If you think that Paraentelodon looks too strange, that’s deserve an attention, but talking about meshing in encyclopedia is something out of doors. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Request: Yaksha peretti skull diagram A new genus and species of albanerpetontid, Yaksha peretti has been described from Burmese amber, it comes with a complete articulated 3 dimensionally preserved skull, the paper is here, does anybody want to take this on? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC) I am working on this myself now, should have something to show soon Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Yaksha peretti skull diagram I have gone ahead and drawn the skull in oblique view based on a render of the CT scan here, a 3d rotation video of the fossil can be found here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I wonder if you could give the skull itself a white background instead of transparent? Would be hard to see against, e.g., a dark-colored background. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) That's probably easily doable with an additional layer at the bottom of the stack, I'll consider adding it tomorrow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Channeling my inner Fanboyphilosopher here. Essentially redrawn from this press release image (including the colour scheme, with some minor differences, notably I have omitted the sliver of the other jugal and a small part of the other dentary that were visible. The peach coloured bone between the lacrimal and the frontal doesn't actually appear in the research paper images that I was drawing the labelling from, and appears to just consider it part of the lacrimal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The legend is a bit cluttered. Break it up into two columns? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Done, also removed bone that wasn't in the paper diagram. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I managed to figure out the mystery bone is actually the prefrontal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Request: Thylacosmilus size comparison I and Rextron are currently working on the Thylacosmilus article, and we think the size comparison there is overcrowded, so we'd like to ask if anyone wants to make one that only shows this genus? One size estimate is a 60 cm shoulder height (24 in) and head/body length of 140 cm (55 in) in the book Prehistoric Mammals by Alan Turner. But perhaps others have better estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Uh, is that existing size comparison a copyvio? The Inostrancevia looks pretty much identical to Raul Martin's: [19] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Looks like it, the various parts seem to be taken from many different sources... FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Brindabellaspis life reconstruction My reconstruction of Brindabellaspis stensioi As B. stensioi was a mid-sized, reef-dwelling benthic placoderm, I based the integumentary anatomy off of benthic reef sharks such as Triaenodon obesus. The skull anatomy is referenced off of this image, from the research article "New information on Brindabellaspis stensioi: Young, 1980, highlights morphological disparity in Early Devonian placoderms." The previous reconstruction by Stanton Fink featured prominent plates reminiscent of Weejasperaspis, which implies it was based on the outdated idea that Brindabellaspis was a Weejasperaspidid--as such, I omitted these plates in my reconstruction to reflect a more modern paleontological view of this animal. While mostly speculative, its close skeletal resemblance to Acanthothoracids implies it may have had a bit of a pre-dorsal fin ridge/spine and small projection coming off the anterior lateral and/or spinal plates, which was also incorporated into my reconstruction. I kept this rather small to avoid making the reconstruction overly speculative. Entelognathus (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Anurognathus These restorations of Anurognathus is used in some articles, but has never been reviewed. HFoxii (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Don't see much obviously wrong? Pterosaurs arguably didn't take off bipedally, but here it is probably mainly for schematic purposes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I'd suggest we might be better off reverting the skeletal back to its original version without any of the membranes included in the silhouette. As is, they're not in agreement with the general consensus on pterosaur wing membrane setup (i.e. attached to the ankle, tail free, plus the cruropatagium between the hindlimbs attached to the long 5th toes in this case). Graphically, I also don't think the quality of the membranes matches up with the rest of the silhouette... DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 18:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Ah, forgot that, yeah, I agree it can just be reverted... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Request: GAs and FAs needing restorations and size comparisons I just looked over our GAs and FAs (in both the paleo and dinosaur projects) to see which promoted articles that need restorations, and there seem to be a few. Ands since those are supposed to be our best article,s we should probably prioritise making images for them. So maybe this could be a permanent thread here (if that's even possible), or we could have it as a list somewhere else. I've added some below, feel free to add more, and sign up to those you want to do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Archaeoindris - needs size comparison Acrophyseter - needs both restoration and size comparison - I'd like to do a restoration, but since there are two species, someone else could also restore the other species. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Arktocara - needs size comparison, perhaps Dunkleosteus77 has something to add about the whales here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Amphicoelias - has odd life restoration combined with size comparison, may need more schematic, dedicated size comparison Cardabiodon - needs size comparison, it appears Damouraptor was doing a restoration? Corythosaurus - needs proper life restoration, the ones we have are not really adequate Dinheirosaurus - needs life restoration Doedicurus - needs size comparison, perhaps also more modern life comparison, unless the old one is still accurate Echinodon - needs size comparison Eolambia - needs size comparison Janjucetus - needs size comparison Megacephalosaurus - needs life restoration and size comparison Mesopropithecus - needs life restoration and size comparison Saadanius - - needs life restoration and size comparison (maybe the latter is not that necessary) Comments And now we're at it, I just remembered I wanted to draw an eurypterid once, and looked up the old discussion[20] where it was proposed I draw Carcinosoma. In the meantime, it seems someone else already did (here[21], hasn't been reviewed), so I wondered if there are other most-wanted genera, perhaps for an article that is already GA, or might be in the future? I guess Bassipterus is still wanted? So of course, I'll ping Ichthyovenator and Super Dromaeosaurus for suggestions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) He, tried to sketch out Bassipterus, but I think it's just too difficult for me without an overall reference for the proportions, and with so many different elements that have to be based on other species... Is there any more complete relatives that could be done? Or is there any more unified diagram it could be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk Yeah, looks like Carcinosoma got snatched (restoration for it looks fine as far as I can tell). Super Dromaeosaurus did the Bassipterus article but IIRC there were other elements (the fossil was quite complete, supposedly) of it known but no figures of them available (and adelophthalmids differ quite a bit so might be difficult). If you're interested, the most famous eurypterid without an accurate life restoration is probably Megalograptus of Walking with... fame (stuff we have now is either inaccurate or just diagrams). The Stylonurines are also generally lacking in restorations compared to the Eurypterines, so I'll give a honourable mention to Drepanopterus as well. If you specifically want to a close relative of Bassipterus, there are complete body diagrams of Nanahughmilleria and Parahughmilleria in their articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks, I can try to continue on Bassipterus after all, but I'll probably need some steady guidance... I'll try to work more on the sketch and put it up here... I'm sketching on paper, but the proportions can probably be tweaked last digitally... FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry for responding late, glad to hear someone is doing a Bassipterus restoration. If I had to choose a diagram between Parahughmilleria and Nanahughmilleria, I would use the latter as Nanahughmilleria is closer to Bassipterus than Parahughmilleria. For the prosoma, you can use Pittsfordipterus as an example (image of the carapace (with some segments), restoration), it is the closest known relative of Bassipterus. There is a problem however, I think the shape of its eyes are unknown, although it can be assumed that they were similar to Pittsfordipterus'. I think there's no problem with using the ocelli (the small dots between the eyes) of Pittsfordipterus for Bassipterus. The appendages will be highly hypothetical, as we only know the 6th pair. Apparently, it was of Hughmilleria-type (as most adelophtalmids if I remember correctclty), so you could base the rest of the appendages on Nanahughmilleria (which also had the Hughmilleria-type of appendages). This article (page 646, image in page below) talks in detail about the Hughmilleria-type of walking legs (appendages 2-5). The first pair of appendages (the chelicerae) were small in the adelophthalmids, so they won't be visible. Regarding the segments, the first of Bassipterus was very narrow. Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in the Pittsfordipterus article and I don't remember any description of its tergites in any journal. The left specimen of this image (already linked above) of Pittsfordipterus appears to show a small first segment though. For a small first segment, you can base yourself on these restorations [22] [23] [24] [25]. I imagine you can rely on Parahughmilleria and Nanahughmilleria for segments 2 to 12. Here another problem arises, we do not know if any adelophthalmid more basal than Nanahughmilleria (that is, Bassipterus, Pittsfordipterus and also Eysyslopterus) had epimera (those small spikes between segments 7 and 8 you can see here). Apparently, the most basal pterygotid (Hughmilleria wangi) is the only one with epimera, so it can be assumed that epimeras were also present in basal forms of other families. I guess it's up to you to include them or not, if so, I recommend using the Nanahughmilleria restoration again. Finally, the telson can be based on this restoration [26] (don't forget the keel, that weird thing at its dorsal part!). Nanahughmilleria's restoration can also be used but its keel is a little too big. Finally, regarding the original question, I have two articles left to create before going back to work on Pruemopterus. I'm not sure right now if it's well-preserved and known enough to be worthy of a restoration, if it is, I'll mention it here. Perhaps we could have a life restoration for Onychopterellidae or Hughmilleriidae to complete a bit more the Eurypterina part in this cladogram in the Eurypterid article, but it is not urgent. Apart from this, at least on Eurypterina, I don't any restoration is lacking. By the way and to finish this, Pittsfordipterus and Bassipterus were very similar to each other, so maybe a restoration of Pittsfordipterus could be done once that of Bassipterus is completed? Super Ψ Dro 18:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Nice, quite a puzzle, I'll see what I can do without getting a headache, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I'll probably be able to take on Echinodon in the next few days, I've been wanting to do a heterodontosaur for a while now, and I've been struggling to think of good ornithischians for some reason. I assume Fruitadens would be a good base? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Yeah, not much more we can now about its body proportions anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC) IJReid did make a size comparison for Eolambia, it's down in Paleobiology since it includes the juvenile. But I think it might be good to add a human silhouette? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I saw that, but it only shows relations between specimens, so it is pretty difficult to figure out how large it was compared to a human, unless one starts extrapolating from the scale bar. But we'd want the reader to get the information quickly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) I got a PM from Damouraptor, apparently there was a long-term situation that had him take on a hiatus but is hopefully now able to return working on the Cardabiodon restoration. He showed me a revised sketch and said that he's currently reaching out to Dr. Mikael Siversson (the guy who described the genus) for feedback. Macrophyseter | talk 09:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Yes I am working on a restoration for Cardabiodon, C. ricki specifically. At the moment it is on stand by, as I have reached out to Dr. Siversson himself to see if he can offer critique or inquiry on my current draft. When that happens, I'll be sure to continue working on the restoration and have it uploaded here for the appropriate reviewing process. Damouraptor 07:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Scaling Bunker on Tylosaurus size diagram Size diagram A new paper on Tylosaurus (Zietlow​, 2020) was published a few days ago, and in it contains skull measurements for a bunch of Tylosaurus skull specimens, including much-elusive measurements for the Bunker specimen (KUVP 5033). When Slate Weasel and I were working on the current size diagram, the size of Bunker was at best a guestimate based on hazy accounts. Now that an actual measurement exists in published literature, we could revise the Bunker scale on the diagram to match it. The paper measures the Bunker skull to have a TSL (upper skull length) of 1700 mm and a lower jaw length of 1850 mm, which isn't that far from what we originally threw in. The total length currently depicted was based on Everhart (2002), but as it turns out the length estimate has gotten bigger since. Apparently, Everhart et al. (2015) reestimated Bunker to 15.8 meters (52 ft); there's an online forum post that claims to have corresponded with a "Gripnev" (which I presume is a misspelling of the Russian mosasaur paleontologist Grigoriev), who stated that the increased estimate was based on accounting for unfossilized intervertebral disks, which adds a few more meters to the total length. Still, Everhart in his 2017 book puts the estimate back more conservatively at 14 m without explanation. Still, it is possible that it may be better to caution with such estimates and the elongation that comes with it, but I'm wondering if we should start a slight revision of the Bunker size. Macrophyseter | talk 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC) It's great to have an actual skull length, but the problem here is that it would actually make Bunker smaller (I assumed a TSL of 1.8 m). The postcranium is based on the T. "dyspelor" specimen, which, since it's articulated, I assume would account for cartilage. Adding in more than three meters of intervertebral cartilage feels like an awful lot. Still, I can try to redo Bunker sometime soon (I'll have a good bit of spare time over the following days). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)