This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Once an image has been approved and added to an article, its section can be archived.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[4], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
These reconstructions by Ghedoghedo seem to be based on other people's reconstructions, I've put links to the originals in the infoboxes. The most damning is the Watongia reconstruction, which is strange as Dmitry's work is used on Wikipedia. Monsieur X (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but these reconstructions also show up as the first results on google images and are much older than Ghedoghedo reconstructions. It also seem oddly coincidental that Ghedoghedo's Apsisaurus head looks quite similar to Theropsida's Mycterosaurus , when Ghedoghedo could of easily used a Archaeovenator skeletal, which there are many of just on google images (not counting David Peters' horrid work) and none look like Theropsida's Mycterosaurus. The hind foot that's off the ground on Ghedoghedo's Heleosaurus just looks like it was poorly traced from Theropsida's reconstruction. Monsieur X (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a clear case can be built for them, and if the images they are based on aren't already free, they should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found three images that seem to be plagiarized from The Macmillan Illustrated Encylopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, even retaining the same perspectives. We've gotta do a thorough examination of Ghedoghedo's life restorations. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are these restorations accurate, inaccurate or in need of adjustments? I've also edit and cleaned the first five restorations and wanted to know your thoughts Monsieur X (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bunch of them are missing ear openings? And yeah, maybe the skin on that Hipposaurus could be smoothed out with something like Photoshops's blur tool. As for the teeth, that's of course uncertain, but I do agree that incisors and molars (if that term applies here) would most likely be covered by the lips when mouths were closed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give them visible ear openings. The mammalian tympanum is probably not homologous to the saurian tympanum, so a tympanum might not have been present in biarmosuchians (the earliest good evidence for a tympanum is in dicynodonts).[1][2] Even if it was present, it was probably located on the lower jaw and not behind the skull, so that Herpetoskylax is wrong.[3] I also see no reason to place the tympanum deep within an ear opening (honestly, with it located on the side of the lower jaw I'm not even sure if that would be possible). This hasn't been discussed in the literature to my knowledge, but I don't see why it couldn't have looked like a frog or turtle ear in which the membrane is flush with the surface of the head and potentially difficult to recognize as a tympanum. Agreed that the incisors and postcanines should be hidden by lips—and I don't see why the canines wouldn't be either, at least in this group. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are both amniotes after all, and even some amphibians have externally visible tympani, so why wouldn't synapsids? Even if the tympani evolved independently somehow, why does this rule out openings in synapsids? We know all their descendants have them. In any case, like with the lips, if the issue hasn't been covered by peer reviewed literature, we should follow how the animals have usually been reconstructed in reliable sources. Making our own novel interpretations is close to original research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tympana of mammals, frogs, and saurians are probably not homologous structures. I meant to say that it is possible that the tympanum was flush with the surface of the head, like in turtles and frogs, rather than set in a canal like in mammals, lizards, and archosaurs. Additionally, it is uncertain whether biarmosuchians would have had a tympanum at all, as its presence is not confirmed in synapsids more basal than dicynodonts. Therefore, the lack of an obvious ear opening is not necessarily wrong, but an ear opening behind the skull (as in the Herpetoskylax) probably is wrong. Can you show me a reliable source that depicts biarmosuchians with a visible ear opening? I've shown reliable sources that show that the one illustration here with a visible ear opening is probably wrong (at least, in the placement of the opening). My point is not that I think they should be drawn without an ear opening, but that I don't think they need to be edited to have one. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is similar to the issue of completely covering oversized canines, though. We just don't know, so why bother making such edits? We have living examples of animals with and without, so imposing one is personal bias. In the case of early synapsids, we know even less. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is up to personal whims with these images. There is nothing unquestionably wrong with them, except for maybe the ear placement you mentioned, and the scaly one. Personally, I'd add indications of ears, and cover all teeth but the canines. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back from my "holiday" and have cleaned and fixed most of the Biarmosuchian related images on the site. However, outside of a few changes here and there, I wasn't able to fix the Hipposaurus reconstruction, so if anyone wants to finish it, be my guest. Also, any critiques on the more recently updated images? (I need a good chart so I can properly add missing ear holes) Monsieur X (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would like to post my lateral reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina at its article and potentially replace the prior one featured there. Any critiques and advice are welcome. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you contributing art! It looks pretty good, not too different anatomically from the current version. I'm not particularly knowledgable on sharks though, so any of the other reviewers who are should probably take it from here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye is not based on the current restoration's one, it is based on the size of the eye sockets. They are much larger in comparison to sharks of similar dimensions, but I do understand shrinking it might be a plausible choice to make. As for the scarring, I felt it may serve as a way to display a narrative of sorts, to deviate from basic shark profiles, such as the one currently present on the ginsu shark wiki page. Of course I am not above removing them if it may be derogatory towards an accurate and plausible reconstruction by the standards here. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]File:Cretoxyrhina skeletal reconstruction.pngA skeletal reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina mantellii from Shimada et al. (2006).
It appears sharks also have structures akin to the sclerotic rings of reptiles, and likewise, the visible eye shouldn't fill up the entire socket, only the inner ring of the structure. So if the eye is drawn the same diameter as the socket, it is too large. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye in my reconstruction does not fill up the eye socket, the eye is barely half the diameter of the socket, if not less. It is not incredibly implausible for these dimensions. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 16:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The picture look accurate to me, it's been discussed for over a month, and the only critique that's been brought up seems to check out, I'd say go on ahead and add it and good work. It looks really realistic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if two almost identical restorations are warranted in an article, though. But it has just been GA nominated, let the writer decide. As for that skeletal drawing, it is definitely not CC licensed[www.jstor.org/stable/4095809], so it should be nominated for deletion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paleoart shown here is exceptional in its artistic qualities. However, if I had to choose between the two as they are right now for an artwork solely meant as a profile restoration, I'd still prefer the current one on the article. Still, if you can tweak the body, snout, and pectoral fin to match Shimada (1997)'s design and make the background either a more natural scene or plain white, it could become a better replacement for the current restoration. I also do not believe that the scars are appropriate for a profile restoration, although it would be perfect for a scenic restoration. And although it does not really matter, a slightly or somewhat lighter coloring of the currently blackish countershading (similar colors to that of lamnids and alopiids) could be another suggestion. Macrophyseter (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree that restorations used to show the features of an animal here should be idealised, showing "healthy" individuals. Though yes, scarring adds realism, we wouldn't use a photo of a mangled lion to display its features in the lion article either. It distracts from the purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ginsu shark (Cretoxyrhina mantellii)
Here is a revised reconstruction made of the criticism and new research made upon Cretoxyrhina, courtesy of Shimada himself in the 2018 SVP meeting, here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328494323_SVP_Poster-2018, among others. The background is now white, colors have been tweaked to depict a lighter midsection, spots are present but dimmed out, the injuries/scarring is completely gone (though tapering cuts are present on the pectoral and dorsal fins), and it overall a more sleeker aesthetic compared with the previous recon. Coloration overall is based upon large extant predatory sharks, white shark, tiger shark, and shortfin mako among them, and the eye is 1/3 the size of the eye socket, which it itself constitutes over a 1/3 of the total skull length. Overall, I hope this does justice to my prior recon and better represents Cretoxyrhina as a whole. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damouraptor, when you are giving courtesy to "Shimada himself", are you implying you personally meet/contacted Shimada, or citing credit for that poster? Nevertheless, this new one is the stuff of legend. I absolutely love the coloring, the body design is perfect, overall it looks a lot more powerful, realistic, and appealing than the current one. This is defiantly going to be replacing the current one for sure, expect your work to be on the article later tonight as I finish my modifications accordingly to the first barrage of FAC reviews. Phenomenal work! Macrophyseter | talk03:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to Shimada as in citing his work from poster itself. Hopefully no confusion was made. However, I do have contact with someone who attended the talk with Shimada during SVP. Otherwise, I haven't made communication. I am excited and happy this will get featured in the Cretoxyrhina article! --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Thalassocnus size diagram and life restoration
I noticed that Dunkleosteus77 aims to take Thalassocnus to FA, and for that it would probably be best to have a size comparison and life restoration ready (as is customary). I was thinking of doing the life restoration (I did the ground sloth Nothrotheriops once), but someone else could probably do a better diagram. Any ideas on how the restoration should look? FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see there's precedence for a hairless restoration then, though seals and sea otters of course have fur. Any request for skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always imagined it was either a gray, maybe a gray-blue, and kinda pinky in places; or a sand color with darker coloration on the extremities and face. Other restorations I’m seeing have really long, flowing sloth hair which, for something that was 9 to 11 feet long and dog paddled, does not seem very plausible considering it spent a lot of time underwater. However, before you start, I should tell you the study describing it used a depiction that gave it a lot of hair User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'd definitely try to do it in SVG, using a program like Inkscape (that's how I made my entire gallery of size comparisons here). Not sure what you mean by "paint." MS Paint? Physical paint? If you want a good non-SVG program, then GIMP would be a good choice. But in SVG, there are no pixels, so everything retains its former quality, so that's why it's the desired file type for size comparisons. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a couple of days late to join this conversation, but I just wanted to point out that the majority of semiaquatic mammals (polar bears, pinnipeds, otters, assorted small mammals such as beavers and platypus) are furry, and Thalassocnus does not look like an animal which evolved under strong selective pressure to minimise drag. I don't see any compelling argument against fur, myself, though I wouldn't call a hairless reconstruction incorrect either. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a work in progress sketch.[5] The pose is based on that skeleton in Paris, but do we have any idea which species that is supposed to be? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice, could be added to the image caption in the article, I'll add it to the Commons file description. I don't remember that model being there when I took the photo, but it was 10 years ago, so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Started to colour in the front of the animal[6], is this something like what you had in mind? It is surprising how extremely different all restorations of this animal seem to be from each other. This one will be one of the more outlandish ones, hehe... But the Carl Buell illustration at least gives a published precedent for such an interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The eye colour was based on the two toed sloth, which has reddish brown eyes. Even three toed sloths appear to have dark brown, rather than black, eyes. The two toed sloth is also closer related to some ground sloths than it is to the three toed sloth, so perhaps gives a better idea of how they would look. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair. Ground sloths are not really a taxon so I’m not sure if Thalassocnus is more closely related to either or. Anyways, it looks really good, kind of a cartoony flair to it; if you’re done, go ahead and put it up. You can move around or delete any images you want if you need to User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "cartooniness" would be due to the retained contours, I can probably get rid of them if we want that. As for where to place the image, I'm wondering if the seal head is really needed? After all, just because the nostrils are placed a certain place on the skull doesn't indicate where they were in life, so it is a bit misleading to show a living seal. Likewise, the Megalonyx image is probably redundant now that we have a restoration showing the same limb posture (the limb bone cross sections could be placed there instead). Removing those could make room for the restoration and a size diagram. Perhaps Slate Weasel would be interested in doing the diagram? Fun×kMonk (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already made the diagram in MS Paint, silhouettes are all ready and scaled up, but I’m still in the process of figuring out Inkscape’s depixel feature. Worst case scenario, I’ll upload the pixels and then maybe Slate Weasel could sic Inkscape on it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk21:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so the GIMP thing wasn't working out so here it is in its enpixellated glory. Do you think I got the proportions right? The T. littoralis holotype is supposed to be a female so it should be thinner and have a blunter snout if I'm reading this right because it seems to suggest only males had a proboscis-oid snout. The colors got washed out a little for some reason too User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool! I had expected them in side view, not that it makes much of a difference, though it would probably be easier to find reference images. The claws look very long and slender compared to the skeletons, though. And even without the long snouts, the skulls would be a lot more narrow and elongated than what's shown here. See the dorsal view of the skull here:[7]FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, seems the heads would also be narrower, not only longer. Also, remember to see if the had length matches measurements given in papers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ref in the description, there’s a skeletal reconstruction of T. natans near the beginning and an illustration of T. yuacensis near the end, and some other proportions given in between User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk02:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think the ears are maybe placed too far forwards (compared to for example here[8]). But hell, I don't really know much about these guys... FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the head is proportionally longer there (almost as long as the lower arm)? That also seems to be more in line with the mounted skeletons I used for reference. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was perspective, the forearm should be longer than the head because it reaches beyond to the plant and the elbow looks a little in front of the ear. But either way, yeah, the forearm is too long, it should be more like T. littoralis. How do we fix this? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I decided to update my Diictodon restoration, as I noted there were some inaccuracies in my previous restoration. The restoration is based on the skeleton showed in this paper (if you cannot see it there is also this skeletal from another paper, Diictodon is on the top right). I hope the new version of the restoration is more accurate than the previous one. Thoughts? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've restored it with pretty sharp claws, but the skeletals don't seem to indicate this. It might be better to blunt them. However, this may be a burrower, so I'll let someone with more synapsid knowledge decide what to do. Definitely an improvement. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I wonder if the Archelon is too leatherback-like, down to the exact number and shape of the longitudinal ridges. I think you would have to keep the distinguishing features of that species a bit less obvious. As is, it just looks like a drawing of a leatherback turtle, what makes it distinctly Archelon? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The colouring is slightly counter-shaded, with some whale influence due to their size. The counter-shading however would be significantly less noticeable underwater, if it is working as intended. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Ichthyosaur blubber study here, it says the skin was dark topside and light underside like in modern dolphins, and it compares skin texture to whales and the leatherback sea turtle. The former isn't seen here (though that might just be perspective for Shonisaurus) and I feel Shonisaurus is lacking the latterUser:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Archelon a lot now, you can check the article for anatomical details. The big ones I see right now are the beak needs to be more hooked (think of an eagle beak), the head should maybe be flatter and longer, and there's only 1 ridge along the carapace and it runs across the midline User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk00:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal diagram of Riojasuchus Size of Riojasuchus
I have created a skeletal diagram and size diagram of Riojasuchus for the Wiki article I plan on expanding. Let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour❯❯❯Talk11:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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[9], I thought it would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be more of a difference between the green used for the animal and the blue used for the water background? Right now they're too similar and it makes the outline of the Vancleavea harder to see (for me anyways). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Vancleavea expert". Oh, you flatter me. I agree with PaleoGeekSquared on the topic of the coloration, I think that the blue does more harm than good. A normal white background is better in my opinion. The proportions generally look quite solid; I was a bit unsure about the leg but now I see that it was just extended in a different way than the 2009 paper's skeletal. The arms are more iffy, they just look like little vestigial flaps in your diagram. They shouldn't be significantly smaller than the legs, and maybe you could differentiate the fingers a bit to make it clear that they aren't just like little tentacles. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Bubblesorg's been pretty busy making/finding art for O. citoniensis. He asked someone from DeviantArt to make him a quick reconstruction, so if there's anything anatomically unsound (which I'm not seeing) I'm not sure there'd be much Bubblesorg can do, although Bubblesorg, you might wanna ask the guy to retake the picture so nothing gets cut off. As for the size charts, I'm not sure if they have the right dimensions, O. citoniensis should be 4 m (13 ft) and the orca 7 or 10 m (23 or 33 ft), and they don't seem to conform with any of the other size charts on Wikipedia so I don't know if I should use them or not. I don't think the O. citoniensis in the size diagrams should have so high a dorsal fin or broad flippers (which the DeviantArt reconstruction captures perfectly). Anybody willing to help out? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
its more 10 ft but ok let me see what i can do--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about cetaceans, but I can comment on the size comparisons. For the second one, O. citonensis comes out at ~3 meters and O. orca comes out at ~6 meters using a height of ~1.8 meters for the human, both short by one meter. The O. citonensis should be proportionally altered like Dunkleosteus said above instead of being an mini O. orca clone. Also, take out that gray background (replace it either with white, light blue, or transparency), move the human down so their between the two cetaceans, crop out a lot of space, capitalized Orcinus for O. citonensis, remove the title of Orcinus, and perhaps use a Sans font like other size comparison diagrams (although the last one's probably debatable). For the first size comparison, the background also shouldn't be gray, O. citonensis is still only ~3 meters, and it still looks like a tiny O. orcinus clone instead of reflecting the proportions mentioned above. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^Allin, E.F. 1975. Evolution of the mammalian middle ear. Journal of Morphology 147: 403–438
^Laass, M. (2016). The origins of the cochlea and impedance matching hearing in synapsids. Acta Palaeontologca Polonica 61 (2): 267-280
^Gaetano LC, Abdala F (2015) The Stapes of Gomphodont Cynodonts: Insights into the Middle Ear Structure of Non-Mammaliaform Cynodonts. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131174. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131174
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}