Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Juratyrant Size chart and known material

A diagram representing the known material of the holotypic specimen of Juratyrant. Missing elements restored with Stokesosaurus skeleton by Scott Hartman, Skull restored after Sinotyrannus, Proceratosaurus and Guanlong (after Loewen et al 2013, which places the genus under Proceratosauridae). The current diagram on the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to stick close to the material presented in the paper (specifically the hip) and the skull doesn't show many of the features diagnostic to the family. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good start, although there is some room for improvement. For example, the placement of Juratyrant and Stokesosaurus within Proceratosauridae is not definite, with Brusatte & Carr (2016) being a good example of a study which places them outside of the group. Even if they were proceratosaurids, they may not necessarily have had crests, because Yutyrannus may have been part of the group yet it lacked the large, plate-like Guanlong-style crest. I would recommend removing the crest from your silhouette. In addition, the preserved and missing portions of the illium visible in your skeletal more closely resemble those of the right illium rather than the left illium. Either you could change the shape of the grey areas, or flip the image to transform the left side into a right side. In addition, the skeleton also preserves bones of the left leg, albeit less complete than those of the right. The left leg in your skeletal seems to include the practically complete right leg, with the actual (incomplete) remains of the left leg being completely omitted. I would recommend flipping the image so that the right hip and leg bones are actually placed on the right side. After that you can add in the bones of the left leg in the other leg of the silhouette. You also seem to have omitted a partial anterior dorsal vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-30) from the base of the neck. You did seem to include the other four preserved dorsal vertebrae (OUMNH J.3311-2 through 5), but Benson (2008) doubted that they were continuous, so there were probably at least a few gaps between them. The sacral and tail vertebrae have few issues, although there was a thin partial vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) just behind OUMNH J.3311-10 (which you placed directly above the tip of the ischium). You will need to add this vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) as well as a couple of chevrons described by Benson (2008). If you didn't know, the right pubis is nearly complete, so you can show more material for that bone. You seemingly only included the incomplete left pubis. The ischium is the opposite case, with the left part of the bone being more complete than the right. If the skeletal is flipped so that we see it from the right (as I recommend), you'd also have to add in an incomplete right ischium overlapping the left bone which you already included.

TL;DR- You put right side bones on the left side, so flip the image so that they are actually on the right side. Put in a few more vertebrae and the nearly complete right pubis. Fill the other leg with bones, since leg bones are known for both legs (although the left leg is less complete). Get rid of the crest since it may not be a Proceratosaurid. If you can access jstor, see Benson (2008) here for pictures and info: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20490999?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've edited most of your suggestions: I don't agree with not including a crest however. True, Yutyrannus lacked a crest. However, all Proceratosaurids from the Jurassic which have well preserved skulls preserve a crest: Yutyannus is more derived. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, the note on Yutyrannus was an afterthought to my main point, which is that Juratyrant was not a proceratosaurid according to the study of Brusatte & Carr (2016), which imho takes precedence over Loewen et al (2013). A few more notes: You put the partial vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) in front of the more complete one (OUMNH J.3311-10) when in reality OUMNH J.3311-11 was behind it. You also seem to have forgotten the left tibia and perhaps included a bit too much white area on the left femur. You may also want to include a partial right ischium overlaying the left ischium. Other than that it looks great. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're really close to perfection (I see you already added it to the article), but there are still a few little things to change. I honestly think that the crest should be omitted due to reasons I've outlined previously. The sliver of OUMNH J.3311-11 is from the front part of the vertebra, not the rear part (the little upper triangular extensions are prezygapophyses). You still need to include a few chevrons. Apart from those little fixes it's complete. Thanks for all the patience. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Eotyrannu5 because it would be nice to have this one done and dusted ^-^--TKWTH (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Woops: apologies, been busy with work lately. Will try and finish this one ASAP Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Eotyrannu5 ... --94.1.237.134 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Image has already been updated accordingly Eotyrannu5 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, I also like how you darkened the shading in the grey areas. I'm still not sure why the crest hasn't been removed, Loewen et al. (2013) seems to be an outlier among tyrannosauroid analyses, so I don't think that Juratyrant was a proceratosaurid. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Magnosaurus restoration from 2007

I don't think this restoration has been reviewed, but it probably should. The dinosaur seems too skinny, has visible fenestrae, and the limbs look quite strange.Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a rather unsalvageable Hadrosaurus restoration from the same guy from its page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea, it's just better to upload entirely new images instead of trying to fix these. There is a Magnosaurus reconstruction in Nobu Tamura's blog [1] - what's necessary to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? And are there any problems with it? Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Noncommercial license. Can't be used. 2001:569:782B:7A00:80FC:3832:3545:5CDA (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've updated the Magnosaurus restoration. Let me know if changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, but still quite skinny by megalosauroid standards. What's with the scutes on the hands? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a dramatic change! I wonder if the "drumstick could be made more pronounced. The fingers on the right hand also look slightly longer? As for the scutes, I guess they just reflect the scutes on bird feet (and crocodile limbs), don't think there is any evidence for or against. At least this Australovenator image[2] has them too... FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Request: Xixiasaurus scale diagram

2013 restoration

2018 size chart

I will be expanding the Xixiasaurus for possible nomination as the first troodont GA/FA, and it currently needs a size diagram. The estimated size is given in the article, and though the estimated length of the skull isn't given in the description, it can perhaps be extrapolated from the scale bar (see image here:[3]). Not sure what the body should be based on, as it seems to jump the cladogram around from study to study, so as close to a "generic" troodont as possible. While we're at it, I thought it would be good to post my old, 2013 restoration of it for re-review (it was basically a modified version of my older Zanabazar junior). The feathers were largely based on Jinfengopteryx, which perhaps wasn't a trodoont after all, and now the only definitely known feathered troodont is Jianianhualong. I will definitely shorten the neck and change the tip of the mandible a bit (it seems to have been a bit downturned[4][5], which should also be shown in the diagram), but are there other suggestions? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I love this illustration; the only suggestion I have right now is to make the neck feathers more extensive, giving the neck more volume as feathers do in modern birds. I think the feathers should also make the silhouette have a more gentle curve on the back of the neck. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix that; though there are of course many long necked birds where the feathers don't change the contour of the neck much, such as flamingoes, storks, and swans, it seems to have been the case in deinonychosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll take this one, especially since I don't do size charts too often now! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, your Thalassodromeus diagram also got a compliment from a reviewer! FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Along with the poofy neck feather thing, I think that the nostril might be a little too high up. As far as I know, the current thinking for theropod nostrils is that they wet moreso at the bottom of the nares PaleoEquii (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The front of the bony nares, yeah, as far as I can see it is? I think maybe that black splotch behind what I meant to be the nostril is what threw you off, I'll paint it out... FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have now made a bunch of anatomical fixes~to the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! Should help figure things out with the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait! Personal affairs and all. I'll get started on this soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fine (I'm still writing anyway), I've made some space ready for it at the upper left of the description section... FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the body of this Byronosaurus[6] coupled with the head here[7] could maybe guide the proportions. The first skeletal looks like it was done by Jaime Headden, but I can't really find it on any proper website. Do you think we can upload it to Commons, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes I think we can, i know it is made by Headden we just don't really have a "source". But they are his and that means we can upload them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how many images of his scattered on the web we still need to upload? I recall there was a lot on the now defunct Dinosauricon, maybe they can be found through the Wayback Machine... And PaleoGeekSquared, if you choose to include feathers in the size diagram, remember to not make the tail feathers part of the length! FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Finally I finished this! Sorry for the long wait. I took your advice on Headden's skeletal, and matched the silhouette up to the restoration's proportions as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Worth the wait! There is something about the frontmost leg, I think the fact that the two legs have the exact same pose. This would make it seem like the front leg is attached further forwards on the body, and doesn't attach to the body at the same level as the hindmost leg... They could be more offset, like here:[8] The hand claws also seem to have been more strongly curved:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus

Hello, I’ve spent some time making this reconstruction of a father Psittacosaurus mongoliensis sitting down, and I was wondering if it could be used in the article. Any critique? I can also bring in a version with a neat and background, if that would be more suitable. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears you have drawn a claw on the fourth finger; there should only ever be claws on the first three. An issue which is perhaps too late to fix, but which you should consider in the future, is perspective in the scales; if a round scale is seen foreshortened, it should be oval. In this restoration, all the scales at the margins of the animals silhouette should become gradually more oval, and almost flat at the contours. Now they are all round, which wouldn't make sense. You can see what I mean in for example these lizard photos[10][11] (also check the front view[12] of the Bob Nicholls Psittacosaurus mdel), note how the scales appear flattened as the topography of the head curves. It might not seem like a big deal, but I think it is important to be accurate if individual scales absolutely have to be shown. Another thing, it looks a bit jarring that the quills stop short of connecting with the body. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused where the quills on the left side of the image are coming from? From what I can tell they're limited to the tail like is preserved on the specimen, but if they are they shouldn't be sprouting over there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The midline of the back in that specimen is obscured, though, so in theory there could be quills... But yeah, here they seem to be coming from the level of the legs, though. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the evidence for the little postorbital horns on the upper side of the skull? And shouldn't the skull table (behind those horns, where the upper temporal fenestrae would have been) be flat instead of strongly rounded? Looks like the neck starts right after the eye openings. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Further edits to spinosaur images

• 
  Corrected skull shape
• 
  Corrected skull shape
• 
  Added background, hid wonky hind limbs underwater, fixed skull proportions, smoother sail
• 
  Less exaggerated projection on the rear of nasal crest
• 
  Fixed skull proportions on left Suchomimus, obscured right individual behind additional ferns
• 
  Did some minor edits, such as removing the signature and adding an ear hole
• 
  Adjustments to skull and sail shape of the animals

I fixed up the Baryonyx's skull in these two images according to this[13] skull reconstruction, they should now be in tip-top shape for article use. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good warping! I'll send the Baryonyx off to the WikiJournal soon then... FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's three more images I tried to salvage, let me know if the changes are acceptable. I was thinking that the new Nobu Tamura Sucho could go in Cristatusaurus under the Paleoecology section, since we already have a large amount of good Suchomimus restorations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The NT image still has a pretty weirdly rotated hand... Maybe it could just be rotated down? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rotated it somewhat, does this fix the issue? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say so (the snout seems to dip deeper than the legs, but maybe not so obviously). Id advise against changing the name of the file though, the image is used on many other Wikipedia pages where it is identified as Suchomimus. You should rather state in an image caption that it was similar/possibly identical to that animal or something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot it was used on other wiki pages. I took your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

One issue that makes the image look a bit weird is that you have scaled up the restoration, which makes it very blurry, contrasting wit the background. Maybe the whole image should be scaled back down so the dinosaur is of its original size. Looking again, I also wonder if you could make the legs less deep in the water, because it does seem like the snout should be submerged as well from this perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I lifted up the neck and reduced the resolution of the image so it is much closer to the original. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the source to the background photo? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a Spinosaurus by Nobu Tamura that I uploaded, the only one of his restorations of it based on the new reconstruction. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand the final spinosaurid image for the day: a Suchomimus and four of her juveniles traversing a floodplain, put together using some lower quality spinosaurid restorations by Nobu and Abelov. And now we officially have more than enough Suchomimus restorations (7 exactly). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

More than we'll ever need, probably! The perspective is a bit off in the newest image; you have a horizon line through the largest animal, but the animals below it are shown directly from the side, whereas the viewer would have to look slightly down upon following in that perspective. It is most obvious in the frontmost animal, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Carnotaurinae size diagrams

• 
  Old Carnotaurini size diagram
• 
  New Carnotaurini size diagram
• 
  Carnotaurinae size diagram

I've created some size comparison diagrams. One is to replace the difficult to read old Carnotaurini size diagram, and one is a size diagram of all of Carnotaurinae. Let me know if any changes are needed. I attempted to make it so the entire silhouette of each dinosaur was visible and readable, let me know if that worked as well as I hoped. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The new Carnotaurini diagram isn't displaying right for me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I like it, but the only issue is it will be hard to simply distinguish them by colour, since multiple taxa are similar colours than could all be considered "green" or "blue" or "orange". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another issue is how unstable abelisaur taxonomy is, "Carnotaurini" and "Carnotaurinae" have few consistent members. I would recommend focusing on Abelisauridae in general. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "Carnotaurini" size diagram, even if it was unstable it would at least be a good replacement for the greyscale, unlabeled version that is used in nearly a dozen articles. I think for both size charts, even if classifications change in the future, it would be easy enough to relabel it as "Size comparisons of selected abelisaurs". A more useful size diagram might be comparisons of species that lived in the same environment during the same time, but there is still usefulness in visualizing the sizes of species within Abelisauridae as a whole. I think the colours of the Carnotaurini size diagram are visually different enough, however I can see the larger Carnotaurinae diagram being problematic. I tried to layer it light on dark but most dark colours have ended up looking the same, so I'll fix that. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 12:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the colours on the Carnotaurinae digram. When referring to them, it should be clear enough to use (from left to right): Orange, Purple, Blue, Yellow, Grey, Green, Dark Green, Red, Cyan, Brown. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Anurognathid

I’ve made a reconstruction of Jeholopterus according to the Yang et al 2018 study on Anurognathid “pycnofeathers”. The study showed that the unidentified Anurognathid (judging by Locality and physical appearance, likely Jeholopterus or a related animal) had red “pycnofeathers”. As of now, both the Anurognathus restoration and Jeholopterus restoration are extremely outdated. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a shame not to show more of the body, since the distribution of integument types is what's interesting about the specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s too late for that; plus, I wouldn’t be able to show the filament variation. Drawing the individual strands on each individual pycnofeather would be a Herculean and pointless task. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not definitely Jeholopterus and could very well be Dendrorhynchoides. If this is meant to be a reconstruction of the (immature) specimen and not an actual Jeholopterus then it probably should not be associated with the Jeholopterus page. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing allows the integument to be put on both taxa either way. Alternatively, we could write a section about the specimens on the anurognathid page and merely use this there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Where does the red color come from? Jonathunder (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This study.

Also, I’ve changed it to an unnamed Anurognathid. The skull most closely matches Anurognathus, which also needs a new illustration. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Paleocolour could fix the old DBogdanov illustration[14] according to the new study (isn't too far off to begin with, incredibly, similar thing happened when I drew Sinornithosaurus). What a time to be alive, that it is now a recurring thing to go back and add the actual colouration to old restorations of extinct animals... FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t think it’s worth trying to fix. The study showed that the feathers densely covered the entire body, ans the arms and feet, and tiny bit of the mouth, as seen in my reconstruction. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think even I would be able to do the fixes, so I'm sure she can do it even better (with newer version of Photoshop and all). Adding fur takes time, but it's easy to do. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lucas Attwell Emausaurus

A very nice illustration but I don't think it was ever reviewed. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely needs clearer proof of permission. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it now has a CC BY-SA 3.0 License on its DA page: [15]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the uploader finally got it sorted out. So now I guess we can evaluate this and the other of his images. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Revised Alectrosaurus

January 2018

December 2018

Since I recently started digital art[16] I thought it'd be a good idea to explore and try out this new art medium with some Wikipedia restorations, seeing as I have a while without making any. So which better one to remake than my old Alectrosaurus? The previous one was admittedly an ugly, unrealistic mess, so hopefully you'll find this one more acceptable. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The nostril should be placed nearer the bottom of the nares, rather than the top. This is based on a study which showed Tyrannosaurus likely had a fleshier nostril, pushing it down towards the jaw and the tip of the snout. I’d asssume it would be roughly the same in Alectrosaurus. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the nostril placement paper, and did put it at the bottom of the external nares (see this skull diagram[17]). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a good new direction! The curcular patches look a bit too neat (compared to living animals), though, could their outlines maybe be a bit more irregular? As for nostril placement, the take home message of the Witmer paper was they were placed at the front of the bony naris (as seems to be shown here), not necessarily at the bottom (though the front of the naris is often lower than the rest, and therefore often "the bottom"). FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave the face patches a more textured outline, similar to that which can be seen on the dark to light colour transition on the side of the neck. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, exactly what I had in mind! FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! Added to the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

At a closer look, the eye is completely circular, but most bird eyes (or their visible outlines) are at least a bit oval and have little indentations at the front and the back, showing where the eyelids meet. Not sure what it's called, but should probably be added. FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Megalosaurid skulls

• 
  Dubreuillosaurus
• 
  Magnosaurus
• 
  Afrovenator
• 
  Leshansaurus
• 
  Eustreptospondylus
• 
  Torvosaurus
• 
  Megalosaurus
• 
  Wiehenvenator
• 
  Duriavenator
• 
  Composite to replace Conty's

A long-awaited project I'm finally beginning now, the skulls of all megalosaurids. Starting with the most complete, Dubreuillosaurus. All megalosaurids with cranial (non-braincase) material will get a skull reconstruction, all to the same scale of 10px/cm and all following the same colour palette, hoping to replace Conty's old collage. Comments? Unknown bones are based on other megalosaurids that have them, quadrate from Eustreptospondylus and posterior mandible from Megalosaurus (all other bones are known in Dubreuillosaurus). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough Dubreuillosaurus' closest relative, Magnosaurus, has a dentary of the same size, and thus the only difference here is the dentary known. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't say much for accuracy, but it would probably be good to track down what the diagram you based it on was published in. It seems Torvosaurus is known from as much material, just not form a single specimen... FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I currently have all the descriptive papers of the cranial material open as separate tabs right now. Torvosaurus preserves essentially the same material, but in several specimens, and lacking the skull roof, squamosal, and almost the entire dentary. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Afrovenator is now finished, onto the next taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does the Headden skeletal show what looks like part of the mandible? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the Headden skeletal. The bone was also in Sereno's original skeletal diagram. The theropod database lists it as a prearticular. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a prearticular which means its on the internal side of the mandible, and thus not visible in lateral view if the angular and surrangular are shown. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Another megalosaurid added, Leshansaurus. The white bones are figured, light grey bones are described (very poorly) so as much as I can tell to be preserved is shown. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Now 100% more Eustreptospondylus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And now Torvosaurus is done. I plan to make Megalosaurus next to so I can finally replicate Conty's diagram and replace it, it's not very representative of the megalosaur cranial anatomy and diversity. I'm probably going to make all the skulls to the same length, instead of all to scale, since Torvosaurus absolutely dwarfs the others so far. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Torvosaurus apparently has a fourth premaxillary tooth according to Hendrickx, Mateus, & Araujo (2015)[18], contra earlier studies but more in line with the cranial anatomy of other megalosaurids. Other than that everything looks good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

An additional premaxillar tooth has been added, along with Megalosaurus, now finished (and with 4 premax teeth). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well another is done, and the composite image as well. Only Duriavenator left unless I decide to do T. gurneyi in addition to T. tanneri. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered labeling the composite within the image itself? Or at least putting in a key (like A), B), etc.) Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point, done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Duriavenator is finished, and I think this project is along with it. Unless there are concerns, I will archive this section at the end of the month and add images to articles if there is room. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What about Piveteausaurus, or is it too fragmentary? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's only a braincase, no external skull bones, so I didn't include it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Saltriovenator

• 
  Saltriovenator restoration
• 
  Skeletal diagram
• 
  Size diagram

Made this one using the official skeletal in the paper. I think it is okay, don't mislead the boot with the perineal muscolar area

The legs feel very lacking in muscles. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The frontmost leg seems very straight. It would never reach that position during a walk. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've rearranged and lengthened the legs as according to the skeletal diagram. I've also added a size diagram based on the estimated length from the paper. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean the ischiadic boot? What reasons are there to assume that the cloaca was located so far to behind?--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh my bad yes of course I mean the ischiadic boot... anyway, the drawing was made using the skeletal as a reference but with a different leg position so that the more cranially placed leg gives the optical illusion of a more caudally placed booty. If you still have doubts try measuring the drawing proportions and comparing them with the skeletal. Thank you Lusotitan for the new leg arrangement! Sorry I'm not that practical with wikipedia still I forgot to sign Dennonychus

What's the ruling on modifications to images from the paper? 'Cause I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to try and beef up that skeletal a little more... --TKWTH (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. It's no lankier than many Scott Hartman skeletals. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is inherent in the license "to remix – to adapt the work", but I don't see why it is necessary to modify it either. Some animals are fat, some are skinny, but there is a current trend in palaeoart to add maximum bulk, which is just that, a trend. If we want to draw an image like that, fine, but no need to add something speculative to someone else's art. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the calves and back need a tad more beef, and I'm using Hartman's skeletals as a standard. --TKWTH (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the back? Hartman's skeletals, and those of most others, don't show much space between the neural spines and the margin of the silhouette. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Should Saltriovenator have osteoderms? It is outside of the Ceratosaurus+Carnotaurus group, but it is still a ceratosaur. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The nasal horn is probably even less likely then, both Ceratosaurus and abelisaurs had osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"A single median crest on the nasals and a distinct lacrimal crest are variably developed in basalmost averostrans known from cranial elements and belonging to both Ceratosauria and Tetanurae. These features are optimized as averostran and ceratosaurian symplesiomorphies in our phylogenetic analysis. Accordingly, these ornamentations are depicted in our reconstruction of the Italian ceratosaurian, pending more complete material." 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the crest is accurate, due to its presence in coelophysoids, dilophosaurids, Ceratosaurus, and Monolophosaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "accurate", as we have no way of knowing, but it is a speculative possibility, just like the osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The crest is more than just speculation, in a sense. It's no less accurate than the other traits constrained by phylogenetic bracketing, as is the case here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, only one other theropod has a single nasal horn, and that is Ceratosaurus. The others have longitudinal crests, running the length of the nasals, and coelophysoids did not have crests at all, if those of Syntarsus kayentakatae are just displaced nasals, as has been suspected for some time (same goes for Zupaysaurus). But in any case, I'm not arguing for removing the horn or anything, just saying osteoderms could be inferred through bracketing just as well (both abelisaurs and Ceratosaurus had them, so it could be primitive to the group). FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Saltriovenator does not fall under any bracket for osteoderms - the Ceratosaurus + Abelisauridae node is further up the tree and so it falls out of the bracket. Now, this bracket is still pretty close, so it can be inferred it may have had them, but it's just as reasonable not to have them. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus is the only ceratosaur with osteoderms. Abelisaurs didn't have them. Saltriovenator shouldn't be depicted with them. Agree Saltriovenator probably had a crest, but I recommend not giving it the exact same crest shape as the skeletal (because it's speculative and I don't want the skeletal to become a meme).Ornithopsis (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that still isn't grounds for rejecting the image. So this isn't the place for the discussion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Carnotaurus had "keeled protuberances"[19] on its skin, whatever that means, and it has certainly been depicted as something akin to osteoderms (so whatever we call it, it isn't far form what is shown in the restoration here). But then again, it might just be spot, isn't clearly rendered here. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Large scales aren't osteoderms, and the arrangement of the large scales of Carnotaurus (spread over much of the body) aren't anything like the arrangement of the osteoderms in Ceratosaurus (single row along midline of back). We can't rule out large scales like Carnotaurus, but a row of osteoderms like Ceratosaurus seems unlikely. So I don't think osteoderms should be added.Ornithopsis (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a moot point to begin with, because I thought this image showed osteoderms (which is why I argued for them being kept), but it didn't when I looked closer. Then of course, you could argue whether feathers are more or less likely than osteoderms, as are shown both here and in some of the press release artwork... FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I had initially misinterpreted this as a suggestion to add osteoderms, which I disagreed with. My mistake. FWIW, I think feathers are much more likely than osteoderms (as osteoderms seem to be an autapomorphy of Ceratosaurus within theropods, whereas feathers are now known from all over Ornithodira despite their low preservation potential).Ornithopsis (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fosterovenator

Fosterovenator skeletal restoration

The outline of this restoration ought to be revised to make it more like Elaphrosaurus and Limusaurus because Dalman (2014) considers Fosterovenator closer to Elaphrosaurus than to Ceratosaurus, which means he erred in assigning Fosterovenator to Ceratosauridae and Carnosauria more broadly, and should have clarified that he was assigning it to Ceratosauria given that Fosterovenator is a small-bodied theropod.Extrapolaris (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I would say that either one is too speculative to be of much use. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rahiolisaurus

Life restoration of Rahiolisaurus gujaratensis

I ended up scrapping that lineart I sketched earlier and did a painting of Rahiolisaurus instead. Let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks very accurate and aesthetically glaring. I appreciate the fact that the mouth is closed and has "lips". The only thing I'm not totally sure is the maybe excessively squinted eye, it looks like the animal is using some sort of mammalian, complexity-wise, palpebral muscles. Dennonychus

It seems the ankle of the back leg is a bit too flexed for the position the lower leg is placed in; it should probably be tilted a bit back, like the similar pose in Hartman's skeletals, the weight seems a bit unsupported now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the eye, I was inspired by bird eyes and the tissue found around their eyes. The rest was meant to represent wrinkles on the face over the fenestra. I think it's relatively minor, so I'm going to leave it as-is but take it into account for my next restoration. The leg was positioned to make it look as though it's leaning forward, and I made sure to keep the thigh and ankle parallel to each other, but I think my shading obscured the shapes a little. I do think this is also very minor, and doesn't put the leg in an especially unnatural pose. Again, I will keep that in mind in the future. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Nemegtomaia eggs

Nesting Nemegtomaia

Jens Lallensack recently notified me of this dissertation[20], which seems to state the egg arrangement in my Nemegtomaia restoration (shown on page 148) is wrong: "Note that the arrangement of clutch is upsidedown, with the eggs inclined outwards and the pointed end directed upward. This is also the first reconstruction that shows integumentary appendages (filamentous feathers and planar feathers) in the adult .Note that the eggs are pigmented based on the evidence for biliverdin preservationin the Macroolithus yaotunensis eggs (Wiemann et al., 2017)". I followed this figure[21] in the Fanti paper, though, but the arrangement could of course have been disturbed. What do people think, should I change the position of the eggs, or am I reading something wrong? Pinging Ashorocetus, our only egg-expert... FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that's kinda cool. It seems that the proper nest orientation is with eggs close to vertical, and leaning slightly inwards, with multiple rings. Not sure what change you'd make to display that but from the text and critiques to other images that seems to be whats correct. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well my expertise has been challenged since I should have known this beforehand, but yes you did read that correctly and the eggs should be inclined outward. I am sorry I didn't catch this when you were first making the reconstruction. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I have a bit of a hard time envisioning this. Perhaps the eggs wouldn't even be visible from this angle? FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus

Sarcosaurus known material

Sarcosaurus diagram of known material: reconstruction based on basal Ceratosaurs (such as Berberosaurus and particularly Saltriovenator). The Skull was made to look more generic and less like more derived Ceratosaurs such as Ceratosaurus. "Liassaurus", referred to "cf. Sarcosaurus woodi" is smaller than the holotype: material in light grey is preserved, but to what extent is uncertain as it is not figured. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there could be a bigger difference between the greys used. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

For the silhouette? Eotyrannu5 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It says "material in light grey is preserved", but it is very hard to distinguish between the greys used, they all look light (including the grey that denotes missing parts). FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally would recommend the use ~20% gray for unfigured and ~50% gray for unknown (that's what I've done for Puertasaurus, Argentinosaurus, and Volgatitan). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I use hex 808080 for a darker grey and hex a6a6a6 for a lighter grey (see Leshansaurus skull above). I think the light grey here is fine maybe the darker could be darker though. I see no anatomical issues with the skeletals anyhow. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Hopefully it is darker now. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Since Sarcosaurus appears to be a dilophosaurid, or at least in that general part of the phylogenetic tree, shouldn't its head look more dilophosaur-like and be crested?Ornithopsis (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus is in a similar boat to Saltriovenator (I even found the former to be basalmost ceratosaur in an extension of the Carrano matrix) so any cranial decoration is hit or miss. A lack of any is the most objective route to take. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree with that philosophy. In the absence of hard data, soft data gleaned from phylogenetic bracketing is much more preferable than defaulting to nothing. And phylogenetic bracketing would support at least some kind of crest in this area.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Lacrimal crests at least, they are very widespread. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is with the phylogeny I got, crestless Limusaurus was between Sarcosaurus and Ceratosaurus. I don't remember if Masiakasaurus was also basal or not, but from that result it appeared more likely that crests evolved multiple times. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is some debate over Limusaurus's phylogenetic placement; it may be a noasaurid, in which case a loss of cranial ornamentation is a derived feature of Noasauridae, which are (generally) considered to be deeper within Ceratosauria than Ceratosaurus. Cranial ornamentation (in a general sense) is common to abelisaurids, basal tetanurans (Monolophosaurus), dilophosaurids, and plenty of incertae sedis early Jurassic theropods like Cryolophosaurus and Sinosaurus. Even Masiakasaurus has some strange texturing on its facial bones which imply that its ancestors had ornamentation. Even if Limusaurus did have a basal position within Ceratosauria, the evidence is still strongly in support of cranial ornamentation being the default for early Jurassic theropods.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Like with Saltriovenator above, our best bet it to accept what the artist has done, because anything goes. Depending on the phylogeny, ceratosaurs could be closer to tetanurans than crested theropods (= no crest), Sinosaurus could be basalmost ceratosaur (= large crest), crested theropods could lie on either side of Ceratosauria but not within in (= small crest) or even something more radical. I know all of these results have been found using various phylogenies, and the state of uncertainty around everything at this point in the tree cannot be understated. Megalosaurs (all lacking any crests save Afrovenator and spinosaurs) might be their own clade, or they could be carnosaurs. "Dilophosaurs" (all having prominent crests) could be a clade and therefore not provide support for basal crests; or a continuous grade and therefor support large crests as basal to Averostra; or could be a clade broken up by ceratosaurs and therefore support crests as basal to ceratosaurs, megalosaurs and carnosaurs. We just don't know, so deeming one thing inaccurate wouldn't make sense (I think Saltriovenator should be crestless as well, but as an unknown I think anything goes). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree that paleoart for Wikipedia should be as conservative as possible, but I would like to point out that in the Saltriovenator paper’s phylogeny, Sarcosaurus is a dilophosaurid. As far as I know it is also found close to Dilophosaurus in most other phylogenies. Under such circumstances, I think depicting it without crests becomes a situation where it’s probably violating the phylogenetic bracket. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus is basal to dilophosaurs in the Wang Limusaurus phylogeny [22] which I didn't even consider, but makes it too basal for crests. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn’t Sarcosaurus be reconstructed as much more coelophysoid-like? I can see it being reconstructed like Coelophysis or Dilophosaurus, but I don’t see why it would look like it does in this image.Ornithopsis (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been recovered as a basal ceratosaur before so that is one valid approach to take. I see no issue with the silhouette, it'd be accurate as a dilophosaur-like animal but it's also fine like this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

In what recent published study has it been found to be a ceratosaur? Ornithopsis (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dicraeosauridae Size Comparison

AT LAST!!!

Remember how long, long ago I said that I would make a dicraeosaurid size comparison? Well, since no one else has made it for me, I decided to upload it for the winter holidays. (Oh yeah - "Santaposeidon" came to town.) Anyways, the image description's quite long, due to the number of taxa included. Hopefully I didn't make any major mistakes. I used this image as a test for translucent silhouettes, but I'm not sure that I like the effect too much. Also, expect more Brachiosaurus stuff and family-grade sauropod size comparisons! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy of the sizes, but I think the transparency has cluttered the image too much in that I find it difficult to read the silhouettes- most notably on all the overlapping legs. My suggestion would be to increase the opacity of the transparency and move the dinosaurs apart enough so you can see the majority of the volume of each. Maybe look to my diagram here for inspiration. Great work so far, though! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Does this look better? I split them with the more basal ones on the left and the more derived ones on the right, following the Lingwulong phylogeny. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks much better. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That's great, it's easier to see the size of each animal now. This might just be my browser reading the .svg, but the text for Amargasaurus cazaui overlaps onto the red square of Dicraeosaurus sattleri. Would it be possible to move those apart slightly? I'm using Google Chrome, a pretty common internet browser, so this will probably happen to a lot of people. Thanks! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with SVG text, you never quite know how it's going to render as a thumbnail. Anyways, it should be working now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's working for me too. Great work. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Genyodectes

• 
  Genyodectes restoration
• 
  Size diagram
• 
  Known remains diagram

I have created a restoration, size chart, and known material diagram of Genyodectes. Let me know if any changes are needed.

• The restoration includes a row of osteoderms along the back, a la Ceratosaurus. They are considered to be closely related, so I thought this was reasonable but I can remove them if needed. The head crests are also based on Ceratosaurus.
• The size chart was scaled to the known jaw material and fitted to a Ceratosaur silhouette. There was no size estimate listed anywhere I could find, so I'm not sure if this could be considered Original Research.
• The known remains diagram was scaled from the jaw material and filled with the silhouette. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems the ear is drawn behind the head (effectively in the neck), rather than within the back margin? It should instead be somewhere within the gap between the back of the skull and the mandible depressor muscle.[23] FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 01:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Much better. This, and taking sclerotic ring size into account when drawing eyes, are some of the most overlooked issues in dinosaur palaeoart for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

La Huérguina Formation

Europejara and Pelecanimimus restored in a speculative scenario of ecological competition

Made this to illustrate the Paleoenvironment section of La Huerguina Formation page. Is it accurate enough? Danny Cicchetti

I don't know anything about these particular creatures, but the contrast between the blurry environment and sharper-looking animals seems very jarring to me, and makes the image a little unpleasant to look at. Is there any way that you could clear up the background? Or perhaps just the water in the foreground? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you I didn't notice that. It's been fixed :) Danny Cicchetti 16:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is the Europejara perhaps too big? It supposedly had a wing span of 2 metres, while Pelecanimimus was up to 2.5 metres long. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I may fix that but I used skull dimensions as for relative proportions between the two animals. Also a big part of Pelecanimimus tail is not seen here. Danny Cicchetti 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Megaraptor mount

This photo of a mount was added by an IP several days ago. It seems suspect. 2001:569:782B:7A00:D3:A8CA:4C6E:41DD (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It is outdated (based on carcharodontosaurs), but it could used in the history or classification sections one day when those are expanded, to illustrate earlier interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia (coloured)

• 
  Digital restoration
• 
  Colour map
• 
  Lineart sketch

Now that I have the proper tools, I got around to colouring the Oxalaia lineart that I made a while back (pinging Paleocolour to notify her that she doesn't need to do it). It should be alright to use in the article in place of the swimming one, since the WP:OR issue of bipedalism that raised Jens Lallensack's concern before is no longer a problem, due to the Henderson (2018) paper.[24] Aside from the colourisation and more detailed lineart, I also made these changes:

• Flatter, more sausage-like torso as suggested for Spinosaurus.
• Moved eye closer to the top of the head and shifted ear hole to proper position.
• Pedal unguals are now flat-bottomed and the hallux now touches the ground.
• Reduced apparent constriction at the base of the neck, which was due to improper shading.
• Fixed overly long dentary (in Spinosaurus the jaws likely had a bit of an overbite, with the frontmost premaxillary teeth going over and in front of the mandible tip.)

I also took FunkMonk's tip on more oval, bird-like eyes (using falcon eyes as a reference), I'll be fixing that in my Alectrosaurus soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Anatomy looks good in general, thoguh something weird is happening with the backgroudn arm, as if it becomes a lot thicker upwards than the front one. I would also expect the arms to be thinner around the wrist, instead of just continuing in a straight line to the hand. I wonder f the scalation of the face is too large, but we of course don't know. Lastly, I think the pattern on the crest and sail look a bit too designed, compared to most patterns found in modern tetrapods. Looks like symbols. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk on the scale pattern. Furthermore, the foot looks a bit human-like due to the extensive heel, especially in the left one. Note that theropods were digitigrade. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

These should be relatively quick and easy fixes, I'll do them all soon. Digital art certainly makes things a lot easier! The head scalation you are referring to, btw, was inspired by the large scales often present on the jaws of lizards like iguanas, as well as the texture on the mandibles of crocodiles, so it seemed plausible to me that this might have been true for some dinosaurs as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ledumahadi size chart

Ledumahadi size chart WIP

Ledumahadi size chart with human

I know this taxon already has a size comparison up on the page, but I guess I'll give this one a shot. I'm not sure what human silhouette I should be using (having always used Andrew Farke's myself), so any suggestions?

Proportions were reconstructed using other lessemsaurids, with several areas modified to match the known bones (which made for a surprising appearance, especially if you were to compare it with Antetonitrus). Megalotitan (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Farke's silhouette is available under a CC BY license over at Phylopic: [25]. He's been used before in size comparisons (see Haplocanthosaurus, Aquilops, and Protoceratops), so using him here should be fine. Even with a restoration with a human in it, it's still preferred to have one with gridlines and a scale bar (see Giganotosaurus), so I see no problem with also including this image. I'll let someone else who has access to the paper comment on accuracy. Also, you may want to try out SVG format for size comparisons, using a program such as Inkscape (Commons generally favors SVG format over PNG format for these kinds of things, however, we do frequently use several PNG size comparisons, too, so it is entirely optional). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha about the human silhouette. Not sure if I want to download a separate program just to export it in a different file format, although it is something I could try in the future. Think I'll stick to PNG for now. Megalotitan (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Now with human. Still a little unsure about its positioning, but I think it works? Megalotitan (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe flipping the human so that it walks in the same direction as the dinosaur would look better? The forward facing arm has its elbow joint too low. You have the manus reconstructed to face outwards, not forwards, contrary to the official paleoart. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Will change the human silhouette. Since the humerus was cross-scaled from Antetonitrus (which is massive compared to the ulna), that probably makes the elbow low. The manus orientation is based off Hartman's Melanorosaurus. Megalotitan (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• On a more technical note, instead of uploading each version as a new file, it is preferred to upload the newer version over the original. To do this, scroll down to the bottom of the Commons page, where you will see a table. Underneath that table is a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". Using the link prevents categories overflowing with versions of the same artwork, in addition to inaccurate versions piling up. Also, remember to add categories to your uplaods. I added the categories of Ledumahadi and Sauropoda size comparisons to your latest version. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about this. Thank you! Megalotitan (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus Skeletal

I have finally finished drawing and scaling all the material I could find of this guy and have compiled it all here: [26].

• White=Holotype
• Red="Ultrasauros"
• Orange=BYU cervicals
• Yellow=Potter Creek
• Lime=Felch Quarry skull
• Green=Holotype material collected from SV-POW
• Cyan=OK Metacarpal
• Blue=Holtype material gathered from Taylor's skeletal
• Navy=Jensen/Jensen Quarry
• Violet=Bigfoot
• Gray=Unknown

I plan to follow Taylor's cross-scaling for the holotype specimen and cross-scale the silhouette size for the Potter Creek Specimens, "Ultrasauros", Jensen/Jensen rib, and OK metacarpal. I'm at a loss as to how to scale the Felch Quarry skull, BYU cervicals, and Bigfoot. Any comments or suggestions as to scaling the material or on general accuracy? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the holotype on its silhouette: [27] Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the penultimate version: [28], with all material that can be confidently or semi-confidently scaled. Any comments before I upload it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Would it, for the Brachiosaurus article, be more practical to combine them all in one diagram (including the three specimen not included yet), only making a distinction by color between the holotype and associated material? Your skull diagram looks good; would it be possible to have that as a separate file, with individual bones labeled? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that I'll upload the image above, a composite diagram, and the skull diagram. Since the skull material was crushed, I used Carpenter's skull restoration for creating the diagram. It's ironic how "Ultrasauros," the "biggest dino ever" is actually smaller than the holotype... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would keep the two Potter Creek specimens separate though, as there is no evidence that the two are from the same individual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Composite skeletal diagram

Skull diagram

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

On a more paleontology-related note, I have uploaded the two of the diagrams, one of which can be seen above at large magnification. I will upload the skull diagram momentarily. I will update the above diagram to show six skeletals instead of five, also. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's the skull diagram. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs)00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Things look good but there are few points that need correcting. The neck posture is unlikely seems that the neck actually is bending down at the base whereas the habitual pose would be upright. The humeri are articulated incorrectly, they fit into the area of the scapula-coracoid joint, you have them articulating below that at the sternum articulation. Ribs should be underneath the scapula, not above.

I would reduce complexity and not mark "inadequately figured specimens" in light grey. It seems to be a bit too much, and for example, all the dorsal vertebrae of the holotype are actually figured (Riggs, 1904). What do you mean with "Some elements are reversed", did you not always show a right or left element at the correct side of the body? I wouldn't do that as it is misleading; always place the elements at the correct side, or have a more schematic diagram not distinguishing between left and right. Could you maybe make an annotated version of the skull, labeling bones and openings? That would be very handy to have for the B. article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have implemented some of the changes on the composite:

• No elements are mirrored anymore.
• Humerus should articulate correctly now.
• Neck posture should (hopefully) be better
• Uniform colors implemented
• Ribs under scapula (however, that is a right scapula, so from the former left lateral view the ribs would have appeared to be above it)

I couldn't find the figures for D11 and D9, they're not in our linked version of 1904, and 1903's behind a paywall (what the heck?). Could you send them to me (via link or email)? I will annotate the skull as soon as I figure out which bone is which. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Paleoart Fixes

• 
  Fixed
• 
• 
  Fixed
• 
  Size chart for Jianianhualong
• 
  Fixed
• 
• 

I've noticed there's a great deal of decent paleoart that is considered inaccurate and therefore unusable in articles, and I'd like to go ahead and update these. The gallery above has a few candidates I've found that are of high enough quality and would be great to be accurate. I've already fixed the first image, and I think it'd go well in the Cristatusaurus article as a representation of that genus. What do you think? Are there any other images that should be considered? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Dinosauria-Freak images are extremely wonky, with the proportions all over the place, and the pencil style used doesn't exactly make them easier to fix. But Pavel Riha's and Debivort's images generally only have minor issues. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of this, don't know if you got my ping here[29]? FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense! I can fix even the most wonky pictures. I've done a few small fixes for Jianianhualong and Hongshanornis. Let me know if any changes are needed. I also made a size chart for the former. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think Cristatusaurus can handle any more images, haha. Plus, it already has a life restoration. But now we have another useable Suchomimus image at least! It's nice to see that even some of the most hopeless looking images can be rescued. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree somewhat, as the life restoration at the bottom of the article is somewhat lacking in details and this new image would be a good replacement. However, I admit it should at least have a background if it were to replace the Suchomimus image. I can get that done at some point. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Attwell Saltriovenator

Yewtharaptor has been repeatedly adding this image (along with garbled text) onto the page Saltriovenator, which again looks artistically competent but has not undergone accuracy review yet (and it does not seem to reflect the ceratosaurian interpretation). The license on Commons is also wrong: PD instead of CC. LuigiPortaro29 has recently added the image back in apparent ignorance of project policy. 2001:569:782B:7A00:E188:927F:E03B:21A4 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this same image was made before the current classification? I have seen it uploaded to Commons long before, deleted for the usual copyright vagueness. It could have been modified since, and as mentioned earlier, I don't think a nasal horn is necessary, since it is only found in a single genus of ceratosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lohuecotitan sculpture

Another image added without review. 2001:569:782B:7A00:E188:927F:E03B:21A4 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad. If we follow one interpretation, the nostrils should be placed even further forwards on the snout, but I don't think that very speculative idea would be enough to remove the image. The nostrils aren't shown on top of the head after all. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)