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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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"[8] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[9]), 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 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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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"[10], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Ceratopsidae Size Comparison

Ceratopsidae

• 
  Styracosaurus
• 
  Centrosaurus
• 
  Pentaceratops
• 
  Avaceratops
• 
  Pachyrhinosaurus
• 
  Achelousaurus
• 
  Kosmoceratops

As requested by MathKnight, I have started work on Ceratopsidae. I recently uploaded a new Pentaceratops. Any comments so far? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get one of Achelousaurus too? I'm not sure the current image is really sufficient... FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a crude Achelousaurus skeletal was created here (and there are Chasmosaurus skeletals, too): [11], so I certainly can do it. It also looks like the postcranium of Pentaceratops is merely a clone from Utahceratops, not Titanoceratops. Anyways, here's an Avaceratops. Should I sneak in the adult estimate? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pachyrhinosaurus done. I might duplicate some silhouettes and swap some heads later on to include all three species. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I found GSP's Chasmosaurus russelli skeletal here: [12]. C. belli skeletals are hard to come by online, and seem mostly to just be GSP's C. russelli with the wrong label slapped on it, or a skull on the postcranium of Kosmoceratops, Pentaceratops, or something else. However, I did find a GetAwayTrike skeletal: [13]. Is it okay proportionally to use as a reference? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Since no one's commented, I'll proceed with these skeletals, use C. belli for the big chart, and put an Eotriceratops head on the body of a Trike. I also have a brachiosaurid size comparison somewhere if anyone wants it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering Brachiosauridae has very uncertain inclusion, i'd hold off on it for now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if no one comments, it is usually because they see no issues, or don't know enough to comment... Any news on the Achelous? FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Finished the big chart! Achelousaurus should be pretty simple to make, I'll get started now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I finished Achelousaurus, FunkMonk. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to fit in in the article... FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In what length do you put Triceratops (8 m / 8.5 m / 9 m ?) and Eotriceratops (8 m / 8.5 m / 9 m)? MathKnight 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would advise Avaceratops be removed from the group chart as it does not represent an adult and the rest do. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, I'll probably substitute it w/ Nasutoceratops, as it is glaringly missing from the chart. Triceratops is 8 meters long when fully extended, Eotriceratops 8.5 (following Paul, 2016, which I should probably add to the description of the file). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, though I think the biggest Triceratops was longer than 8 meters. If you can, please change the color of Triceratops to green, and Chasmosaurus to red, because the red of Triceratops is hard to differentiate from the orange of Eotriceratops. I also suggest more spacing and making the big four on the left more transparent. MathKnight 14:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC) I also suggest pushing the legend upwards and maybe add the length after each species name (e.g. Triceratops horridus – 8 m). MathKnight 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, 8 meters seems to be the average size for the Trike, so that's why it is here. I've changed the colors and opacity, and shuffled the taxa around. I think that listing the length estimates after the species name is generally depreciated. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Seems to" based on what? Blind guessing? Your anecdotal rough impression? Since when do we use "averages" for these anyways? The point of the size diagram is showing how big it could get. If some are the biggest known and some are "what seems to be the average" you're showing a misleading comparison. The Triceratops should be upped in size to match the Eotriceratops. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I found a T. "maximus" skeletal by GetAwayTrike that I can use to scale the Trike with to result in a bigger size: [14]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a note regarding Triceratops ontogeny; Juvenille triceratops horns curl backwards, at some point in development they start to straighen like you see in the specimen that Hartman has restored and then they start to point forward.[15] Considering you'll be using a large specimen I'd recomend GAT's/or a specimen with forward pointing horns. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks better, I like how you positioned Centrosaurines vs Chasmosaurines with man in the middle. MathKnight 17:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, ceratopsians have flexed forelimb posture and I'm not sure if they could fully straighten. It might be that Pachyrhinosaurus, Eotriceratops, and Triceratops forelimbs are too straight? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering about this too. The front limbs do see a bit too straight compared to how they are usually restored. I have added the Achelousaurus diagram to the article, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have create a Kosmoceratops size comparison. Something about it feels off. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why, but it seems like the head is proportionally smaller than in the plos skeletal? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Archaeornithomimus reconstruction

I've started on a reconstruction of Archaeornithomimus. There are almost no good skeletals, reconstructions, or pictures of the skeleton cast, so it's a little difficult, but I did my best. Are there any major issues before I color? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ornithomimids had lost the hallux, and the eye should probably be higher up, and not look towards the front (they had sideways facing eyes like modern herbivores, and probably not slit-pupils). The legs look extremely bulky, should be more like those of an ostrich, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll fix those things soon. Can you explain a little more about the hallux? They weren't didactyls, were they? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The hallux is the "dewclaw" (the short toe that doesn't touch the ground), which is also too backwards for a non-bird theropod here anyway. So instead of the four toes of most theropods (three which touched the ground), they only had three in all (except basal ornithomimisaurs, which had a hallux). So tridactyl like an emu (ostriches are didactyl). FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the arms could also use some lengthening, going by the skeletal mount. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

thinned legs, removed hallux, fixed eye, lengthened arms. Anything else? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why the eye is half covered by a sort of "brow"? That would only happen in animals with backwards projecting lacrimal or palpebral bones (such as eagles or some ornithischians). The calf/drumstick seems to be too far down in the front leg (compare with the hindmost leg). The foot claws also seem too curved, I'm pretty sure long, comparatively straightened foot claws are diagnostic for ornithomimids. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The length of the feathers on the legs seems to be a little inconsistent. On the near leg, they terminate at the knee, but they go a third of the way down the shin on the far leg. Could this be fixed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

fixed leg feathers+muscles, brow, and claws. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've colored the drawing, is there anything else that needs to be fixed before it's uploaded? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The calf on the frontmost leg still looks oddly displaced downwards and "doubled", compare with this photo of a running ostrich:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

fixed the calf. I'm also working on a size comparison. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I had something slightly different in mind (the bulge is still too far down, it should be just below the knee joint), I'll try to show it later when I get home. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

For the size comparison, the ornithomimid is too large, length is measured across the vertebral column. Currently the chart doesn't account for the curve in the neck. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this dino but I agree with others here that the calf muscles need work. Theropods are usually restored with a bird style 'Drumbstick' which is usually concentrated on the upper 2 thirds-half of the shin bones. The lower third - half hugs the bones more closely. [17] [18] [19] Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

adjusted calf muscles again, those pictures were super helpful! I also edited the size diagram, it's only a small difference for a straightened neck... Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If you download this I quickly mocked up [20] Don't take it too literally as it's simplistic and not based on any reference but it should give an idea; and obviously soft tissues can affect the shape etc. You might already do this but I'd advise that you use the layer functions and draw a reference skeleton (it doesn't have to be super detailed) which can help with maintaining proportions and helps for muscle placement etc. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to mock up something similar, but Steve beat me to it. As implied by the mock up, there should not be distinct, protruding knees either, as in mammals. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Epidendrosaurus reconstruction

I know this guy looks weird but I compared everything very closely with the skeletal provided on the Scansoriopteryx page. There's a lot of mentions of speculation on a membranous component of the wing on the page, but I drew a feathered wing because there's only hypotheses, no actual proof... I can change it if anyone thinks I should. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the hallux is on the wrong side on the left foot? FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize that. Fixed! I'm going to start coloring if there's nothing else. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't much much about these guys really. But it seems the primary feathers aren't attached to the second finger, as they should be, but run parallel to it? And why did you label it Epidendrosaurus instead of Scansoriopteryx, which seems to be the preferred name? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There's actually feather impressions on the Epidendrosaurus/Scansoriopteryx fossils that show that the feathers are attached to the third finger rather than the second finger, unlike most other maniraptorans. I labelled it Epidendrosaurus because it's based on a separate specimen that is currently known as Epidendrosaurus (it has a separate skeletal diagram on the article), but if they are the same species I can easily change the name later. Also on the article it says that Scansoriopteryx is often considered the junior synonym, but do you think I should change it? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Colored and shaded everything. I was reading about coloration and a lot of smaller feathered dinosaurs appeared to be iridescent... so I added a little bit (similar to trumpeter birds, like it mentions in the dinosaur coloration section about Caihong). Is there anything that should be fixed before it's added to the article? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, don't know much about these guys (as my ignorant comments above indicate), but hopefully someone else has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Would the purple fuzz on the chest and behind the eye be possible? I know even less about these guys though, so I may be wrong about limitations on coloration. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Certain colours would not be possible in downy "protofeathers", but it seems these one had modern-looking vaned feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So now that we have definitive proof of a membranous wing in at least some scansoriopterygids, this illustration may need an overhaul. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

can anyone find an image of the type specimen of Scansoriopteryx/Epidendrosaurus? I want to see what the third finger looks like in the original fossil because the membranous wings of other scansoriopterygids were supported by a similar structure that was in a different position than any finger. I just wonder if the Scansoriopteryx finger was in that position or in a more feathered-wing like position. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also unsure of this, aren't those specimens juveniles? Do we even know if they would have had those features yet? Don't know if it has ever been proposed they had them at all, they are different taxa after all, and don't seem to have those elbow spurs. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The holotypes of Scansoriopteryx and Epidendrosaurus are both early juveniles. Scansoriopteryx (and Epidendrosaurus, if considered separately) appears to be no closer to Yi and Ambopteryx than is Epidexipteryx, and there is no indication of a styliform element (attached to the wrist, not the elbow) or membranous wings in Epidexipteryx, which is overall much shorter-winged than the bat-winged scansoriopterygids as well. I don't think it's a good idea to depict Scansoriopteryx with Yi-like wings given available information. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the type specimen of Scansoriopteryx and here is the type specimen of "Epidendrosaurus". Regarding the earlier discussion of which finger the remiges attach to, it's true that there are only feathers preserved below the third finger. However, considering how poorly preserved the feathers are (they're barely visible in the photo of the actual fossil), I'm not sure that that should be taken at face value. Albertonykus (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Giant Sauropod Size Comparison by User:KoprX

KoprX has added this size comparison to the Dinosaur size article to replace the former image (which did have some problems). It has not yet undergone review, so I have posted it here. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting it here i just didnt know about existence of this page, I also made a giganotosaurus silhouette maybe it would be useful KoprX

KoprX (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Well, all of the theropod silhouettes appear to be copyvio of Franoys' work, which is not allowed on Commons (Franoys' images are fully copyrighted and non-redistributable). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes thats true but i also made silhouettes based on images from wikipedia ( i tought i can use silhouettes from franonys since im not really using his skeletals) so i will just revert to previous wikipedia based images KoprX (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Ok everything posted here is on CC BY or BY-SA, but i will try to ask Franoys for permission to do comparison based on his silhouettes KoprX (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Mapusaurus by User:KoprX

I made an restoration for this beast could this be used as an ilustration?

I would suggest removing the elaborate spines, we don't know of them from any theropod, and they probably count as too speculative to be acceptable as integument. I'm on the fence about the throat flap, it's not too unlikely but also I'm not sure how it'll look artistically without the spines present. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The throat flap is probably ok (similar pouches seem to be known in other dinosaurs), but some of those spines are really long and thick, a bit misleading, almost like an osteological structure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Spikes removedKoprX (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

It looks a bit emaciated in addition. Sunken fenestrae in the face, and the tail seems flat rather than round in cross section, due to the shading. Otherwise fine, I'd say. Good that someone finally remembers to draw squared off lower jaws in a carcharodontosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thats true this sunken fenestrae made it look emaciated, but im afraid i cant do anything with the tail so i will just left it as it is.KoprX (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Some Size Comparison Updates

• 
  New Camptosaurus & Iguanodon
• 
  New Saurolophus, Hypsibema, Charonosaurus, and Iguanodon
• 
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
• 
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul
• 
  Total overhaul

Over the next few weeks I'm planning on updating some of these old size comparisons. I'm thinking of supplying the theropods with lips. I recently redrew my Camptosaurus and Iguanodon, so I'll update those first. I can also try to fix any of my other old size comparisons if requested. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Iguanodontia size comparison has been updated. Pinging Lusotitan for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Cedarosaurus has been updated, and now is based on PaleoKing's skeletal instead of Hartman's (although the plantigrade feet have been retained). No ghosts this time around... the silhouette's opaque. [21] --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Gryposaurus gets a total overhaul, and less of a dewlap and more feature scales! Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Giganotosaurus is overhauled and re-scaled! Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk |

contribs) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus overall looks fine just seems too tall. Hartman's MUCPv-Ch1 is about 3.5m at the hips and head is about same high KoprX (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

I think that it may just be that the leg is straighter here than in Hartman's skeletal, but it does seem to be almost 3.5 m in the above chart, too. The head is higher than the hip here because it is leaning upwards (as if to bite a taller target). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

just a minor issue: on the comparison with all the iguanodontians, there's a typo: Iguaonodon should be Iguanodon! also on the large ornithopods diagram it says Edmontosaurus annectAns instead of annectens. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those! Iguanodon's been fixed, and I'll fix the giant ornithopods one with its update. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Giant ornithopods have been updated! Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Are their hands all still pronated? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Which ones originally had pronated hands? Iguanodon certainly doesn't anymore, but Magnapaulia seems like it might... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

All of them other than Iguanodon as far as I can tell, but it's hard to call with silhouettes. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the only problems are Edmontosaurus & Magnapaulia, looking at my references. I will fix those soon (hopefully). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lusotitan, I've modified the hands of the above two and Shantungosaurus and Saurolophus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oxalaia has been updated. Pinging PaleoGeekSquared for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The snout-tip could match the skull diagram more closely[22], since one of Oxalaia's main autapomorphies is that it had a less sharply-sloping premaxilla than Spinosaurus. Though I'm aware that soft tissue could've extended/changed the snout's external appearance to some degree, I think in this case it'd be better to represent this feature more conservatively for such a fragmentary species. Another suggestion I'd make is to change the body length back to 13 metres again so it's directly between the 12-14 m estimate. Other than those two minor points, I think it looks good. Nice to see you're still making lots of great diagrams! Hopefully I'll be back to contributing some of my own soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this closer? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me now, thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Futalognkosaurus has been recreated with by modifying my new Argentinosaurus. This time it is actually scaled based on Hartman's reconstruction. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Kritosaurus has been updated to match Gryposaurus. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Starting to work on abelisaurids. Skorpiovenator is done. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure if anyone's going to see this (it's so far up now), but I've updated my Mapusaurus to look less cartoony. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahahah I see this. All of them look fine, but for Torvosaurus and Gigantosaurus I'd suggest adjusting so the silhouettes aren't almost completely overlapped, and the Torvo could probably use a colour adjustment since its so bright rn. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah good, it's been seen! I've just overhauled Carcharodontosaurus (again). Should I replace the current one in the article (it's based on my older comparison)? Torvosaurus hasn't been updated yet - I'm somewhat confused by it being "too bright," as I used dark orange and dark blue. Do you mean that the colors are too saturated? Anyways, coloration can be fixed when it gets lips. Also, Euhelopus is proportionately terrible right now - I should really get around to fixing its size comparison (I already have a revised silhouette, so this shouldn't take too long). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur Size Comparison by User:KoprX

• 
  longest dinosaurs
• 
  longest theropods
• 
  longest of major clades
• 
• 

That would be final version of size comparisons, using only images from wikipediaKoprX (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

You need to credit the authors of the original illustrations if they weren't public domain, and provide sources for the size estimates. Also, I plan to update my carcharodontosaurids some time next month, which will include minor updates to Carcharodontosaurus and major overhauls for Giganotosaurus, just to let you know. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for advice, sources and credits addedKoprX (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Charts remade into .svg any thoughts?KoprX (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

In Theropods comparison should i use better described Giganotosaurus holotype or MUCPv-95 wich may be bigger but it's real size is uncertain?KoprX (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Use the biggest we have good size estimates for. As long as the sources for the size are reliable we can justify using a less complete specimen. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Trike's foot that's partially off the ground seems like it could use some more padding. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, Im also posting remakes of your's Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus (on public domain ofc) maybe someone will find it usefull. KoprX (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Burianosaurus Skeletal Diagram

Hey, it's at least better than Xenoposeidon and Maraapunisaurus!

I had something else planned for April, but I lost about nine days of time to work on it, so I produced a dinosaur known from one femur instead. First ornithischian I've ever done though! Any comments? (The scale bar in the paper apparently was off) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks alright, but I think the text is so large and overpowering the entire image ends up feeling cramped. And I think the head looks too much like a derived rhabdodont for what is a basal ornithopod. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Would Camptosaurus be a better model for the skull? It is more derived, but the rounder shape is more like that of more basal ornithopods. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Camptosaurus or Dryosaurus would probably work. Or Hypsilophodon, which is probably a couple branches more basal. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I used a slightly truncated and sloped Camptosaurus head to be more general. Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Now maybe move the text higher up to fill some of the whitespace and also leave the silhouette with more room? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Done! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have five fingers? Also, I think it would look better if the scale bar were not that thick and the "1 m" so tightly attached to it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It does have 5 fingers, IV & V are just really close together (I can change this if this is undesirable). I definitely can fix the scale bar. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Saurornithoides restoration

speculative crest based on the ornate hawk-eagle. any major issues? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

colored and shaded! i'll make a size comparison chart also. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

size comparison finished. it's kind of iffy because there's not really any information given on the article about size except for the skull length, so I went off of that... Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah damn can't believe I didn't notice til now but I think the feet both need some more of a soft tissue foot pad. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

fixed. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Dryosaurus Size Comparison

I dug up this old size comparison and fixed it up a bit before uploading it. Comments? Should I add D. altus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I would add D. altus, yes. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

How different would D. altus be from D. elderae externally? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hadrosaur reconstructions review

Major issues

• 
  The backs legs look very questionable in general; skull seems a bit misshapen
• 
  All four limbs and the skull of this are totally misshapen
• 
  Feet, arms, skull all misshapen... it has a marked overbite
• 
  Both feet are horribly mangled, the back one especially, and I'm not aware of such gigantic and oddly shaped back ridge scales in any hadrosaur
• 
  The huge feet and barrel-like, long and shallow torso seem disproportionate, and the beak needs keratin extension
• 
  I think that's the literal same back foot, and that skull could not possibly have been referenced on anything; for some reason there's gigantic neural spines coming out of the cervicals, shown by the shrink-wrapping
• 
  Hands, feet, tail doesn't seem to be shaped right (tall along its length and then rounds off, should taper out more), has a weird protrusion in its neck... even the torso feels a bit off
• 
  There's a few things going on here but mostly gravely is that the hip is embedded in the neural spines
• 
  It's the same Saurolophus postcranium again, complete with the weird back ridge
• 
  The neck seems too long and the tail too short, foot/leg might need a pass? Also very chunky but not a huge deal.
• 
  I don't think there's a single correct thing going on with the feet
• 
  Feet
• 
  The same weird cervical neural spines - looks like skin to me. - FunkMonk - no shortage of other issues anyways, that's why it's in major issues

Minor issues

• 
  Better but still weird, tiptoe-ing and a bit vaguely shaped feet - don't see anything inaccurate here. "Vaguely shaped" is itself a vague description. - FunkMonk - as in the soft tissue padding, it's just sort of drawn in a vague fashion rather than what it should look like - Lusotitan - made the feet less lumpy. - FunkMonk
• 
  Feet again; the skull feels wrong but referencing AMNH 5730 it might be fine - What is exactly wrong with the feet? - FunkMonk -once again they've been drawn messily and are left somewhat misshapen - Lusotitan It looks like they're missing their metatarsals, actually, although that could be perspecitve - Slate Weasel - did some touch ups. - FunkMonk
• 
  The hands seem to have lines indicating separate fingers, tip-toeing - not sure why any of this should be incorrect. Lines that indicate the internal finger bones doesn't mean separated fingers. Nothing wrong with "tip-toeing" in a walking animal. - FunkMonk - having such lines implies they're separate and so it misleading - Luso - they only imply it has internal finger bones and metacarpals, such lines are even drawn in sauropods with no external digits more often than not (see also Saurians Edmontosaurus). - FunkMonk
• 
  This is mostly great but that neck seems an odd shape, it's... triangular?Fixed neck - KoprX -seems we had an edit conflict, I removed the weird indentation under the neck, which is what I assumed to be the problem. The skin flap from the head to the back is not exactly an inaccuracy, but is often restored such way. - FunkMonk
• 
  Hands - merged fingers. - FunkMonk
• 
  Hands - merged fingers. - FunkMonk
• 
  Feet, if that big lump is supposed to be a shrink-wrapped scapula it's way too big. - Made scapulae less visible and completed weirdly faded out feet. - FunkMonk
• 
  Usual foot buisness, also a questionable neck
• 
  Can we hear "feet" one more time? - made feet and hands less lumpy. - FunkMonk
• 
  The crest seems have been botched referencing images taken at an angle, the beak shape doesn't seem right, and the hands appear to be flippers... I'm generally lenient on shrink-wrapping but that scapula gives Kish a run for her money - the crest is based on this specimen[5], not sure why it should be "botched". - FunkMonk yes, obviously, but that picture is taken at an angle; this wasn't accounted properly, for leaving a bizarrely shaped crest unlike that of the real animal, it's very skinny at the bottom before rounding back out; this photo shows a less misleading agnle [6] The crest shape seems to resemble this specimen rather closely: [7] - Ornithopsis I still disagree, the recon pinches it in very much in the middle whereas that really doesn't; regardless this wasn't my only issue with the recon
• 
  Pronation, tail might need lowering? - lowered tail and did some edits to the hands so they look more like other modern restorations (but I disagree we can say they were pronated) - FunkMonk

So, with the Eolambia recon under review right now, I decided to do a complete check out of all our hadrosaur reconstructions, and... it's bad. It's very bad. The most common issues surround the feet; the amount of soft tissue padding varies from nearly lacking it altogether, to the artist seemingly guessing what shape they should draw the foot... some of them are blocky triangles. A lot of them are also walking on the tips of their toes, whereas they should be walking on the whole of their toes. Hands are a common issue, too; some have outright separate fingers whereas others just have generally deformed hands. Others have misshapen skulls and a number of individual oddities. One thing I forgot to take note of in the captions is that many of them feature full pronation, which is impossible. Many are very shrink-wrapped but I refrained from mentioning this since the line of "too shrink-wrapped" is very subjective. There's probably a number of finer-anatomy and proportion things I wouldn't pick up (Hartman changed something about how he reconstructed the pectoral girdle on them recently and that had a knock-on effect; these should be checked against his changes [23]), but what I've noted is largely grave issues. Some of these might be easy fixes, but at least a fair amount are inaccurate in very fundamental ways and may be better thrown out. In the meantime all should be removed from their pages unless anyone has defenses for any of the above being fine. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an issue even in professional palaeoart, and I have never gotten a straight answer as to how the hands should look, and it is inconsistent everywhere as a result. The fingers, except for the "pinky", should never be free, but joined. However, apart form just being somewhat horseshoe shaped, based on tracks, we don't seem to know much about how they would have looked in life, hence the inconsistency. Many have interpreted the various mummies as showing the hands encased entirely in skin. But even then, some artists draw three external hooves poking out, even in the recent "official" Brachylophosaurus illustrations based on the Leonardo specimen. However, since the weight bearing fingers are digits 2, 3, and 4 (digit 1, the thumb, was lost entirely), it would seem odd that digit 4 would have a claw, when this (and the fifth claw) was lost in pretty much all other dinosaurs it seems. So personally I would never draw these hooves, but the problem is they are drawn in a lot of professional, museum level paleoart, so we have no valid reason to remove such images, because we don't know whether it is actually in error. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I never mentioned the unguals. I mentioned pronation, separated fingers, in one case a missing digit five, and in some cases the whole hand being a weird shape. Also, most of them had the feet as the primary issues, not the hands, among a number of other problems. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

On the tip toeing, that is normal part of any walk cycle (when a foot pushes off), so should only be a problem in animals that appear to stand still. Anyway, most of this could be fixed pretty easily. It will be a waste of time removing al the images just to add them again in a week or whatever it would take. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of these need entire re-drawings for a fair mount of the animal, so I'm doubtful. Regardless, are you willing to fix them all in a short timeframe? If not then they will be going very shortly. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to separate them into major issues vs minor, with stuff like feet or uncertain hands or potentially too long necks being rather minor. The minor ones at least can be kept for the time being, and the major ones either edited promptly or removed from articles. I am rather disappointed with just how many restorations are off, but at least for most its just the constantly-changing foot anatomy. Feel free to correct my listing of you feel the need. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved a few around based on ease of fixing, otherwise looks in order. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tried checking cross-referencing finer details with Hartman skeletals, the Maiasaura has something wrong with the limb proportions, the juvenile definitely needs longer arms, and the tail on the adult needs angling downwards; moving to major issues since the whole of the animal is probably effect. The tails of E. regalis, Olorotitan, and Koshisaurus also seem affected, but to a lesser extent. Didn't check for it in Major Issues but the rest of the Minor seem okay at a glance. Huehuecanauhtlus seems all kinds of broken, if I try to picture what this animal would look like it doesn't work at all. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More Hartman work, this time Hypacrosaurus, the cervicals aren't the only vertebra with misshapen neural spines, it's almost the entire column of them. The core of the tail is angled way up in the outdated fashion, but I missed it at first since somehow the neural spines curve strongly downwards at the same time. The ones of the front of the body form an obvious high point before dropping off over the hip. Neither of these conditions are correct at all, the back sail is very fairly straight and the tail... doesn't do whatever that is. And no, neither of these seem to be due to the specific difference of the skeletal and art. Moving to major since the entire tail and back need help. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Found a GSP skeletal showing a large back hump in H. altispinus so it might be a legitimate specific difference and so it's off the hook for that. The tail still needs a complete re-do. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• This whole thing reminds me that I've got to update most of my hadrosaurid size comparisons. For the giant ornithopod one, I just realized that Charonosaurus' ankle is bending backwards (ouch)! The feet of all my older hadrosaurs are pretty misshapen too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• The Tom Parker Parasaurolophus does have a pinky, look close, it is just parallel wit the outline of the right hand. I still don't see any reason to have "tip-toeing" listed as an error in these images, unless an animal is standing still. We have looked at some of Hartman's skeletals, and they are all "tip-toeing" too. Also, I don't agree there are any "giant cervical neural spines" shown in these images, it is just the skin flap above the neck which is known form the Trachodon mummy and the Corythosaurus type specimen, with a frill over it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Jens Lallensack, who has just written a lot about hadrosaur integument. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and yes, the neck was probably quite deep due to a deep ridge of soft tissue above the vertebrae, see Czerkas, 1997. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In most of them it is soft tissue, but a few shows what are obviously the neural spines due to extreme shrink-wrapping. In these, there are definitely cervical neural spines. Regarding the foot position, fair enough I guess, but there's not single one up there for solely that reason so it doesn't get anything off the hook. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Which ones "obviously" show this? I don't see it in a single one, so it's definitely up to interpretation. I see folded skin (which might give the impression of underlying bones), but that's about it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hypacrosaurus and Amurosaurus. I don't see why that would be interpreted as skin, the skeletals are shrink-wrapped to begin with and they're placed perfectly to be the neural spines. Why assume the skin just happens to indent in a bizarre manner in just the perfect fashion to resemble shrink-wrapping? Both regardless have totally broken underlying anatomy regardless, so it's a moot enough point. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Realized I forgot Mukawaryu in the initial sweep, threw it in minor issues. Hard to be wrong when he don't know much about the animal, but the pronated hands are a no. Tail might be raised too high per Hartman but I'm not quite sure so that could probably pass through as is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How do you know the hand is pronated? Shouldn't be possible to see in the live animal like this, hadrosaurs didn't pronate their wrists, but the palms almost faced backwards (see figs 5 and 6).[24] FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The idea they faced backwards is outdated, they could only achieve around a fourty-five degree angle. If it was an invisible a difference as you claim Scott Hartman would not have gone back and changed its in every single one of his hadrosaur skeletals recently. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at the footprints, they don't lie, and that paper is the latest word on the issue. No one said they faced entirely backwards, but almost backwards, as both articulated skeletons and footprints show, this was achieved without pronation. Also, as for the large, oddly shaped back scales, that's almost exactly how they're shaped in illustrated based on the Leonardo specimen:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hartman is the latest word, he's a reliable source. Regarding the scales, I looked into the literature and it turns out that one way S. osborni is distinguished relative to S. angustirostris is that according to known skin impressions it didn't even have dorsal frill scales [26]. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A blog is not published research, per basic Wikipedia policy. In any case, Hartman's skeletals do not contradict Senter's paper, who, by the way, is one of the main authorities on dinosaur biomechanics, and I'm pretty sure Hartman is actually basing his poses on those advocated in the Senter paper. As Hartman says "Both articulated specimens and hadrosaur trackways show that the ‘palms’ faced more inward (somewhere around 45 degrees) rather than facing backwards". Which is basically what Senter says. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed all instances of the major issues ones on English Wikipedia; all the minor issue ones appear to have been sufficiently fixed. This section should be good to archive now. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Seems all we thought we knew about hadrosaur hands was wrong, and all our restorations are inaccurate:[27] In short, the mummified hand of the Edmontosaurus annectens Dakota shows there were only two hooves, one large (and almost horse-like) on the second digit, one small on the third, and none on the fourth. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only surprise from Dakota is how much larger the digit III hoof is than the digit II hoof, and even that's not terribly surprising given the shapes of the unguals. That said, most of the artwork here appears to lack front hooves entirely (what's the deal with that?), though it's hard to tell given the low detail level of most of the art. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the surprise is that either hadrosaurs are depicted with three hooves (not sure why) or no hooves at all (based on the old Trachodon mummy), and this shows neither is correct. Perhaps the old mummy simply wasn't well-preserved enough to show the hooves, indicating there was just a "mitten". But the only artist I can think of who only drew two hooves before was Bob Bakker, who insisted that no archosaurs had more than three claws on the first three digits. People like Gregory S. Paul drew no hooves at all. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Huh, you appear to be correct. I've never looked at hadrosaur art that closely to notice that pattern; I've always been under the impression that they had two hooves—which, if you look at the fossils, seems like it ought to be the obvious interpretation. The fossils have two unguals, with the digit III ungual being obviously larger than the digit II ungual—I'm not sure how the other two interpretations dominated. Besides Bob Bakker, the original Walking With Dinosaurs, Saurian, and Todd Marshall all have seemingly correctly depicted Edmontosaurus with two front hooves, and I know I've seen paleontologists state hadrosaurs had claws/hooves (e.g. Dave Hone [28]). Apparently I was just out of the loop on what the mainstream idea of hadrosaur hands looked like, and somehow my out-of-the-loop understanding proved to be correct? Huh. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know the WWD Edmontosaurus had two as well, but looking it up, it seems they just reused their Iguanodon models, it even has thumb-spikes (therefore three claws)![29] FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You could technically write it off as "the ungual is just bigger" and be technically correct, but the issue is how much bigger it is now - much bigger. The external sheath is so big it covers over digit four, too. Also, the one on the second digit is a markedly different shape, which I can't say I've seen depicted in the past. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think the size or shape difference is quite as dramatic as it looks. Look at figure 10K and 10L of [30]. In 10K the digit II ungual appears smaller and more pointed than the digit III ungual, much as in Dakota, but in 10L it's apparent that we're seeing the ungual edge-on. I think the same is probably true of Dakota, it's just not apparent in the views we're seeing. Something to take into account when revising the art. The figures posted by NDGS [31] indicate that the hoof on digit III is mostly associated with III and does not seem to overlap too much of IV. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I did an attempt at modifying our only "modern" E. annectens restoration accordingly, any thoughts?[32] Anyone else is of course welcome to modify further, luckily only one hand is visible, so it's easy. It seems even the AMNH mummy didn't preserve the integument of digit 2[33], so we had no idea it would be this spike-like. I wonder what happened to its digit 3, maybe the skin was just displaced (as much of the rest was elsewhere on the body). FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, digit II isn't spike-like, it's hoof-like but viewed edge-on in the photos of Dakota (as indicated by the specimen in the paper I linked earlier, and NDGS actually confirmed my interpretation on twitter[34]). As this Edmontosaurus reconstruction is in more or less the same angle as Dakota, that's not a huge issue here, but it would be a mistake if depicted as spike-like from an anteromedial view. Also, I reiterate, the digit III hoof does not cover all of digit IV; digit IV still extends somewhat lateral to the hoof [35]. Finally, I think that digit III would be more extended than it is on Dakota while it's bearing weight (a la a horse [36]) and that as such the digit II hoof would be lowered closer to the ground, but that's more of a general impression than anything. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacement images

• 
  Shantungosaurus

Getting back into digital art once again, I've done a quick Shantungosaurus replacement, if it is accurate enough. Colours and patterns etc are easily adjusted it need be. Comments or critiques? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is something off with the leg pose, seems like it would be tipping to its right side (the hind legs seem to be too close to each other). And why is the frill row incomplete? Speaking of hradrosaur images, Nobu Tamura has some new free ones up, the legs look a bit wonky, but I can fix them:[37][38] FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess that the incomplete feature scale row is based on Edmontosaurus: [39], although it seems like it still isn't complete enough here. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I havn't got time to properly check so I'm not 100% confident but I'd say the lower jaw could be a bit deeper? As far as I known there is no complete skull, maybe have a look at these [40] [41]Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I took the lower jaw and overall skull anatomy from the Edmontosaurus and Shantungosaurus comparative anatomy paper. The skull in the model lacks a predentary, and the premaxillae are incorrectly articulated making them appear too straight out and when articulated properly they end up in the downward shape in Edmontosaurus. I'm not totally sure if the feature scale row has to be exactly like Edmontosaurus or not, I made it a bit different intentionally. And I will be able to fix the "tipping" look soon by repositioning the far leg. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would we assume the frill row was incomplete? FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the far leg as I see, added shading, and completed the feature scale row as much as I plan to (I'm trying to avoid copying Edmonto completely). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Some new art

• 
  Foraminacephale
• 
  Pampadromaeus

Since I've taken up digital recently, I might as well submit the art I've done here. Remake of my old Foraminacephale and a brand new Pampadromaeus are up first (as well as Shantungosaurus above), more will probably follow, some may not be dinosaurs in a sense but I'll add them here just for the sake of a centralized discussion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The legs seem rather stiff and hyperextended in the Pampadromaeus? Especially the one that steps forwards.FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Legs fixed, and feet fixed per edit summary of removal from page. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ouranosaurus nigeriensis restoration

how does this look? question: do we need brand new restorations of all those hadrosaurs that are messed up, or are we just editing the existing images? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We will almost certainly need new restoration of those that fall into the "major issues" group. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The severity of the issues listed there are often exaggerated or inaccurate, so we should wait until we have independently evaluated all the images before we replace them or remove them. As for this drawing, remember to keep the nostril at the very front of the nostril. The hind claws look very sharp, they would be more blunt in hadrosaurs. The thumb should also be more of a robust spike, looks pretty frail now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your claims that they are inaccurate are what's exaggerated and incorrect. I'll give you the point on the stance of the foot but everything else you claimed is fine is most certainly not. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we should evaluate them on a case by case basis. Better than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

fixed nostril and claws. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

colored! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Spinosaurus size comparison

I've done Spinosaurus size comparison, any suggestions or comments?KoprX (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

I think it looks fine. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the juvenile needs editing somewhat? To my knowledge, young Spinosaurus would have had a greatly reduced, if not entirely absent sail, which would have grown larger as they aged ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for that? Authors of juvenile spinosaurus articles reconstruct them with sail present, although it may be entirely speculetive becouse no sail remains have been found in juvenile specimens. Dont get me wrong I also find it unlikely that they hatched with that proportionally big sail but i dont know of any evidence of it. KoprX (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

No sources exist, there is nothing but speculation regarding juvenile Spinosaurus sails, and nothing at all in citable literature. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Without a source justifying a smaller sail in juveniles, there is no need to change it. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

the heck an MS PAINT 3d guy? No, I was asked not to use 3d paint so i stopped so how is it fair that you do the same? It does not make sense, use the normal guy--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Whats exacly wrong with usage of a 3d rendered MS PAINT man silhouette, do i violate MS copyright by that? I don't think so, but if I do i will just change it. No one who saw my comparisons indicated this as an issue. I think it's a different case with your restoration made in paint.KoprX (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

I also think that you were asked not to use paint not becouse it's something wrong with this program itself, but your restorations are not accurate enough.KoprX (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Sorry for the late comment, but this actually is an issue. The MS Paint human is not freely licensed, as far as I understand, and therefore needs to be replaced with a free silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected in all comparisonsKoprX (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Remade into .svg any thoughts?KoprX (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Buriolestes schultzi restoration

issues? the skeletal diagram from the article was closely referenced so I know the tail looks long but I checked the length pretty carefully. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The fourth finger looks huge, the fourth and fifth would usually be the smallest, vestigial fingers. The legs seem very chubby, a small animal like that would likely have more slender legs (the thighs and calves are almost lumped together here, with little definition). Compare with the skeletal:[42] FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

thinned legs/fixed calves, and shortened fingers. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a few significant things I believe should be fixed. The back should be almost flat, like in the skeletal, instead of having a hump in the middle. The skull shape is wrong, the mandible is too short, the snout shouldn't be concave, and the proportions seem incorrect. And the feet as a bit wonky, there is a weird lump behind the ankle that shouldn't be there, the foot pads are too varying in shape (should be almost flat with minor indents at digit joints), and the foot pads looks a bit too small. Otherwise tho its a good piece. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ok, fixed those things! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a few more things, the snout is too low, should be taller, the elbow has a weird line it shouldn't have, and the thigh is too long, the calves should be higher up the leg, and the ankle has a weird line that should be removed. I drew the changes out roughly here [43] IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the legs and elbow. I left the snout as is because I overlaid the skeletal diagram and it's pretty much exactly that shape... Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright I think the lineart is good now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the upper arm could a bit more prominent. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

colored. I also fixed the upper arm. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

also created a size comparison. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Suskityrannus

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Suskityrannus_paleoart_1.png, while i may try to draw a better better image later, right now for the time being is this image ok? The teeth are a bit wonky but other than the teeth is there anything wrong about it?. My references are [44] , [45], [46] and partly inspired from this [47].--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Suskityrannus paleoart 1.png

Suskityrannus paleoart 1

just in case the link does not work--Bubblesorg (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It has a bunch of anatomical issues, but first of all, why is there so much empty space? FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I will crop that, but tell me what are they so i can fix them?--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you compare with the published reconstruction, the teeth don't match at all. The eye also seems to be three times too big to fit within the sclerotic ring, and you have a big hole at the back of the head which should be covered by jaw musculature. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

sure I will revise.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• On the subject of Suskityrannus, Bubblesorg's added this image to the Description section. It appears to be somewhat rough and the positioning of the skulls is confusing (it looks like Suskityrannus is just an extension of Tyrannosaurus' jaw). Any comments on this image? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the positioning note; I don't think the skulls should be overlapping. Additionally, the image should be clearer on whether they're restored to the same length or to scale; I'm not even sure if they are restored to the same length and they're certainly not to scale. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the image near about impossible to interpret in a useful fashion at full size, nevermind thumbnail. I would definitely advise removing it from the page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The image could be saved by simply moving the skulls away from each other, why they overlap in the first place is baffling. By the way, by coincidence, the Timurlengia restoration now used in the Suskityrannus article is quite similar to the Suskityrannus press release artwork.[48] FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Suskit and t-rex skulls

so like this?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the image is a bit too dark currently, a white background and brighter skulls would be an improvement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

okay fixed--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• What is the point of having the Tyrannosaurus skull there in the first place? The Suskityrannus one is so small that you cannot really compare something. Could you maybe make a version with just the Suskityrannus skull in high resolution? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Suskityrannus skull

oh so like this then?--Bubblesorg (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

did this image actually get approved? because it's on the article and I thought we decided not to use the one of both Tyrannosaurus and Suskityrannus. I'm going to remove it unless anyone thinks otherwise. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the model is actually CC-BY 4.0 (I haven't checked if the guy who made it even owns it) I think the image of just the Suskityrannus skull is fine for inclusion in the article, I cropped out the label and size (incorrect as well as OR). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus scale chart

• 
• 

I'm planning to remake this, but it seems rather pointless to me to have 2 almost same size specimens in this chart. My question is what specimens should i depict maybe it will be fine to show just 3 specimens holotype, Sue and Jane?KoprX (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Why is it pointless? It is the two most famous specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference between them(AMNH 5027 and BHI3033) is about 10 cm in length and they are almost exactly same high(chart above is incorrect) and since there are many famous specimens maybe i should pick different one?KoprX (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Ok that's the first draft ant thoughts?KoprX (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Procompsognathus

Though this genus is somewhat famous, it has never had a proper restoration here (apart from some weird model which is not used in the article anymore). Here is a sketch with some early colouring[49], any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks great, very dynamical. We should consider making a GA out of the article at some point. Possible issues: Maybe the outer toe is too short, should be a bit longer than the inner one (appears to be the opposite in the drawing, but might be perspective). See diagram in Romano & Citton 2016. Also, the tibia looks a bit short compared to the metatarsus, when I compare with the holotype skeleton? Again, might be perspective. The left forearm appears to be much shorter than the right one, or is it again perspective as the left arm is angled outward? On what did you base the manus on? In Coelophysis and Megapnosaurus, at least, the fourth digit is almost as long as the third, while the second is much shorter with a much larger claw. At least in the left hand it looks like the fourth digit is much shorter than the third. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix this soon! I was looking at the second diagram here[50] for reference, and the Coelophysis taxobox image for other details. Looking again, it seems the first diagram might actually be more accurate? I can't really deduct from that website why they're so different or what they represent... FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I personally would not trust that webpage in any case, can't even see who the author is or what his sources are. The hand of Coelophysis was also very slender, and the digits were apparently not widely diverging, see [51]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Did some changes, any thoughts, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks very good now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool! I'll see if anyone else has something to say before I add it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

May I use this

Hadrosaurus has no restoration, which is stuck up in my head. I created these using several different restorations

Hadrosaurus restoration 2

--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no known skull preserved for Hadrosaurus, so there is no value in having a reconstruction consisting exclusively of the head (as no part of this reconstruction is based on anything known from Hadrosaurus). A full-body reconstruction would be more valuable. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've actually been working on a full-body drawing, so hopefully I can get it up here soon for review! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I know, its a speculative restoration based on a couple different genera as well as the fossils we do have of the neck (according to the PBDB there is a neck.)--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC) So may I use this then? I am renaming if speculative restoration of hadrosaurus--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we have a few tiny maxillary fragments and a handful of teeth (but no neck)[52], however, I still am very dubious of giving this dinosaur a "bust" reconstruction. Since hadrosaur skulls are very distinctive, it seems unwise to reconstruct the whole head (unless it was ONLY known from those fossils, which it isn't), especially considering that Hadrosaurus' phylogenetic position is poorly understood, and it is sometimes placed in its own group without any close relatives. Like Ornithopsis said, this animal really needs a full body restoration to really show its characteristics. Additionally, this restoration already has a few issues. The eye's location in the skull does not seem to account for the fact that the skull is angled downwards, the back of the skull is missing jaw muscles and an ear, and the whole image just needs more detail. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It turns out that Hadrosaurus does actually preserve 3 cervicals. The paper didn't include some material. But it still doesn't seem like a wise idea to do a "bust" restoration for a hadrosaur known from two small maxillary fragments and teeth in that region. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus Update

It's longer now...

I noticed that randomdinos updated his Patagotitan skeletal to include more intervertebral cartilage, so I followed this to update my Argentinosaurus. I also fixed the lines on the bones following Hartman: [53]. I can't seem to get the text to work anymore, though. Can anyone help with this? Any comments on the image itself? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Just had a quick look; you may can bake the manus more rounded, they look too rectangular to me. Regarding the text – how can we help you, where did you get stuck? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried to do something with the text but i don't know what was exactly wrong. I also changed neck and tail based on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patagotitan-Scale-Diagram-Steveoc86.svgKoprX (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Well, you seem to have fixed it! (Sorry for the vague comment above - the text was not aligning properly before.) I constricted the manus a bit and added a rounder edge to the bottom of the lifted one. I also changed the position of the neck a bit, as it was a bit too similar to Steve's Patagotitan before (CC BY-SA isn't reversely compatible with PD). It's now about 34 m long. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing: Is the sauropod standing or moving? Hind limbs do not fit with forelimbs, the forelimb that swings forward appears to make a much longer stride than the hindlimbs did. Stride lengths should be identical. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It does, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

John Conway's paleoart & skeletal reconstructions

• 
  Andalgalornis
• 
  Cryolophosaurus (Edited)
• 
  Giraffatitan
• 
  Deinonychus
• 
  Sauropelta
• 
  Sinornithoides
• 
  Struthiomimus (Edited)
• 
  Corythosaurus
• 
  Gryposaurus
• 
  Ornithopods
• 
  Coelophysis
• 
  Claws of Deinonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right)

Due to their age, I think John Conway's artwork & skeletal reconstructions need to be re-evaluated and edited if need be. I think some animals look a bit proportionately weird & Cryolophosaurus looks a little off. Struthiomimus definitely needs more feathering on the tail & arms. I'm also highlighting his non-dinosaurian artwork in the Paleoart review page Monsieur X (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've modified a few of them over the years. But they are definitely Gregory S. Paul 1980s/90s style, and therefore pretty slim. Doesn't necessarily make them inaccurate for that reason alone, though some bones seem to be jutting out a bit much (especially the hadrosaur backsides look weird). FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

All of them seem to be fine except for Deinonychus (weird pose, dunno about the arm, legs or tail being possible), Struthio (more feathers needed), and the ornithopods which I don't know enough about to evaluate. Lusotitan would be better for the ornithopods to ask than me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Good to know, though I think the larger herbivores could be a bit bulkier. Oh & I forgot to include the Cryolophosaurus, whoops. As for the Deinonychus, Conway did redo it. Obviously, We can't upload it.But here it is for those who are curious. Monsieur X (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the ~ Cryolophosaurus is ok, though it's old, it has a pretty slender snout, which fits the current classification. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought it looked inaccurate, good to know it's actually ok. Though I do think the eye looks a bit sunken in. Monsieur X (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added feathers to the arms & tail of Struthiomimus, while also making some minor adjustments to Cryolophosaurus, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good I think, easier to fix when images are this low res. I think the Struthio needs even longer wing feathers, though? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the wings of Struthiomimus slightly larger. I'm going off of Ornithomimus with amount the feathers. Anyway, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably ok, the angle is very foreshortened, so it is difficult to see what's going on there a anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of paleoart uploaded here by established paleoartists, seems the well-known artist Andrey Atuchin has uploaded a few images to Commons which could be looked over. Look good, that Carnotaurus has a pretty unorthodox hand, though? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• 
  Carnotaurus
• 
  Baryonyx
• 
  Deinosuchus

I actually think the Carnotaurus hand is exactly what we want, because it is the flesh "mitten" with the singular pollex, like the most recent published interpretations. Atuchin's artwork is fantastic I'm surprised we have any of it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be older works (2011/2014), so maybe he has no commercial use for them anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Burch and Carrano (2012) reinterpreted the supposed metacarpal IV spike of Carnotaurus as one of the manual unguals (either II or III), in which case the common "single spike on the side" depiction of Carnotaurus hands is probably not correct. I'm not aware of any newer studies that have questioned Burch and Carrano's interpretation, though I'm also not especially familiar with the literature on this group of theropods. Albertonykus (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Australodocus Skeletal

200% more complete than last month's!

I have created this skeletal diagram of Australodocus. The silhouette's based on Euhelopus, with some modifications to skull, neck, tail, and foot length to make it appear more generic. I have a version using a Supersaurus (bad taxonomic things seem to be in store for Supersaurus, if you haven't been reading SV-POW, by the way) silhouette instead if that's preferred. Any input on this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. Australodocus does appear to be a basal titanosauriform of some kind, most likely a euhelopodid. The putative relationship with Supersaurus was based on a heavily diplodocid-focused analysis with no euhelopodid taxa included for comparison, and Tschopp et al. acknowledge that their support for it as a diplodocid is weak. As for the validity of Supersaurus, I wouldn't be too concerned about the validity of Supersaurus just yet—Taylor acknowledges that he isn't familiar enough with appendicular anatomy to evaluate whether Supersaurus has a diagnostic scapula, the Jimbo specimen still exists, and none of this is peer-reviewed anyway. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus Composite skeletal

To fill in the gaps, I used close relatives such as Mammenchisaurs, as well as basal Eusauropods. If adding a human scale figure would better help illustrate the size I will add one. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the skeletal looks good, a human is fine with or without I have no preference in skeletals. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Various Dinosaur models & statues from the National Museum of Brazil

• 
  Deinonychus far left, Staurikosaurus centre & Herrerasaurus right.
• 
  A close up of the Herrerasaurus bust.
• 
  A close up of the Deinonychus bust.
• 
  Skorpiovenator
• 
  Pycnonemosaurus
• 
  The three previously mentioned displays
• 
  Allosaurus
• 
  Name not listed.

Any thoughts on these models? The only problems I see are the visible holes & fenestrae, whatever's going on with Skorpiovenator & possibly the lack of lips. The identity of the quadrupedal Archosaur is also a conundrum, but I think it might be a a silesaurid. I will remove it from here if it is, but I need a few more opinions on the matter. For all I know, it could be a sauropodomorph of some kind. (There are also more photos of these models at different angles over at Wikimedia) Monsieur X (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Visible fenestrae and scaly maniraptorans is always a problem. But I think the abelisaur and Allosaurus models are pretty good. As for that last one, I have also been looking for clues, I thought it could maybe be the silesaurid Sacisaurus from Brazil, but found no confirmation. Also, some of the other animals are not from Brazil, so we should not necessarily assume it is either. These models were also discussed here, by the way:[54][55] FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you look closer, Deinonychus is actually feathered. As for the others, I do agree that the Allosaurus & Pycnonemosaurus look fine, with the exception of Skorpiovenator, something's not right with the how it's head & neck are positioned for me. As for the quadrupedal Archosaur, I found another image with statue, maybe it's a full-size (or close enough) replica of the animal? Monsieur X (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess the only way we can find out is by emailing the artist... FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yehuecauhceratops

Drawn over a photo of a mount, will be coloured and textured later. Any thoughts?[56] FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if a recon is advisable given we know essentially nothing about its horn arrangement. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, as long as the diagnostic neck frill features are correct, it is no less iffy than for example the published restoration of Wendiceratops (which shows huge, hypothetical brow-horns that do not match its phylogenetic position as sister to Sinoceratops and other centrosaurines with little to no brow horns). But our advantage is that we can always update the horns if some are found; that's not possible for the restoration in the published paper. Brow horns are not really diagnostic anyway, but at least Yehuecauhceratops clusters with taxa that had them (Avaceratops and Nasutoceratops), and thereby fulfils the phylogenetic bracketing criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The left forelimb looks too splayed out to the side, and/or the chest isn't deep enough. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look, it's based on this photo, by the way:[57] Looking again, the shoulder blades seem to be too far from each other in the mount, not sure how I missed that... FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Timimus Skeletal Diagram

That's a strange ornithomimid...

I've created a skeletal reconstruction of Timimus hermani. I used Suskityrannus for the silhouette as it falls outside of Xiongguanlong + Tyrannosauridae. I de-crushed the femur using other basal tyrannosaurs as guides. How does it look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hadrosaurus foulkii restoration

as promised. a full-body restoration of Hadrosaurus foulkii based on as much fossil evidence as i could find and the theoretical skull model in the Academy of Natural Sciences' skeleton mount (shown in the article). changes? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Immediate impression is that it's much too slender, with theropod-like legs. Metatarsus should be shorter and wider and the pedal unguals should be more hoof-like. I, personally, would use Eotrachodon as a model for the head. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ok, thickened body/back legs and fixed those claws. the Eotrachodon head is very similar to the Hadrosaurus reconstruction i cited earlier, so i didn't really change it (unless there's something major that should be fixed). Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The toes still look like they need more padding. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

done Audrey.m.horn (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

colored and shaded. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the toes on the right foot still need more padding. Also, the thigh's musculature looks very mammalian in shape, with a prominent rounded bulge on its anterior side (here's Scott Hartman's dinosaur muscle diagram: [58]). I'm not much of a hadrosaur expert, but maybe Lusotitan or Jens Lallensack have more to say (both have done major expansions hadrosaur articles here). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My first thought is that that neck needs more meat on it, more like what Leonardo shows. I'd give it some more beak tissue, too. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• One thing that could maybe be conveyed better by shading is that the palms of hadrosaurids were concave (see fig. 6 here:[59]). FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

ok, made those changes: fixed thigh muscles, toe padding, thicker neck, fleshed out beak, made palms more concave. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the toes on the right foot are too long still. Left foot looks okay tho IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

fixed Audrey.m.horn (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Triceratops Size Comparison

That human's not in a good spot...

I've recently been asked by MathKnight to make a Triceratops size comparison showing the largest specimens for each species. So far I've found these skull diagrams by GetAwayTrike showing four particularily large specimens of Triceratops: [60]. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though, and would like to get more input on what specimens to include. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The article lists MWC 7584 as the largest Trike skull, but I can't find any source that assigns it to a particular species. It is listed as T. prorsus in the current Trike skeletal, but that doesn't cite any sources. Does anyone know which species this skull belongs to? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check this discussion in the Certaopsian group at Facebook. According to Christopher Collinson: " https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313334111 places MWC 7584 as T. prorsus based on stratigraphic data." It is worth checking it periodically, as new answers and info may arise there. MathKnight 20:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slate Weasel. According to the link above MWC 7584 is a Triceratops prorsus. You can follow the discussion there if more questions and info are needed. MathKnight 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long delay, MathKnight. I already have silhouettes for both species, and T. prorsus has been scaled to MWC 7584, it's about the same size as "T. maximus". The only information I'm missing is the biggest T. horridus specimen's number and size. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, I could also include "T. maximus" in the chart if desired (it's not known from a skull (granted, a big Trike skull is apparently sometimes claimed to be "T. maximus" [61], but I see little proof of that assignment - in fact, I'm wondering if this skull actually is MWC 7584), but Bakker did popularize it). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

More searching through the DML archives shows that this was indeed never catalogued as "T. maximus", and instead is either T. prorsus/T. horridus (no distinction made at time). Speaking of the DML, I found this post that listed "Ugrosaurus" as a synonym of T. horridus. I will probably scale T. horridus with this specimen. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have finished it, MathKnight. Sorry for the extremely long delay. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks very nice. I will put it in the relevant articles. MathKnight 09:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Maniraptoran Size Comparisons

• 
  Hagryphus
• 
  Hesperornithoides
• 
  Zanabazar junior

Size comparisons of two maniraptorans. Zanabazar junior and perhaps Rahonavis are likely to follow. How accurate are the above two (I haven't done a whole lot of feathered theropods yet, so I'm not sure how well the feathering on these guys turned out)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Look good, but since Hagryphus is only known from the hand, I'd show it free of the silhouette (by rotating the arm forwards), now it kind of disappears within the body. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this pose better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah! FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Zanabazar has arrived, and it's bigger than I expected. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The snout of Zanabazar looks too long and thin IMO, it should be more robust if you follow Headden's skull (instead of just his skeletal). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the skull shape, although it seems like the skull's much bigger than the ~27 cm figure given in the article, so I probably should resize the entire silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• I scaled Zanabazar to the correct skull size. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: Ambopteryx illustration

The article on Ambopteryx does not have any illustrations and I can't find any images related to it that are licensed under Creative Commons so I would like to request an illustration of it. The articles on all of the other scansoriopterygids have at least one life illustration.

i'll get on that! thanks! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Looking forward to your interpretation. Achat1999 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Aeolosauridae Size Comparisons

• 
  Aeolosaurus
• 
  Overosaurus
• 
  Rinconsaurus

Here are three aeolosaurids, which will soon (hopefully) be accompanied by a few more. Pinging Ornithopsis, the author of the Aeolosaurus skeletal I referenced, for input. Comments? (Also, does anyone know how to fix the Argentoconodon entry on Wikidata? Currently the image there is inaccurate, and it doesn't seem to want to let me remove it.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that the Argentoconodon image should be taken care of, sorry to say I don't have much input on the diagrams though DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 05:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't have any serious criticisms, since it's based on my skeletal. The way you've oriented the tail—i.e., angled down at the base but otherwise curving uniformly upward—doesn't look quite right to me, though. The curvature of mine is based partly on Scott Hartman's Malawisaurus skeletal and partly on the fact that the anterior caudals of Aeolosaurus appear to me to articulate in a tight curve. If I were to revise this skeletal I'd probably make the tail angle slightly upward at the base as in many of Scott Hartman's titanosaurs to counteract the apparent curvature of the anterior caudal sequence, but I'm not sure and would welcome any critique on my reconstruction of its tail. Unfortunately, overall a lot of aspects of titanosaur anatomy are contingent on poorly-understood issues of their phylogeny, so it's hard to say how accurate these are overall. They look fine to me, although FWIW Rinconsaurus may be more closely related to lognkosaurs and Bonitasaura than to aeolosaurs. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this look better for Aeolosaurus? As for Rinconsaurus, we're fortunate to have the majority of almost every body part, so its appearance shouldn't change too much (unless, of course, the paper got the shape of its bones extremely wrong, which I've seen happen before). I do find the confusion over whether or not a clade that would be Aeolosaurus + Rinconsaurus <- Mendozasaurus, Saltasaurus, etc. actually exists to be quite intriguing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A few years back I attempted to test the Rinconsaurus skeletal with the published bone photos and measurements and it didn't fair well. That said, the paper says it's known from three individuals, two adults and one juvenile, and because so little is illustrated it's difficult to know for certain how best to scale everything together. When I updated my restoration, I used a combination of scaled in photographs, the original skeletal and other titanosaur reconstructions. The scale bar for one of the cervicals didn't correctly correspond to the published measurement and I was unsure which to trust. Either way, I suspect the published skeletal gave it a short neck because of what other titanosaur restorations were doing at the time. It might have been inspired by Hallett's Rapetosaurus skeletal. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the quality of the description of Rinconsaurus and the difficulty of cross-scaling the material, I agree that it's difficult to accurately figure out the proportions of Rinconsaurus. For what it's worth, though, Pitekunsaurus may be a rinconsaur (see fig. 41 of the description of Wamweracaudia for example) and it preserves a braincase, cervicals, dorsals, caudals, and limb elements of a single individual. It could serve as a "reality check" on the proportions of Rinconsaurus. The updated Aeolosaurus looks better to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Wamweracaudia paper, but looking at the description of Pitekunsaurus, Fig. 5 [62], much longer cervicals are plainly evident, suggesting a longer neck like what's seen in Overosaurus. I'll update it soon. And yes, the Rapetosaurus skeletal in the original description is quite strange. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Saurophaganax

I believe this image hasn't been reviewed yet. The legs seem strange.Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The left hand also seems to be supinated, and maybe the head is too small (could be due to the angle)? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The head's definitely weird, and far more similar to the classic Deltadromeus look than to any allosaur. Also the neck seems to take a little too long behind the head before it starts curving, if that makes any sense? And the leg muscles definitely need more mass and probably more definition as well. Even taking perspective into account, this image is still really kinda janky. --TKWTH (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Spinosauridae size comparison

The current Spinosaurid chart has a number of scaling issues (a number of the taxa are too large / too small), and I wanted to include the recently discovered Vallibonavenatrix in a chart as well. All specimen catalogue numbers are listed in the Description. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is so good! Just one thing that seems to come up a lot, the weird, notched, kinda malformed shape of Ichthyovenator's sail is almost definitely a pathology. If you look at photos of the material from a non-lateral view, they're wiggling all over the place. Only issue I have, though ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the sail is entirely pathological or taphonomic distortion, and it is only definitively present in the anteriormost of the holotype dorsals, while the remainder form a single contiguous round shape for the sacral spines. We don't have enough data to make a decision either way. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why does one of them only show one leg when the rest show two? Not a big deal, but a bit jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Spinosaurus silhouette looks extremely similar in pose to Franoys' skeletal (which is copyrighted). It probably should be reposed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Spinosaurus silhouette's pose is not at all traced from Franoys'. With small legs, it's hard to make any other pose that wouldn't look awkward. Also, edited the Ichthyovenator, with another leg Eotyrannu5 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the previous chart, and this looks quite nice! I gotta agree I wasn't sure about the scaling for the some of the animals in my chart, and this seems more proper. The only thing I'd suggest is adding references for the size estimates in the file description (as the chart will be present on Baryonyx and Irritator, which are Featured Articles and thus asked for sources during the image review). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Eotyrannu5 I've done some searching and haven't come across a size estimate for Vallibonavenatrix from a reliable source, could you explain where you found the estimate so the reference can be added to the file page? Thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Vallibonavenatrix size estimate is based on the material itself, seeing how as you have explained there is no size estimate from a reliable source. In this case, the estimate is based on the measurements provided in the paper. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Pellegrinisaurus Skeletal

3000% more complete than Timimus! (Yet seemingly only 2600%)

All the neccessary data can be found in the file description. It measures ~17 meters long here, as opposed to the higher estimates of 20-25 meters. Comments/Questions/Reccomendations? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Pellegrini preserves some partial dorsal vertebrae as well. Why are the caudals mostly grey, I thought that colour was used when they aren't figured in the views necessary, while these caudals are all shown in lateral view [63]. In addition, I might be wrong but more figures of the material may be present in Powell 2003 (his thesis published [64]) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The coloration of the caudals do appear to be a random error on my part - I'll fix that soon. I've explained in the file description why I omitted the dorsals, although I just discovered that plate 72 shows at least 6 additional dorsals: [65], and S4-6 are also apparently known from P. powelli. I don't know if the sacrals are shown in pl. 72, but it looks like the dorsal vertebrae are nearly in lateral view, so they should suffice as adequate reference material. I'll have to update this when I get the chance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I now think that the extra dorsals may actually be caudals - I lack the expertise to tell. The four centra don't seem to all be consecutive, and their lengths apparently do vary a bit, but I haven't found what these measurements are. The dorsal illustrated in the description seems to be either -3/4/5, but I don't know which one. S4-6 are poorly preserved and never figured well enough, if at all (I can't tell if they're in the plates), to be included. Here's a link to the information in Powell (2003): [66]. I have some other projects that I'm working on, so I'll put this on hold and see if anything clarifying this situation turns up. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If by "extra dorsals" you mean the vertebrae from Plate 72 of Powell, those are definitely dorsal vertebrae, not caudals. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Carcharodontosauria / Carcharodontosauridae size comparison

Scale diagram representing the most complete genera. Neovenator has been recovered as a Carcharodontosaurid, but certainly as a Carcharodontosaurian, and is one of the most complete known. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty nice, my old carcharodontosaurid size comparison certainly was quite dated. I'd recommend adding Tyrannotitan, as it's pretty complete. Also, could you provide a list of references in the file description? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Some oviraptorids

These three images haven't been reviewed yet and they all seem to have problems.Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• 
  The arm needs more feathers
• 
  Shrink-wrapped?
• 
  Visible fenestrae

Agree, the Gigantoraptor also needs to have primary feathers attaching to its second finger. I might be able to fix some of the one day. I think the size diagram needs to be completely redone, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Kamuysaurus life restoration

This is outside the usual scope of image review, since the image itself isn't inaccurate, however the author of the image (Masato Hattori) seems to be displeased that it is being used on wikipedia, a brand new user named User:Gjhrsd29 deleted the image from the article in both the english and japanese wikipedias, while he didn't make clear why he was removing the image in the edit descriptions, a message on his talk page says "It is a copyright violation to put the image of Kamuysaurus. The author does not give permission. Please do not post here." (There is another near identical message in japanese on the japanese talkpage) the stiff English and bilingual message suggests that the user is primarily a Japanese speaker. As I've noted on their talk page, the research paper says "The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material" and while there is no copyright notice on the image in the article, some of the press release versions of the image have © Masato Hattori attached. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Calling on User:FunkMonk Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a strange case. We had something similar with the Sinosauropteryx image by Bob Nicholls, where he requested that we shrank the size[67], but it seems the new requests here is for total removal? Maybe this is something that should be taken up on Commons. We do have another free restoration of Kamuysaurus by the way, though it seems to be inaccurate:[68] FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Bob Nicholls initially asked for a complete deletion of the image also. I think due to the language barrier it will be difficult to communicate with the artist with the required nuance to amicably resolve this. His email is at masato-h@kbe.biglobe.ne.jp if that is any use. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Has he dropped the issue? I would assume based on it still being there and this section be untouched for three weeks. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, but unless someone contacts him directly and sorts it out, or he starts a deletion request, the status quo will just remain. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the image hasn't been restored on the Japanese wikipedia, so that's possibly why there hasn't been any action.Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: Segnosaurus size diagram

As I'm going to expand the Segnosaurus article at some point, it would be nice with a size comparison. Greg Paul gives an estimate of 6 m. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually have one of these, but never uploaded it. I scaled it after Qilong's skeletal, which gave me only 3 meters. Molina-Pérez & Larramendi (2016) give an estimate of 6.9 meters, so I'm guessing that 6 meters is more plausible than 3. I will fix it and upload it shortly. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Here it is! Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I was thinking of you, hehe. Yeah, I'm unsure what Headden based his estimate on, perhaps scaled after figures in old articles. But it seems much of the material involved has been lost or is inaccessible, so it's probably hard to get accurate measurements. One thing that is known and recently published on is the mandible, so you can maybe cross check with that. There is also an image of the pelvis with a scale bar, perhaps useful too. The image looks good, but I'd probably leave out the wing feathers since it seems you haven't covered the rest of the body in feathers, plus it's unknown if they even had wing feathers like that. Also, in such a pose, the dewclaw would not be raised so far off the ground, therizionosaurs kept even the dewclaw close to the ground (Headden's image shows it in a run with no foot fully grounded). See also Harman's Nothronychus skeletal:[69] FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually have feathered it, just more finely than therizinosaurs are often drawn (I could make it a bit shaggier if desired). I re-oriented the dewclaws and made the tail a bit more boldly feathered. I'm trying to get back in the habit of creating size charts, I got out of the habit over the summer... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Based on Beipiaosaurus[70], the feathers would be much shaggier and longer, though, even hiding much of the body contours. More similar to for example a cassowary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this good enough or is more required? Therizinosaurs sure were strange critters! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks much more natural to me! I guess last thing that could be done is to see if it scales correctly with the scale bar for the mandible in this[71] image? Also, a bit late in the game, but I believe therizinosaurs maybe held their backs a bit more vertically than shown here and in Headden's image (see Hartman's:[72], or this:[73]), maybe someone else can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I rotated the axial region upwards a bit (it is still pretty horizontal for a therizinosaurid, but this is intentional as it makes it easier to display the animal's size). Don't worry about being late in the game for orientation, that's pretty easy to fix with SVG dinos. Scaling after the mandible, I get ~5m in length, so a little smaller than published estimates. Any more problems or is it ready? Also, did ornithomimids have caudal fans? (Why I'm asking this will hopefully become clear soon.) Nevermind, I figured out that they probably did, being in the Deinocheirus + Pennaraptora clade. However, I now realize that I'm not sure if therizinosaurs had caudal fans or not... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Strang with the scaling; it turns out that many of the fossils have become damaged or are even missing, so I'm not sure how these size estimates have even been made, as little has been published on the fossils since 1979, when they weren't even properly figured. Perhaps the tail could be made a bit longer to compensate (it is incompletely known anyway), not sure... As for a tail fan, all we know is that Deinocheirus had something like a pygostyle, which has been suggested to be an attachment point for a fan of feathers in at least that taxon. Other ornithomimosaurs don't seem to have pygostyles, but I'd restore them with at least a tuft of feathers at the tail tip. Also, it doesn't seem they had particularly advanced feathers, so maybe something like ratite feathers. As for therizinosaurs, I don't think we have any evidence for how tail feathers looked, and in any case, they would have had very shaggy, primitive feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've lengthened the tail a bit. Also, on the subject of ornithomimids, do their wings extend on to manual digit II or terminate at the wrist? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No one knows, all we have are quill knobs on the lower arm... I think either is ok, but first and foremost there should be wing feathers on the lower arm. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Re therizinosaur tail feathers: feathers have been found on the tail tip in Beipiaosaurus. They are essentially similar to the body feathers, with no noticeable increase in length or complexity (despite Beipiaosaurus having a pygostyle). Albertonykus (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ornithomimidae Size Comparisons

Now all has hopefully become clear...

Run away!

Fast and furious

Ornithomimid that thinks it's a deinocheirid...

I have totaly overhauled my Ornithomimus size comparison based on GetAwayTrike's skeletals, using Paul's skeletal as a "reality check" for decrushing. I plan to make a size chart for Sinornithomimus, make a Struthiomimus silhouette, and dig up my old Gallimimus to make a group size comparison. How do the new Ornithomimus look? Also, any reccomendations for the family-level size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the outlines look fine, although the wings might need more larger feathers and the lifted leg calf muscle seems to be absent. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the seeming lack of enlarged calves on the lifted legs is due to them being obscured by the torso. I will play around with enlarging the wing feathers. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• I made the wings on Ornithomimus bigger. I have also completed the chart for Sinornithomimus. The juvenile lacks the big wing feathers on account of juvenile Ornithomimus apparently lacking them too. I have given the subadult the original style of Ornithomimus wings that I used, as I assume that they would have been partially developed in this stage. Any comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I wasn't originally going to upload this, but... I realized that our current size comparison only showed Struthiomimus altus, so I went ahead and uploaded this anyways. Comments? Should I put S. sedens in quotes? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are they so far off the ground? Makes them appear taller than they really are.

Fixed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a Dromiceiomimus size comparison (surprise!) and the start of this project mutating into a very big initiative. Anyways, Dromiceiomimus' arms are ridicuously huge! This one was a bit harder to make, thanks to its obscurity and taxonomic instability. Did I manage to make it accurate enough? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Neuquenraptor Skeletal

Skeletal diagram of Neuquenraptor, dark grey represents integumentary structures. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The torso looks too slender vertically, and the upper arm should have more feathers, but that looks about it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep I think so. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Liliensternus

This image was recently put in the Liliensternus page, but it is definitely anatomically inaccurate in almost every single detail. The arms are too thin, the tail is too short, the torso is too robust, the neck is wrong, and the head is too vaguely shaped. Greg Paul has a skeletal reconstruction in his Field Guide. Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could be fixed through some heavy editing, but it's really not worth it since we already have other, better images. But with other inaccurate images, it should be tagged as such on Commons so others won't add it later on. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the vaguely shaped head is due to it being incomplete. It was considered related to either dilophosaurus & coelophysis at some point. Hence the speculative crest on some restorations. Definitely right on the money with the rest, shame I didn't catch on to them when I was editing the image. The comically short tail is especially egregious on my end, my apologies. Monsieur X (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Carcharodonotsauridae size comparison

Yep we probably don't need more of this but since i was making this for some time now i'm posting this. Recenty low quality version of this comparison from my page was already posted by some user but gets deleted due to copyrights issue. Any comments?KoprX (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)KoprX

Concavenator changed and neovenator added KoprX (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Should probably be renamed "Carcharodontosauria size comparison", as Neovenator was a carcharodontosaurian but not a carcharodontosaurid. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC) classic carcharodontosaurids is fairly stable, and the question of whether it belongs to Carcharodontosauridae proper is a matter of your definition of the family, a debate more about semantics than taxonomy. I'm going by Wikipedia's format, as we basically conform to the definition provided by Benson, Carrano, and Brusatte (2009), that being "The most inclusive (stem-based) clade comprising Carcharodontosaurus saharicus but not Neovenator salerii, Allosaurus fragilis or Sinraptor dongi." We also have a page for Carcharodontosauria, which was named in the same analysis to roughly replace the older definition of Carcharodontosauridae (closer to Carcharodontosaurus than Allosaurus or Sinraptor). Ask yourself where we would put this diagram, and whether it makes sense to put it on the page of Carcharodontosauridae rather than Carcharodontosauria. I say it makes much more sense to put it on the latter's page, so it should be considered a carcharodontosaurian size diagram and renamed as such. Another option would be to remove Neovenator, restricting the content to Carcharodontosauridae proper. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will just remove neovenator for nowKoprX (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say removing Neovenator is unecessary, as well as a file name change. File names are essentially irrelevant because no one actually sees them in the context of the content, and the only uses would be on page Carcharodontosauria and the individual genus pages. The concept of a separate Neovenatoridae has fallen swiftly out of favour with the removal of Megaraptora, with more recent studies choosing instead to make Carcharodontosauridae = Carcharodontosauria. If someone requested the file name change on commons, I would reject it because it doesn't have the need for one, the name is not incorrect, the name described the content enough, and the name is understandable. Removing Neovenator makes an additional size comparison necessary, and renaming the file is of little consequence, so neither should be forced to happen. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To argue that the concept of Neovenatoridae "has fallen swiftly out of favour with the removal of Megaraptora" is a false dichotomy, as the family does not necessarily rely on the inclusion of Megaraptora, even if BCB (2009) did name the family with the intent of including megaraptorans. I don't know where you're getting the impression that Neovenatoridae and Carcharodontosauria are not used anymore, it seems to me that far more papers use them than do not. In addition, we still have Siats to show that the family is not monotypic once megaraptorans are removed. I definitely consider Megaraptora outside of Neovenatoridae, but otherwise I agree with BCB (2009)'s conclusion that Neovenator is distinct enough to warrant its own family separate from typical carcharodontosaurids. Also, we already have a Neovenator size diagram (and several carcharodontosaurid ones now that I think about it), so an additional size diagram is not necessary anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason why i put this diagram on wikipedia is becouse someone already post comparison from my page in low quality(i have no problem with this but that diagram was deleted automatically becouse of copyright issue) therefore I thaught it should be reviewed here KoprX (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the diagram is fine with the content and file name it currently has. No analyses have been conducted where Siats is a neovenatorid without megaraptorans, and very few if any distinguish both Carcharodontosauridae and Carcharodontosauria, because Neovenator is not resolved with any sisters. Our personal opinions are irrelevant in this, there is no overwhelming use of Neovenatoridae as valid recently, and there are no criteria to recommend a file name change here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Siats hasfew megaraptoran synapomorphies (as described in the Megaraptor juvenile skull paper) so currently its most likely position is as a sister to Neovenator in the absence of better data. As for papers which retain the clade name "Carcharodontosauria", all of Benson, Carrano, and Brusatte's many subsequent carcharodontosaurid-focused papers do so, as well as the slew of new Concavenator papers, the Neovenator neuroanatomy paper, the Aoniraptor description, most megaraptoran-focused papers (though admittedly these are probably irrelevant), and various recent papers describing Iberian and Asian carnosaur remains. It seems like only Novas's papers retain Stromer (1931)'s wider definiton of Carcharodontosauridae, and even then some use Carcharodontosauria (such as the one on Mapusaurus heterochrony). I assume any paper which uses Carcharodontosauria is doing so in reference to BCB (2009), as they named the clade specifically so that Neovenator would not be considered a carcharodontosaurid. And based on recent carcharodontosaur research, this seems to be close to a consensus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Well to avoid any controversy I will just exclude neovenator and depict only true carcharodontosaurids. What do you think about makeing second diagram that would include genera such as allosaurus sinraptor yangchuanosaurus neovenator? KoprX (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have enough to add multiple taxa, go for it, but metriacanthosaurs aren't very well described. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Dromaeosauridae size comparison

This image was added to pages Dromaeosauridae and Dakotaraptor without being reviewed first. Are there any problems with it? Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the author, PaleoNeolitic. I realize that none of their images have passed through here. Some do seem to have inaccuracies (i. e. File:Hell Creek Formation Fauna.png shows Quetzalcoatlus and Mosasaurus, which haven't been recovered from there as far as I know, the Pellegrinisaurus skeletal shows the dorsal neural arches as known material). Nothing jumps out at me about this particular image, although a list of references would be nice. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could point out the specific inaccuracies in some of my images (except for the already mentioned Pellegrinisaurus). Talking about Mosasaurus and Quetzalcoatlus, the specimen BMR P2002.2 (neck vertebra found in Hell Creek) was associated to Quetzalcoatlus. For Mosasaurus, I'm pretty sure that the remains of a mosasaur has been recovered from Hell Creek in 2016. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Both being indeterminate within their families. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Shuvuuia previously raised a few concerns about the Hell Creek diagram on the file talk page, which appear to have gone largely overlooked (understandably, given how few people likely follow file talk pages). Albertonykus (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It should also be noted that being assigned to cf. Quetzalcoatlus - note it's cf., indicating the specimen is similar to Quetzalcoatlus but cannot be confidently referred - doesn't mean it indicates the presence of Q. northropi-sized azhdarchids in the Hell Creek Formation, as the diagram implies. I have seen the specimen in person; it's only 37 centimeters long, which would make it roughly the same size as the smaller Quetzalcoatlus sp. from the Javelina Formation. While their existence cannot be ruled out, we have no evidence of giant azhdarchids in the Hell Creek Formation yet. Shuvuuia (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case, would it be appropriate/accurate to change the name to Azhdarchid indeterminate? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that that would probably be the safest move. However, I have some more comments on Pellegrinisaurus. First of all, the entire femur is shown as fully preserved, even though it is not. Some parts of some of the caudal neural arches are also missing. Additionally, why is the space between the caudals shown in white? Also, what sources did you use to draw it? The file description has no citations. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Pellegrinisaurus tail needs re-posing; I'm pretty sure the upward curvature of the tail figured in Salgado was meant to accommodate a tail-dragging posture. Also, the way that incompleteness of the caudal vertebrae are indicated is visually confusing and the dorsal centra look a little bit too small. Also, this is more a matter of personal preference, but I think skeletal diagrams should generally avoid elaborate, speculative soft-tissue structures. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, taking all the suggestions into work, already updating the Hell Creek Fauna. I think Pellegrinisaurus will take some time, but I'll improve it. The references I used for the skeletal diagram were the Ameghiniana paper and the Scott Hartman's Alamosaurus skeletal (for the silhouette). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated skeletal, something missing? Slate Weasel Ornithopsis. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The font for the name is distracting and difficult to read if you don't already know the species. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an improvement in terms of visual clarity (apart from the font issue), but you appear to have the dorsal vertebrae backward and the femur is shown in posterior view when the skeletal is in lateral view. I feel like the tail could be refined as well, but don't have any specific criticism offhand. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Already explained why the posterior view of the femur in the description. Font changed to Old English Text MT and corrected dorsal vertebrae orientation. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I still think that the femur should be illustrated in lateral view, as showing the posterior view could give the viewer the false impression that Pellegrinisaurus could rotate its leg 90 degrees. Hypothetical lateral views have been done in the published literature (i.e. Maraapunisaurus). The best way to do one is to find the same element in a related taxon that's figured in the lateral view and then modify it to match the proportions of the desired taxon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Femur view updated, better now? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is kind of misleading that they hold their heads and backs at different levels, which gives the illusion of different relative heights than they would have if they were in more similar poses. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The only raptor holding the head at different level is Achillobator, which is about 5 meters (following the original paper). Small compared to the others, and the backs are

anatomically different. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Titanoceratops Skeletal

Titanic, yet barely compareable to Triceratops in terms of size

I've created a Titanoceratops skeletal. I didn't apply perspective to the scapula - should I? Any other input/corrections/comments/questions/criticism/ideas? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What do the grey areas indicate? Could be stated. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a color key to the description. I probably should add this more often, as there is basically NO consistency among skeletal drawing about what these colors mean, which can lead to misinterpretation about the status of the fossil material. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone mind if I add this to the taxobox in Titanoceratops later this week? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why the taxobox? Just replace the existing size comparison since this includes a human scale. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the taxobox mount is that it's restored with Pentaceratops instead of other triceratopsins, and we generally don't put inaccurate images in the taxobox. I can, however, just replace the existing size comparison if it's desired. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the closeup image from further down the page go in the taxobox. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I've implemented these changes. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Daxiatitan Size Comparison

Why are all these "25-30m" sauropods always just under 25m?

Why are all these "25-30m" sauropods al- oh. I just said that. Nevermind.

Now there's a giant Chinese sauropod that really is 30m!

Size comparison of Daxiatitan created for no obvious reason. I've also scaled "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis based on the generic macronarian silhouette that I made (I got ~24m), so I can also upload that if desired. Any input on this one? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, somphospondylans need some love. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been uploaded. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope its as deep-chested as a Huanghetitan should be. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've updated my Xinjiangtitan (some regions were somewhat bubble-wrapped, I was also unaware of the caudal series at the time). It's still gigantic, at 30m long. Since ~2 Cds are missing, that's a pretty solid length estimate (looking at... pretty much everything else in that size class). This sauropod deserves so much more credit than it gets. Is there anything else in the size comparison that needs fixing? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Allosauroidea size comparison

Yes this one needs a name change my mistake, should i swap saurophaganax with concavenator? Any mistakes spotted?

I have quite a few comments on this, so I'll do it in a bulleted list:

• Giganotosaurus: okay based on the Franoys skeletal (although Hartman's has slightly different proportions). ([74])
• Acrocanthosaurus: skull seems a bit too small. ([75])
• Saurophaganax: skull could be bigger. ([76]) Concavenator is known from much more material and less taxonomically controversial, however, so it may make a better addition than Saurophaganax.
• Yangchuanosaurus: the skull seems too shallow, and the profile of the back doens't appear to be correct. ([77])
• Allosaurus: arm (especially hand) way too small, torso too shallow, femur too short, skull too small (especially in depth). ([78])
• Sinraptor: skull considerably too small. ([79])
• Neovenator: skull seems too long and too shallow. Checking the length of the metatarsus may be a good idea. ([80])

Also, I do plan to update my Saurophaganax size comparison eventually (hopefully soon, but I've been saying that for a few months now). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Really appreciate detailed feedback with referances I tried my best when fixing this KoprX (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Chilantaisaurus Skeletal

Chilantaisaurus wants a hug, but the human appears unwilling to comply for some reason.

Here's a Chilantaisaurus skeletal. All necessary info can be found in the file description. How does it look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The forelimb looks too thin in the silhouette, but thats about all I can see to comment on. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hudiesaurus Skeletal

We're gonna need a bigger butterfly net...

Skeletal diagram of Hudiesaurus, the somewhat(?) giant(?) mamenchisaurid. I tried to make the silhouette look a little less weird, but mamenchisaurids are just weird animals in general. Comments? I could also make a size comparison to showcase the 22-30m range of length estimates if it's desired. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

With only one bone it's impossible to be sure but I suspect that the silhouette should be scaled up somewhat, I find difficult to imagine the rest of the dorsal collum fitting in the silhouette. Years back, I knocked this image together using Pauls older (with longer forelimbs) M. hochuanensis and just visually scaled it up so that the Hudiesaurus vertebra approximated c18. [81] (Funny how an image I originally hosted on my old photobucket becomes one of the first hits on google). SVPOW pointed out that the Hudiesaurus vertebra is the same length as c17 in M. hochuanensis, however, it's proportionally taller and its height to length ratio conforms better to c18. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've rescaled it after both skeletals and got ~27m in length. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Appalachiosaurus skull

The skull looks like that of a derived tyrannosaurid and not a basal eutyrannosaur. In particular the maxilla looks far too deep given that we have the lower edge of the maxilalpresent in the posterior portion. It strongly contradicts the reconstruction given in Carr et al 2005, which can be seen in Other reconstructions based on the paper, the skull in particular is also much more boxy than the reconstruction in Carr et al. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hard to say, the skull doesn't seem complete enough to determine the exact shape either way. I assume that reconstruction is based on the actual fossil material.[82] I know there were some inaccurate initial interpretations of the fossils, for example part of the pelvis was mistaken for an arm bone. So there is probably some leeway in interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November Part 1

Part 1: Sauropodomorpha

Day 1: Macrocollum

Day 2: Bagualosaurus

Day 3: Adeopapposaurus

Day 4: Seitaad

Day 5: Xingxiulong

I'm doing this again. I can't promise how regular this is going to be, but I'm going to try to upload a size comparison a day throughout November. Here's the first one: the long-necked unayosaurid Macrocollum itaquii. I've worked out a rough schedule, but I'm still open to requests for particular genera (I may not be able to fulfil them, though). Any comments on this first size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In relation to the current taxobox image: Macrocollum looks quite a bit larger in the taxobox image. Is it the longer legs? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a bit baffled by it myself. I think that I scaled mine to femoral length, which gave a TL of ~3.5m like the article said. Also, compared with the humans, both Macrocollum seem to have roughly the same hip height. I think that my human might be taller, but I'll investigate this further. It's pretty perplexing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a Bagualosaurus for day 2, bringing along a nifty multi-image template. Comments? Also, Bagualosaurus has nothing to do with bagels. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny, same discrepancy with size again... note that the article gives a size estimate of 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in). Also, the shoulders seem to be deeper than they are reconstructed in the paper, any reason for this? (I suppose the paper's skeletal diagram is more schematic than rigorous.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The femur's only 215mm long, according to the paper, which is similar to my silhouette's femoral length. I scaled this one with the skeletal's scale bar. I'm not sure what to do about this... the size estimate seems to come from a news report, though. That may explain it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've uploaded an Adeopapposaurus for day 3. And... there's no size discrepency this time! Woohoo! Anyways, this is a very strange critter, apparently it had a keratinous beak. Have I added too much flesh to the feet? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, very large halluces! Two comments - the back foot's positioning looks a bit awkward (could be more vertical?) and the tail tapers pretty sharply at the end (not sure if that's intentional). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this better for the foot or is it too vertical now? The tail does indeed look like that. As for the halluces, you should check out those of Massospondylus! I bet it would hurt a lot to get kicked by these guys! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It does look better! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Seitaad has came for day 4. Have I overextended the near leg? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Xingxiulong for day 5. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd buff up the shoulders and gut a bit. The head also strikes me as a bit large. I know it's quite large on the skeletal diagram, but that's probably more of the outline than anything else. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Mapusaurus

I have two things to say about this genus:

1. I've updated my size comparison. It's visible further up this page and on the article. Any comments?
2. This restoration replaced the old NT one. The perspective on the head seems a bit odd, but one real problem is that it suffers from the far foot being positioned lower than the near foot. The ground is visible here, so this really is a problem. I've haven't yet checked its proportions in any detail. Anyone want to try and fix this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the presence of two prominent crests is also wrong. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The head looks pretty wonky, I don't think the old one should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Alectrosaurus skeletal composite

Alectrosaurus skeletal composite

Recently, I made a skeletal diagram for Alectrosaurus page, based on the holotype AMNH 6554 and referred specimens. Some elements were scaled up in order to fit an individual of 5 meters. Is there any problems? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You might wanna push that right leg forward a bit, theropod femurs couldn't rotate past 90 degrees relative to the torso ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I'll be fixing that in my spare time, thanks. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Faunal Diagrams

• 
  Fauna of Allen
• 
  Fauna of Bayan Shireh
• 
  Fauna of the Yellow Cat and Poison Strip Members
• 
  Fauna of Hell Creek

I have been updating my faunal diagrams by adding references, paleoflora and correcting anatomical issues. Many suggestions made by users were taken in the process. One of the main goals of these diagrams was to recreate the contemporany fauna and environments of the largest dromaeosaurids ever: Achillobator, Austroraptor, Dakotaraptor and Utahraptor, in order to be added to their Wiki pages. The "most" complete fauna out of the 4 depicted here is the Cedar Mountain Formation, but why? I mean, there several papers describing both the aquatic and terrestial fauna of the formation (including the other geological Members of this particular formation), and I haven't seen a single soul taking this in consideration and making something out of it. In the other hand, the other formations are a little bit more known, except for the Bayan Shireh Formation, a poorly studied unit. I'll resume this kind of work in a near future with other formations. Is something incorrect? Dinosaurs missing? Issues? Comments and corrections will be much appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My concern with the Cedar Mountain image is that the fauna shown in that image aren't all contemporaries. I haven't read the relevant literature extensively, but from Jim Kirkland's twitter feed I have gotten the impression that there are at least three faunas represented here, with Yurgovuchia older than Utahraptor, Moabosaurus younger than Mierasaurus, and so on. I think it's misleading to show it all in one image. As for Bayanshiree there's a few taxa you've missed: Erketu ellisoni, an unnamed titanosaur (MPC-D100/3005), an unnamed velociraptorine formerly identified as Adasaurus (MPC-D100/22 and 100/23), and Amtocephale gobiensis have all been reported as being from the Bayanshiree Formation. There's probably others (I vaguely remember reading a mention of an avimimid from there, but I might be misremembering). I don't believe Saltasaurus is from the Allen Formation. If I'm not mistaken, Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from the same site, which has been debated over whether it's Allen or Anacleto. I think you need either both or neither. I think Antarctosaurus and Laplatasaurus are also debated over which formation they're from, but I don't think either is from the same site as Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Cat was actually redated recently so it's actually several million years older than Poison Strip as opposed to immediately before (which as you point is already not contemporaneous). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Also it's not just "several million years" as you suggest, it has been dated to the latest berriasian to early hauterivian, making it coeval with the Hastings Beds. Given now that it's clear that the Cedar Mountain Formation was deposited over the best part of 50 million years, it's obvious that each individual member's fauna should be treated separately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the corrections, especially for the missing taxa in Bayan Shireh, already working on them. I would be grateful if you guys could provide me the papers/documents (or page?) about the information of the Cedar Mountain Formation and the unnamed members of the Bayan Shireh in order to do an aprox. body size and silhouette. Abelisaurus is making its way into the Allen fauna, referring to Laplatasaurus and Saltasaurus, I checked again the papers and they are not identified from the Allen Formation, as you stated, nevertheless, Antarctosaurus has been identified, here. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Other sources indicate that Antarctosaurus is from Anacleto, though, so I'm not sure it's appropriate. According to this paper[83] Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from Anacleto as well, but not everything has followed that—I'd like to know if there's any more recent research on the subject. I don't trust any paper on the subject which simply states which formation these taxa are from without commentary on the opposing hypothesis. As for Bayanshiree, [84] [85] [86] cover what I listed. Are you sure on the sizes of the sauropods? Rocasaurus and Saltasaurus had roughly 800 mm femora whereas Pellegrinisaurus appears to have had a substantially longer femur (around 900 mm as preserved, according to the scale bar in its original description, likely would've been around 1300 when complete). Aeolosaurus had a 1030-mm femur and Panamericansaurus presumably had a femur length of ~1500 mm (extrapolating from a 1230-mm humerus). You've given them all roughly similar hip heights here.Ornithopsis (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the Bayan Shireh fauna, now I'll be updating the Allen one. Is there any problem if I add the missing taxa in the Bayan Shireh page? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but would it be better to restrict it to the terrestrial habitat, as indicated by the background? The plesiosaurs in the forest are a bit irritating. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, IMO, and has no real bearing on accuracy, but it does bother me too. Maybe put the marine life in a lower part of the image, "below sea level" so to speak? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like it'd make the image quite a larger without sufficient reason (and they're already very large!). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lusotitan. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November Part 2

Part 2: Sauropoda

Day 6: Chuanjiesaurus

Day 7: Choconsaurus

Day 8: Tazoudasaurus

Day 9: Erketu

Day 10: Neuquensaurus

Choconsaurus for day 7. I modified my Mendozasaurus proportions to fit it. Comments? Sorry about day 6... I'll get around to it (and Xingxiulong and Euhelopus) when it's more convenient for me. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tazoudasaurus for day 8. This one looks kind of strange? Is this natural or an error? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your Tazoudasaurus is too small-headed and long-necked. In addition, both Greg Paul and Peyer & Allain's skeletals of Tazoudasaurus depict a humerus:femur ratio much higher than indicated in the actual fossils (it's 0.85 in the skeletals but 0.64 according to Table 1 in Peyer & Allain 2010), and your silhouette matches the skeletals but not the measurements. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ouch! How did they get it that wrong?! Anyways, I'll fix it as soon as I can. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that I've been trying to make a skeletal of Tazoudasaurus myself, and getting a rather different profile than Paul or Peyer & Allain's skeletals—I'm pretty sure Paul's skeletal is essentially a reposed version of Peyer and Allain's, as he repeats at least three mistakes made in it (shape of the ilium, shape of the mandible, length of the forelimb). My skeletal gives it a much more compact torso than Paul or Peyer & Allain give it, but I'm not sure if that's getting into OR/OS territory. For the time being, a couple of other comments—you've depicted the manus as being very columnar, without a visible thumb claw, and I'm not sure that's correct, and you've depicted the hind legs as being too thin--the tibia of Tazoudasaurus is much more robust than Paul depicts, and does not fit inside your silhouette. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the skull is too small and the manus to columnar. Tazoudasaurus still had the primitive spreading manus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How much bigger does the skull need to be? It's about 40cm now. I'll fix the manus after the reconstruction in the paper. I'll check the neck and torso lengths, also, I fear that my scapula isn't angled enough. I'll take a look at the tibia, too. I'll attempt to get it done soon, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do this more in-depth evaluation, so updates might not come for several days. Anything else wrong? Why are skeletals in papers so frequently very... incorrect? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates are done... I think. Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The head looks about right to me, but the forelegs and neck still both seem too long. Tazoudasaurus had a more or less diplodocid-like forelimb:hindlimb ratio, and broadly similar proportions to Shunosaurus, so I think the back would be nearly horizontal. Relevant ratios calculated from table 1 of Peyer & Allain 2010: humerus:femur ~0.64, antebrachium:humerus ~0.70; I estimate your silhouette as showing h:f as 0.75 and a:h as 0.80. Not sure why Peyer & Allain draw it so differently from the proportions indicated by their measurements. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Erketu for day 9. Man, that neck's outrageously long. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• (time warp) Chuanjiesaurus for day 6. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Neuquensaurus for day 10. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Should probably show the presence of osteoderms of some sort since Neuquensaurus has them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Titanosaurs had very sparsely distributed osteoderms, and their exact placement is not known. It's entirely possible that they would have been positioned so as to not be visible in lateral silhouette. That said, are you sure that it's robust enough? It looks a bit thin-legged to me but that's just my impression. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I beefed up the limbs a bit (saltasaurs were not known for their gracility). I omitted osteoderms because of the confusion surrounding them - and that they might have looked like this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Slate Weasel: Thanks for all these nice charts. Would you consider doing one for Ohmdenosaurus (length, according to the first description, is 3–4 m)? I was thinking about expanding the article in the near future … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohmdenosaurus would be interesting to do. Would the Vulcanodon skeletal be a good base reference for it (any necessary modifications would be made, of course)? It probably won't come around terribly soon, but I'm thinking of uploading a few extra sauropod(omorph?) size comparisons sometime this month... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohmdenosaurus is in the unfortunate position of being both very incomplete and having a poorly-understood phylogenetic position. The closest there has been to commentary on the phylogenetic position of Ohmdenosaurus are a couple of comparisons noting that it resembles Rhoetosaurus more closely than other early sauropods, which could indicate that Ohmdenosaurus is closer to Eusauropoda than Vulcanodon or Tazoudasaurus, so Vulcanodon might not be the best model. Spinophorosaurus might be better? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; please take your time, I have some other things to finish until I can work on that article anyways. Yes, it is too incomplete to be included in any phylogenetic analysis. Vulcanodon or a generic non-eosauropod sauropod would work imo, Spinophorosaurus might also work though the position of that taxon is unclear as well (might be a eusauropod already). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

When I get around to it, Rhoetosaurus will probably also be a major basis for this silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wessex Formation dinosaurs

This image pretty much fits the textbook definition of shrinkwrapping, particularly on the Iguanodon. Is this fixable with image editing? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Only needs some smoothing out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Monsieur X wants to give it a go? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Computer is still busted, so I sadly can not. Ironically, I was actually editing this image the day before my PC died. Anyway, the Eotyrannus, Ornithomimosaurs (Thecocoelurus?) & the Hypsilophodon might need more visible feathering as well. Monsieur X (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, you think the file can be retrieved? Note that the "Neovenator" was originally Concavenator for some reason, but I painted the dorsal sail thing out... That area on the back is overly sharp because of that, I forgot to add blur. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The environment of the Wessex Formation is also supposed to be semi-arid to Mediterranean climate, given the presence of calcrete. Mark Witton compares it to Chaparral, though I'm not sure how accurate that comparison is, given the formation was deposited just before the explosive radiation of angiosperms during the Aptian-Albian interval .Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ferrisaurus headshot posted without review

This Ferrisaurus reconstruction by PaleoEquii was posted without review. Is it really appropriate to illustrate a page on a species with no known cranial elements with a drawing of only the head? I've noticed a few cases of such reconstructions being posted on this page, usually with that same criticism being made, and I was wondering if there should be some guidelines on whether such reconstructions are a good idea or not. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism. In fact, I am not sure such an illustration is even necessary when Figure 2 of the paper contains a more-than-adequate silhouette with realistic proportions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if it had a long page, but as it will undoubtedly only have a stub or at best start-class article there won't be room for it anyways as the figures from the paper are more important. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I do almost think maybe we need a rule that we shouldn't have reconstructions that don't feature any of the preserved material... Tomopteryx (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that rule might be a good idea, but with an exception for images showing environments: for example, a dinosaur known from only tail vertebrae could be depicted with its tail obscured if it was depicted in its environment based on other fossils from the formation/locality. In that case, the information from the fossils being conveyed in the photo is "a species in this clade existed in this ecosystem". Back to this image specifically, though, I wonder if we could treat the illustration as whatever species PaleoEquii based it off of, or use it on the Leptoceratopsidae page—the need for illustrations of dinosaurs in non-lateral views has been on my mind[87]. What does PaleoEquii think of that? Ornithopsis (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd go best on the leptoceratopsid page? As it is ostensibly a generic leptoceratopsid, and the Leptoceratops page is already pretty overloaded with images for such a short article. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least it needs the "speculative paleoart" tag.[88] But I agree, making restorations entirely focusing on unknown parts is misleading and should be avoided. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November Part 3

Part 3: Theropoda

Day 11: Condorraptor

Day 12: Segisaurus

Day 13: Eoabelisaurus

Day 14: Zupaysaurus

Day 15: Dracoraptor

Moving away from sauropodomorphs... sort of (I've still got to work on Tazoudasaurus a bit more)... we reach theropods. Condorraptor for day 11. Comments? Also, I updated my Concavenator - any comments on that? Are the legs too robust? Are the arms too thin? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whew, cut it a little close this time, with less than an hour to spare! Here's Segisaurus, which is bigger than stated to the article, but at least Holtz got a similar size! Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like you would get 1 m exactly if you decapitated it like the holotype, haha... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Eoabelisaurus for day 13. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Zupaysaurus is here for day 14, and it's a lot more complete than I realized! Comments? Also, how big is the scale bar in the taxobox of Dracoraptor? I can't find a label for it anywhere... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• I figured out the scale bar's length (5cm), so here's Dracoraptor for day 15. Halfway done! Comments? Coelurosaurs will be coming over the next five days. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Very minor nitpicks about the skull shape - the posterior ventral edge of the upper jaw looks like it's convex where it should be concave, and the mandible seems to be a bit thin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November Part 4

Part 4: Coelurosauria

Day 16: Nqwebasaurus

Day 17: ???

Day 18: ???

Day 19: ???

Day 21: ???

It's time for the fuzzy theropods! Here's a Nqwebasaurus for day 16. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. I think it would be good to have that image in the taxobox, the current reconstruction seems a bit off proportionally... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If stuff is genuinely off about it go ahead, its old, a quick sketch, and made before the redescription. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's yours! I didn't realize that. I do wonder how well the skeletal reconstruction in the original description holds up - I figure many of these are probably more schematic than rigorous... I'll check when I get the time (although if there are discrepancies it would be difficult to incorporate the correct proportions without veering into OR territory). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)