Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guidelines borrowed from WikiProject Dinosaurs's frontpage for lack of a better thing

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaurs life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here.

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. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews).
  • If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria for removing an image:

  • Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
    • Example: If a Deinonychus is reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via bracketing).
    • Example: If an oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: If an image of Microraptor lacks primary feathers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: Nomingia should not be depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Similarly, Ceratosaurus should not be depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers (though the discovery of Kulindadromeus provides evidence for some amount of fuzz in all dinosaurs, the fuzz is basic).
  • 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: If an image of an adult Torvosaurus 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 constraint (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 Deinonychus.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Othnielia rex, 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"[4], so they can be easily located for correction.

  1. ^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3]


version 4
version 5

My first genus illustration. Please give it a brutal evaluation. Debivort 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the color and shading. The stripes are particularly nice, Debivort. I also like how you captured Eoraptor in motion. It does look alive. I feel like the chest is too small. I think the chest as shown in the current fossil reconstruction is a bit more robust. I also feel the shape of the head is a bit too "rounded", giving the impression of a beak instead of a snout. The head should look roughly triangular, whereas here the back part seems round. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
OK - good observations. Sounds like I can try to fix them by manipulating this image, rather than wih a redo. Will post new version soon. Debivort 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I feel the image is very "close"; if there's a way you can alter it then redoing it entirely, that would be cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a modified version. Let me know if the changes went far enough; if not it, is fairly easy to broaden the chest or triangularize the head a bit more. Debivort 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The head is excellent. Very well done. I still feel like the chest is too small or sunken in. When you look at fossil reconstructions like this, you can see that the chest is a little more than twice the thickness as the head, whereas in your drawing, it is only a little more thick (wide?) as the head. I hope you understand my meaning. Maybe it's because the back is more arched than in the fossils I'm looking at, but to me, the chest and belly still look a bit thin, like he's recently been through illness. However, it is very nearly spot on, in my opinion. Dunno what the others think. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: thanks for making a side-by side comparison, which really helps. And thanks for archiving the page. We're bad about that, around here, and when this page gets long, I actually cannot access the images on this page very well from home, as I'm on dial-up. So thanks for that, too. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries! Debivort 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Version 3 may address the chest. I think part of the problem was that in 1 and 2 the neck appeared to attach on th animal's left side, reducing the apparent chest area. I've fixed that. De-arched the back a bit, and broadened the shoulder attachment points. I'm not sure if it will ever be clear in this view that the chest is twice as wide as the head, since the angle is pretty close to a profile of the chest, but I think it's much closer to the reconstruction you linked. I also toned down the "ribbiness". Debivort 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! This looks very good. However, there are two things I didn't address earlier, for which I apologise. Eoraptor had five fingers on each hand, while your reconstruction appears to show just three. Would it be difficult to add a couple of extra fingers? Two were very small, if that helps, You can see here they're the last two digits "pinky" and "ring" fingers) and were pretty much non-functional. And the eye, which might have resembled those of crocodilians [5], should probably be a different color. Sorry I didn't mention this earlier. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The fingers are sure a lesson in not trusting whatever I pull off of google images. I couldn't actually see a fourth finger in the model you linked, btw, but hopefully this version captures what you'd expect. Oh and once I introduced a second color, I added a bit more. Debivort 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your infinite patience. This fourth version "does it" for me; I don't know what anyone else thinks. The colored eye helps bring him to live, I think. If the others approve, this could go up. The model I linked to had very, very tiny fingers (nubs, really); Eoraptor's smallest two fingers were presumably non-functional; you've drawn them well (and in the correct place, too!) Google has some good images, and they have a lot of outdated (or innaccurate) stuff. It is often hard to tell what's current; Dinoguy is much, much better at keeping current on theropod anatomy, but as he is currently very busy and can only edit for 15 minutes a day, you're stuck with me (and whoever else pops up, presumably). Again, thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Firsfron pretty much nailed all the points I would have brought up--version 4 looks darn good. The only minor quibbles I can find would relate more to the style than to anything that has to be changed. The skinny neck, the concave chest, etc., kind of remind me of old dino illustrations from "back in the day", which is actually kind of cool, in a way. I think it's ready to be included in articles, at any rate. The concavity of the chest (even if you explain it with a catlike flexibility in the back that wasn't present--studies show that theropod torsos were extremely rigid like those of birds) isn't a big enough error to omit it from use, IMO.Dinoguy2 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment Dinoguy. I'm not sure what is being referred to as the "concavity of the chest" any more, as all parts of it seem convex. Is it the ribbiness? Or the concavity around the abdomonen/thorax transition? I'll fix it if it needs it. Debivort 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The fairly strong s-curve below the ribs is what I mean--there should be pretty much a straight line from the pectoral region down to the legs, only possibly becoming a little concave as the belly meets the pubis.Dinoguy2 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, do you like this version better? Debivort 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perfect!Dinoguy2 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrhinoceratops, Ornitholestes and some non-dino[edit]

My latest drawings... ArthurWeasley 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrinoceratops looks great, Arthur. Looks identical to the sole fossil skull here. Prestosuchus also looks very nice, just like the specimen at the AMNH. Well done on those. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yep, I've drawn the Arrhinoceratops based on that skull and Prestosuchus based on the displayed skeleton. ArthurWeasley 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The ornithurine bird and the milk-sucker look pretty good to me (but I'm no expert). I agree that the Prestosuchus is just about perfect--and we really need some good rauisuchian images, slap that baby on Rauisuchia and Pretosuchidae while you're at it! The only one that has some larger problems is Ornitholestes. The head looks a tad too small, though that might just be the angle throwing me off. It looks like you gave it the old nasal crest, which has been shown to be just a bit of displaced skull bone by some recent papers. The main problem is the feet. Ornitholestes didn't have a reversed hallux, that's a feature of only fairly advanced birds (and maybe scansoriopterygids), so it should have just the standard dangling dewclaw in place of the backward-pointing toe. I'm also not sure why you've given it a dromaeosaurid-style hyperextendible second toe and enlarged claw, which is only a feature of deinonychosaurs. Ornitholestes was a pretty primitive coelurosaur, and had just about as generic a theropod bodyplan as you can get.Dinoguy2 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"Milk-sucker". Heh. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, the old nasal crest got me. I was almost certain that I've read somewhere that Ornitholestes did not have a crest after all then I remembered about the reconstruction in the popular serie "Walking with dinosaurs" and had second thoughts... The rest of the drawing is based on the skeleton at the Royal Tyrrel Museum (see [6]). ArthurWeasley 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... It does look like it hjas a normal theropod hallux in that pic (though it's hard to see, and the angle makes it look more pronounced, but it's not contacting the ground). I'm going to ask around some forums to find out why they gave it a hyperextendible digit 2....Dinoguy2 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that John Ostrom thought Ornitholestes was closely related to dromaeosaurids, which is why the RTM mounted their skeleton with inferred dromie features. This turned out to be incorrect. Guess the museum hasn't done renovation or updating of their mounts in recent years.Dinoguy2 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Will redo Ornitholestes some other time. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

diplodocus size comparison diagram[edit]

Diplodocus size comparison.png Diplodocus size comparison.png

Thoughts? It's a vector image, so quite easily modifiable. Debivort 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very excellent, Debivort. I very much like how you show the bones inside very accurately. You've got exactly 19 cervical vertebrae, which is correct. This is... wow. Very nice! The front half looks just excellent.
However, the tail appears too long. According to my sources, there are supposed to be around 80 caudal vertebrae, while your illustration appears to show well over 100 (I stopped counting around 90). The tail on your illustration appears to be longer than the neck and body combined, and that can't be right; it should be considerably longer than the neck, but not that much longer. Maybe if the last 20 or so caudal vertebrae were shown a little smaller, it would shrink up the tail end. This is very close, but the tail is just too long, I think. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. 82 or 83 caudal vertebrae I think now. Just to reassure you that I hadn't gone off the deep end tail-wise, I was working largely off this image. Debivort 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the tail was right the first time. I'm not sure about the cerv. vert. count, but the former image looks more like Scott Hartman's reconstruction (he's working on a paper re-evaluating Supersaurus and a load of other sauropod stuff, and has released a ton of extremely rigorous diplodocid skeletals to go with it [7]).Dinoguy2 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, I was looking at the Diplodocus mount at the Senckenberg Museum, and the tail there is not any longer than the head and body combined, but if there are more recent reconstructions, then I apologise. Looks like the first one goes up after all! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That explains it. A lot of museum mounts were put up before the whip-tail was discovered in diplodocids. Compare the old and new AMNH Apatosaurus mounts, for example: the new tail has got to be at least twice as long as the old.Dinoguy2 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since it's a vector image, have you considered actually uploading it in .svg format? Circeus 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have never been able to get fonts to render correctly with SVG, whether they are embedded or not. Problems like not having the text render in the thumbnail at all, or the full size taking significantly longer to render to screen than PNG equivalents seem unavoidable. I am actually of the fairly strong opinion that it is an inferior format, but would love to hear an eloquent defense of it. Debivort 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mononykus and Agilisaurus version 2 + Heterodontosaurus and Metriorhynchus[edit]

Mononykus redrawn based on the skeletal recontruction pointed out by Dinoguy. Scuteless Agilisaurus. ArthurWeasley 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You've done a very nice job on the Heterodontosaurus; I particularly like the way you illustrated the infratemporal fenestra (the hole behind the eye socket). Agilisaurus looks nice, here, without the scutes (or, rather, the texture that looked a bit like scutes). Thanks! I'll let Dinoguy weigh in on Mononykus, if he's available. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good! The new Agilisaurus is spot-on, and I love the heterodontosaur, especially from a stylistic standpoint (very contrasty, makes it pop). The new Mononykus is sooo close to perfect I almost feel like a jerk pointing out that the dewclaw on the foreground foot is on the wrong side :) One little line in there should fix it, though. I really like the croc too, though I can't vouch for or against it.Dinoguy2 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The dewclaw, oops, what I was thinking? Now it's fixed (used same file name). Thanks. ArthurWeasley 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Torvosaurus and Liliensternus[edit]

Two new theropod drawings. ArthurWeasley 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

These are both very well done. My initial impression was that the arms of Torvosaurus were a bit too long, but after reviewing the skeletal reconstructions, it looks just fine to me. I particularly like the nice attention to detail on both of the skulls, Arthur. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both look very good. The Torv's skull strikes me as a bit too small, but overall I think it's ok.Dinoguy2 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)



Thoughts? Debivort 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!! Impressive. I'll let the experts comment on the accuracy of the reconstruction, but esthetically, this is very nice. ArthurWeasley 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that aesthetically, this is a very nice image. The tail worries me a bit; there is something odd about the base of the tail, like it is raised too high. Sauropod neck flexibility is a touchy subject, with different paleontologists debating the actual flexibility, so that part does not worry me. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This was based on the Scott Hartman skeletal, particularly since Dinoguy vouched for them: [8]. Mine is a bit higher than his, but not much, compared to what seems the be the "normal" diplodocid posture outside of barosaurus. I can fix it if you think his reconstruction is too high to begin with, or if I should take his as an upper bound for a realistic construction. Debivort 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the reconstructions are just fine; I think, though, that the base of the tail on your sketch is a bit too high, as it looks almost as if the spine is broken there. I think it is an otherwise lovely image otherwise, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A new version with less lumpy tail Debivort 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about the neck position. The current debate is about overall position--whether they could hold their heads high in a gentle s-curve or not. Extreme, almost snake-like flexibility of only a small portion of the neck as you have it would probably require some prettym assive dislocation at about the spot where the neck passes the first tree. Unfortunately, the pose is implausible no matter which side of the neck debate you're on, to the best of my knowledge. (The tail is ok, I think--it starts to get real bendy at the spot where all the chevrons and restricting bone processes get small and vanish, as you'd expect. This [9] [10] is probably a better guide for near-max neck flexibility.Dinoguy2 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Significantly stiffer neck. Good thing he was pointed in the direction of that frond - might have starved to death otherwise. Debivort 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks great!Dinoguy2 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Einiosaurus, Lystrosaurus, Elasmosaurus[edit]

Three more... ArthurWeasley 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

just noticed that somebody has already posted three of my last five drawings under review on their corresponding articles. Please remove them if necessary. ArthurWeasley 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Einiosaurus: the bottle cap opening dinosaur!" All three of these appear quite accurate. No objections here! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Look good to me! The Eini's front legs should sprawl a bit more (like the Lystrosaurus)... but it's hard to notice and I guess is technically still debatable, though one or two new papers coming out should put this to bed.Dinoguy2 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Will leave the Einosaurus as is then...ArthurWeasley 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Immature individual grazing on tasty Cretaceous flowers. Debivort 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
While technically it is very good, anatomically there are a lot of problems. Some of the ways the animals are bent/contorted are anatomically impossible (dinosaurs, like birds, had very rigid bodies, especially hadrosaurs, which were reinforced front-to-back with stiffening bony tendons). The tails, especially, would have broken if bent too far out of a flat-as-a-board pose. The tails were also pretty compressed laterally, and overall the animals look a bit too "fat". The leg on the juvenile is out of articulation at the hip and knee--the upper leg couldn't bend that far and the lower leg couldn't slant outward like that. The opposite problem with the rearing individual. The upper leg couldn't felx backward nearly wnough to create a human-like upright stance. While hadrosaurs might have been able to walk bipedally, it would be more a matter of lifting their front feet off the ground and retaining their horizontal posture than of rearing up very much.
I know perspective drawings like this (front on, odd angles, etc.) are very tough to get right (which is why I hardly ever try them, heh). On the more nitpicky side, the spinal ridges are too short (related to the fact that they're not compressed enough laterally, lambeosaurs had almost sail-like back verts) and the eye is a bit too big (Parasaurolophus has about the same proportions, not that the entire eyeball goes inside the hole of the sclerotic ring) [11]). Oh, one last thing (sorry to be so anal! ;)). The fingers are too seperate--hadrosaurs front feet were like "hooves", with all the fingers save one bound together in a "mitten", creating crescent-shaped footprints.Dinoguy2 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Aah, sad. Looks like back to square one. I think I should not try to be so extrapolatory with the posing, and just give the more standard views. Still, it's amazing that these things could function as stiffly as you are describing them. Debivort 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Dinoguy's pretty much said everything here. I'll just add that artistically, it's very good, but the poses look quite awkward; as Dinoguy says, side views are probably a lot easier. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Awkward? hehe. An animal that can't bend its tail 20° without breaking it - that's awkward. Sarcasm aside, I'll work on a new version. Debivort 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Now you know why they're extinct. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably quite awkward-looking in life, yes. A lot of dinosaurs would have to have moved in jerky, bird-like motions, I think, especially theropods. Birds and some non-bird dinosaurs were basically stiff boxes with equally stiff extremities pegged on. The arms and necks of most dinosaurs were probably the mot mobile parts (and the tails in families that did not have them stiffened, such as the extra-flexible whip-tails of some sauropods).Dinoguy2 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Just taking issue with Firsfron on encouraging you revert to side-views. No way man! Try out the other views, it may be more difficult, but it's well worth it. Don't fall in with the dinosaur art conventions! — John.Conway 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Olorotitan and Tsintaosaurus[edit]

I love hadrosaurs...ArthurWeasley 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both look fine to me. The Olorotitan is quite cool, don't see that one restored very often. Last I heard there's still some debate over whether the crest of Tsintaosaurus is real or a displaced nasal bone, though I'm not sure if any relevant papers have come out on it since Buffetaut & Tong-Buffetaut (1993) defended the presence of a crest, saying the same structure was found in two skeletons.Dinoguy2 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Olorotitan looks great; if only we had an image like that for all the better-known hadrosaurids!

Well just add the names in the most wanted images list. ArthurWeasley 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as Tsintaosaurus goes, in 2004, Godefroit et al. published The lambeosaurine dinosaur Amurosaurus riabinini, from the Maastrichtian of Far Eastern Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49(4): 585–618 (full PDF here), and, while they do not specifically mention the nasal crest, they discuss Tsintaosaurus throughout the work and refer to the Buffetauts' paper (it's listed in the reference section). I haven't seen anything more recent on this dinosaur. As far as the illustration goes, the caption can simply read "Tsintaosaurus depicted with nasal crest." (or something to that effect). Our current article already discusses the crest debate, anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all these info. Since I couldn't find any new info on the status of the nasal crest, I've chosen to go by the classic rendering of the animal (which reproduces as you probably noticed the exact pose of the skeleton as displayed in the Beijing National Museum, replica is displayed here).ArthurWeasley 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus and Hypsilophodon[edit]

Some classic old dinos. ArthurWeasley 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, you have truly outdone yourself with Scelidosaurus, Arthur. It's really artistically excellent. Scelido is one of my all-time favorite dinosaurs; the pose is, in my opinion, just striking. I would like to see the beak a bit more pointed, but this is just awesome. You got a really nice pose from that angle, and I don't know how you did it. Congratulations. One problem I can see developing is that we will now have four images for the Scelidosaurus page, which is really just a stub. I am now planning a major expansion so that this additional image can be incorporated into the page. The pose of Hypsilophodon also looks good. One worry I have, though, is about the head. At least on my monitor, the orbit, the eyesocket, appears empty. Could just be that my monitor is too dark. Also, it was my understanding that Hypsilophodon had "cheek pouches", whereas here, the face appears quite gaunt. It could be that my sources are just old... maybe a second opinion is needed here. The gaunt face, coupled with the dark eye socket, in my opinion make it look a bit like he's recently deceased. Is there a way you can "bring out" the eye a little more? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are excellent! I second Firsfron's comments on the Scelidosaurus, you've pulled off that perspective brilliantly. The Hypsie looks fine to me--it is a bit gaunt-looking, but this strikes me as more an artistic choice than an inaccuracy. I can see the small glint on the eye on my screen so it's apparent you've just gone with a dark-colored eye here, though with Firsfron's problem it might be a good idea to make the glint a little bigger (and maybe "lighten" the edges of the eyeball just a bit?). There is still controversy over whether or not ornithischians had fleshy, puch-like ("mammalian-style") cheeks or simply stretchy skin rear of the beak (the latter would result in the gaunt look you've given it). I've actually seen artists go so far as to have the "cheek" be composed of that inset jaw muscle/flap you always see restored on theropods (the name escapes me), so I thnk you're in the clear.Dinoguy2 13:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Scelidosaurus is one my favorite too. How I did it? Well, I've drawn it on a sunday morning when I was still fresh (don't have much of these) and spend a wee more time on it than the others (Comparatively, most of the sketches were done quite late in the evening after sending my kids to bed), that probably explains it. Hypsilophodon was a quickly made one, I concede. I can modify slightly its look if you want, no problem. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Drawing of Jinfengopteryx, after photos of the fossil, the non-reconstructed skeletal in the paper, and Scott Hartman's skeletal. Had to photoshop a bit to get rid of smudges, shadows, etc. Hope it doesn't look too wonky due to this...Dinoguy2 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I really love the detailed work you've done on the feathers, Dinoguy. This must have taken quite a bit of time. Thank you. As for the accuracy, clearly you know more than anyone here about feathered dinosaurs, so I won't comment on this aspect except to mention the scale appears to be very close to illustrations such as this. I don't think the photoshopping has left any wonky bits. In other words, looks great to me! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a quick photoshop job to fix a few details that were bothering me (snout and rear foot looked too robust).Dinoguy2 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Dinoguy, part of my artistic inspiration came from your drawings...ArthurWeasley 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm flattered! Glad I could help :D Dinoguy2 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus take 2[edit]

One good thing about profile views is that they make a size comparison figure very easy to generate. Debivort 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent, nice job! Yeah, the size charts are pretty simple to make. I'll probably go through my art folders and whip a few up for any longer articles that could use them.Dinoguy2 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be great, Dinoguy. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypsi again, Segisaurus, Sellosaurus, Thecodontosaurus[edit]

I've modified Hypsilophodon to a less gaunty face. The only known Segisaurus skeleton lacks the skull so I loosily based it on Coelophysis. Firs, you'll need to add some more entries to the list of the most wanted pictures (it's empty now).ArthurWeasley 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They all look fine to me--I like how the new eye came out on the Hypsie :) Only nitpick is that the Sellosaurus has one too few toes, I think (should have one dewclaw-like toe on each side of the three functional toes).Dinoguy2 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
These are all lovely, of course. My particular favorite is the Thecodontosaurus; you've really captured the enigmatic nature of this animal. Also, I will gladly come up with a new list; I didn't think you'd be finished quite so soon. You dinosaur artists are just too prolific! :) Expect a new list later today. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Scale diagrams[edit]

First batch. Any glaring problems?Dinoguy2 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice. You've chosen quite a tall man as a reference (seems to be 1m85-1m90)... Not that it matters. ArthurWeasley 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem may be the pose of that stock image, as the feet aren't in a flat lateral profile. If I adjusted the heels down to the bottom grid line it might be a bit more normal in height. I was gonig for a 1.85 m (6ft 1 in) figure, which is my height :)Dinoguy2 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Where does the Psittacosaurus image come from? The hind legs look really strange (of course, Psittaco really looked strange, so...) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That's this one [12]. The hind legs do look pretty skinny (theropodian even heh). I'll see if I can make them look a bit more normal in the diagram.Dinoguy2 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I guess we must be doing well re: illustrations if the most wanted genera are only known from skeletons like Noasaurus': [13]. Debivort 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good! Basing pictures on terrible remains is very fun for an artist, though, isn't it? I can't really complain about anything in the anatomy since there's no anatomy to complain about! ;) (Though most recent illustrations i've seen give it a more Masiakasaurus-like skull, since they were closely related.)Dinoguy2 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The length is correct, in terms of how long it is projected to be. The reason I requested this image is that many (or most) illustrations on-line still depict this animal with the now-discredited Velociraptor-like swiveling toe-claw. Sorry if this was really difficult. We still have many, many better known genera without illustrations, I assure you, Debivort! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, as DG suggested, the lack of constraint made it pretty easy to draw him. Version 2 here has a more Masiakasaurish skull. Debivort 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I can't see a difference between the two versions (not that version 1 was bad!). Maybe you uploaded incorrectly?Dinoguy2 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The files look to be what I intended. The difference is in the lower jaw which is more uniformly triangular and less "L" shaped, and the articulation point is further back. Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant about how it should look more like Masiakasaurus. Debivort 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. The main feature I meant was Masiakasaurus distinctive down-turned lower jaw tip with protruding teeth (probably an adaptation for fishing).Dinoguy2 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I guess my inclination is to keep the skull looking more generic, rather than add traits that might be false positives. That said, I'm happy to change it if you think that version would be preferable. Debivort 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sellosaurus, Stenopelix, Venaticosuchus[edit]

Added missing extra digits to Sellosaurus. Firs, your new list of the most wanted is somewhat challenging. I've drawn Stenopelix with the assumption that it was some kind of basal Pachycephalosaur. Since skull is unknown, I tried to make it appear as a primitive version of Pachyceph without the dome. Body shape is based on the skeletal reconstruction on the page. Did not find much info about Venaticosuchus either. I used the skull you pointed out at [14], rest of the body is based on the more famous Ornithosuchus. ArthurWeasley 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Artistically, these are, as usual, excellent. Venaticosuchus is known mostly from skull elements; in such cases, you can always just illustrate the head. The Ornithosuchidae are probably bipedal (Wikipedia's article on Venaticosuchus indicates it was quadrupedal, but I don't know where that info comes from). Skeletal reconstructions of Ornithosuchus such as this indicate a bipedal stance. The body of your Venaticosuchus looks short enough that it looks like it could walk on all fours or rear up on its hind legs, so I have no objections; dunno what Dinoguy thinks. As far as Stenopelyx goes, I apologize. Going by the skeletal reconstruction on, I assumed a full skeleton was known. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that Ornithosuchidae were strictly bipedal is debatable. The skeletal reconstruction you pointed out shows that the hind legs bones were not as sturdy as for instance the theropods and comparatively short. A bipedal reconstruction of the animal such as this shows that the animal must have been quite cumbersome if it has to go strictly on two feet. The head is quite big and the body quite long to be effectively counterbalanced by the tail for long period of time, that's why I have the feeling that they must have been only occasional bipeds but most often rest on 4 feet. This is of course a personal opinion and I won't challenge what experts would say. I can redraw a Venaticosuchus on two legs if you prefer (or just cut the head, this would be much easier :). ArthurWeasley 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No, no, don't redraw! I was just commenting that in your illustration, it looked like he ould go either way, which, is, IMO, ideal. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that the idea of bipedal rauisuchians has been pretty well debunked in recent years, but I'm not sure on the current thinking regarding ornithosuchids. I think the way you've drawn it is actually a very good comprimise, as it looksl ike it could be a faculative biped if it tried. This would be in-line with the possibility of partially-quadrupedal lagosuchians, which are a bit more advanced.Dinoguy2 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


it has been happening quite a lot arround here :P i am sorry for disapearing like that. I wanted to ask you. since the list of dinosaurs for the CD is already finished. i was thinking on going back to the normal alfabetical list. unless you have anything that you need done. if so please let me know.. once again sorry for disapearing LadyofHats 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

LadyofHats, it's good to have you back. I've seen your beautiful drawings and hope you will continue illustrating dinos for wikipedia. In order to coordinate efforts between different artists we have created a page at User:ArthurWeasley/To do list which has a list of the current most wanted illustrations. If you want to draw one of these you can sign up for it and let other people know that you are working or will be working on it not to duplicate efforts. Again, welcome back. ArthurWeasley 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Great thanks. i will take the Zalmoxes to start with :D LadyofHats 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're going in reverse alphabetical order now ;)? Note, that the list is here to help us decide what to do next but you are not strictly abide to choose from it. You can draw any dinosaur you fancy at the moment, just let the others know about it. ArthurWeasley 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Lady of Hats! Good to have you back! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[here]is the sketch -LadyofHats 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oh man is it huge!
It looks very good! Sauroposeidon is only known from four vertebrae, though. Did you want to do one of those blackoutline ones, or...? Another question: is it possible for you to draw a human shape in comparison for this one? That way, even though the look itself is somewhat speculative, at least the size itself could be perceived. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
life seems to not like me :P In any case, after sooo long.. i hope i can find time to work a bit more here. to answer your questions. i wasnt thinking on those as siluetes. but since you wanted one i made it :D. LadyofHats 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Looks great! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Another dinosaur known from very scrappy remains. ArthurWeasley 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to closely resemble the skeletal reconstruction here, so no accuracy issues for me. :) Enough fossils have been found to produce a composite skeleton that's about 50% complete; it's not like I requested Laornis or one of the tooth taxa! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! And yeah, nearly 50% complete is not exactly "scrappy" for a dinosaur ;) Dinoguy2 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of the skull and neck are missing, and there are only a few bones for the limbs. That's room for a lot of imagination. All we know is that it was probably related to Tenontosaurus so you give it a Tenontosaurus-like look, but what if it had frills or a crest or anything else out of "normal" for an iguanodont? After all Sauropods were all thought to be quite alike until the likes of Amargasaurus with its incredible sail, Shunosaurus with its club tail and Agustinia with its stegosaur-like spikes were discovered. But I agree that 50% complete is way more than a tooth taxon and "scrappy materials" may have been too strong a statement. Sorry about that. Question: of the 1300 and so genera listed, how many of them are actually known by more than 50% of the skeleton? ArthurWeasley 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely no need to apologise! Dinoguy possibly has better insights into this than I do, and I can't actually comment on exact percentages, but the Dinosaur Genera List claims 630 well-established names, and the rest are nomina dubia, preoccupied, rejected, nomina oblita (sp?), or junior synonyms. This, of course, assumes "well-established" means something like "known from a relatively complete skeleton", which may not be the case. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Here is the sketch. let me know if you hva no corrections to make the color version :D LadyofHats 12:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Zalmoxes dinosaur.png
Looks pretty good, only two issues I have--Zalmoxes should have three small fingers and two tiny ones [15], yours looks like it has four of equal size. Also, was the beak really that broad? I can't find any head-on views of the skull, but my guess is that it would be similar to Iguanodon [16]. Artistically this is one of your best, LadyoH. I really, really like the way you handled the skin texture with minimal drawn scales and lots of suggestive shading. Very cool! Dinoguy2 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
lol i forgot to place the text :P. anyway i just figured out how broad the beak was since all is so compact builded. also on the bone reconstruction it apears only with 4 fingers. if well is true the sizes didnt match. here is the final version with 5 fingers and thiner head. i also made the eye a bit smaller to remove the cute-factor thing.

i was thinking on doing the Aucasaurus next. LadyofHats 15:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fifth finger looks small enough that it was probably "incorporated" into the 4th, so an apparently 4-fingered version wouldn't really be a problem if digit 4 was fat enogh. The colored version looks really cool! Dinoguy2 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus and Volaticotherium[edit]

I came across the paper on the discovery of this early mesozoic gliding mammal (Volaticotherium) in the last issue of Nature before realizing that somebody has already made an entry about it on wikipedia. Things move so fast! The head is based on the sketch of the skull from the Nature paper. ArthurWeasley 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Volaticotherium is very cool! Matches u wuth the other restorations I've seen, at least. The Thescelosaurus has a few problems though, probably due to the very tough perspective you chose. The arms, especially, look "bent out of shape" and asymmetrical--the right shoulder blade appears to be at an odd angle, and the left arm emerges from the torso at the same spot the top of the shoulder blade would be on the right side, making it appear twice as long as the rgiht arm (remember that on most dinosaurs, the arms effectively emerge from just above the belly, it's not until you get up toward aves that they get a descent way up the side of the animal). Dinoguy2 13:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you've noticed that too. Now that you say it, it is even more obvious: a typical case of a perspective view going wrong. In fact, the left shoulder was meant to appear much lower and have the arm at an angle but I admit I did a very bad job on the shading on that part. No worries, I'll correct for that. Thanks! ArthurWeasley 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
On the thumbnail version, it is hardly noticable, but zooming in, it looks as though he's had a tangle with T. rex that pulled his arm out of its socket. It is otherwise a very lovely image. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I love the Volaticotherium image. I have a very subtle observation that barely worth noting. The cheeks are very rodent-like or ungulate -like. The type where when an animal opens its mouth it covers up the posterior dentition. This is the sort of thing observed when there's a strong distinction between posterior and anterior dentition (such as in ungulates and rodents) usually witha diastema, in animals well adapted for chewing. In insectivores the mouth tends to be wider and when it is open you can see in the sides of the mouth (dog-style, think lemur, hedgehog, or opossum). This is as opposed to horse-style where you can see the front teeth only and there's no side opening. --Aranae 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How about these, now? Volaticotherium less rodent-like and new Thescelo. ArthurWeasley 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
i think i know where the problem in the Thescelosaurus is coming from. If i got it right your main resource for your drawing isthis pic. From what i can see it is the neck and chest what is giving you more problems, you will see that solving that part will let the arms problem solve by itself. look on this other image and you will realise how big the shoulder muscles are, this is missing on your image. i took the time to modify a bit your image to show you what i mean (hope you dont mind).here is what i did. i not only aded the chest, i also changed the shadows on the left arm. and made the leg a bit less broad. since in this angle the tummy gets on the way. ( you still would have to look at the feet) in this image you can compare both. i hope you dont mind i changed your image. i just wanted to show you what i saw.LadyofHats 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, looks much better now. Thanks. Seems that you are using a software to be able to modify images, whereas I only have paper, a pencil and a scanner (can't erase as easily). Would you mind finishing the Thescelosaurus? (would be like a collaborative work...:).ArthurWeasley 04:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
in any case you are far more faster with your pencil than i am with my computer. the image is uploaded.LadyofHats 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Volaticotherium - very nice. --Aranae 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pachycephalosaurus and Pteranodon[edit]

I always wanted to draw Pachycephalosaurus. Here is my first attempt. ArthurWeasley 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pachy looks fantastic--I think any problems you had in the Thescelo with the arm/shoulder/breast area are completely fixed in this image. The Pteranodon looks good as well, though the rear attatchment point and shape of the brachiopatagium doesn't reflect my own opinion on how it looked in pterodactyloids (I'm a Jim Cunningham supporter ;) ). I like the Unwin-esque forward-pointing pteroids, too--while I'm not so sure if that idea holds water aerodynamically, it's certainly a valid depiction based on a published source. Oh, one small innaccuracy there: the fingers on all (I think) pterosaurs get larger towards the wing finger. So digit 1 is smallest, digit 2 is next biggest, then 3, then the wing. Yours seems to have the opposite configuration. Dinoguy2 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do a little bit more studies on Pteranodon. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Allosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Orodromeus[edit]

Some more studies of perspective. ArthurWeasley 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, I'll let Dinoguy comment on the theropods, as long as he's available. I will say they're nicely done, but I'll let someone else comment on the accuracy, because, frankly, Dinoguy does it best. Orodromeus...It is a lovely image, but I worry the eye may be just a little too high and/or too small. You can see in this skull reconstruction of its close relative Hypsilophodon that the orbit (eye hole) is fairly high on the head, presumably to watch for predators, and is roughly 1/4th the width of the thickest part of the skull (if that makes any sense) but in your image, Orodromeus has a very small eye mounted at the very top of the skull. Here is an image of an Orodromeus skeleton, and although the angle is bad, you can see the orbit appears quite large. If you've found a better image which indicates the eye would be small, please please please feel free to post it here and allay my concerns. Also, while this has nothing to do with accuracy, your image, though lovely, gives no sense of the size of Orodromeus. It was tiny; among the smallest of dinosaurs. For scale against the rather small Troodon. Maybe you could draw a fern (or something) in the background that would give some idea as to the scale? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the Orodromeus has been made from a picture of the skeleton from the Museum of the Rockies (where it is chased by Troodon). The new version has bigger eyes placed lower. As for scale, how about making a size diagram? I'll do the ferns if you really insist but not sure that this will actually give an idea of the size of the dinosaur (depends on how big is the fern, they come in different sizes). ArthurWeasley 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Allosaurus looks very good--I really like the perspective and the shading on it, too. The Giga looks a bit 'off' to me for some reason. The perspective actually came out very well, but I think the skull seems a bit too allosaurid and not carcharodontosaurid. It should be bigger, with the perspective taken into account it should be alsomst the same size as the torso. The tall lacrimal horns also seem a bit too allosaurid, though i'm not sure if they're technically incorrect (Giga has a ton of bumpy rugosity all along the top of its skull, so if anything you've probably got more artistic freedom to draw crazy horns and bumps up there). Also, on both drawings the lower jaw looks way too thin--compre to this photo [17]. The Allo's isn't that noticable, though, and I think overall that one is ready to be in the article. Dinoguy2 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The new Orodromeus looks great, Arthur. No objections from me. I certainly do not insist on adding any ferns or anything; I was just trying to think of a way to depict the the small size of the animal. Of course, as you say, a scale diagram would solve that issue nicely. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Kentrosaurus and Stagonolepis[edit]

Two more. ArthurWeasley 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good! I love the scute work on the Stag, and both looks accurate as far as I can tell (don't have time at the moment to break out skeletons to double check, but they look fine to me). Dinoguy2 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I really like your Kentrosaurus; the transition from spikes to plates is particularly nice. Good work! :) The aetosaur appears to closely resemble the diagrams given at the Paleos Vertebrate site. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Udanoceratops and Ceratosaurus[edit]

Ooh, my first double offering. Watch out Arthur, I'm hot on your tail! Debivort 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Udanoceratops looks really cool, and accurate as far as I know. The Ceratosaurus does too, save for the shape of the horns--they're a little too, well "horn-like". The horns of ceratosaurus, at least on the nose, were broad and flat, and should really be called crests. The ones over the eyes (lacrimal horns) are a bit pronounced and forward-pointing compared to what's preserved [18], but I think they're within the range of artistic license, as they would have been exaggerated by keratin in life. Dinoguy2 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
New Ceratosaurus with crestier protuberances. Debivort 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I think the Ceratosaurus may be your best one yet, Debivort. I'm not sure if it's the coloring or the pose, but it comes off very striking. If you can somehow incorporate Dinoguy's suggestions without changing the rest of the image, we will have one really great image!
I think there are problems with the Udanoceratops, though. The body is fine, but there are some serious issues with the head. For one, the eye on the right seems "off"; it appears to be directly below the right parietal fenestra (the pinkish area on the frill), while the eye on the left is not below the left fenestra. This gives your Udano a bit of a strange look. Additionally, the mandible looks off. Udanoceratops had a huge rounded lower jaw artist's impression here (the actual known skull is not complete; the frill is missing). The mandible was nearly as thick (maybe 2/3rds?) as the rest of the skull; some people have likened it to a nutcracker. On your image, the mandible does not appear very thick, possibly due to the perspective. The mouth also somehow looks off. The frill of Udanoceratops isn't known, but was probably very small, based on relatives like Leptoceratops (with almost no frill at all), and Prenoceratops (ditto). It appears to me your frill may be too large.
I would actually prefer a side view on this dinosaur, as Udanoceratops' most distinctive feature is its huge lower jaw, and that can't really be seen very well when it's facing the viewer. Sorry to pile on here. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers Firs. The left eye was in the right place on the image, I'm pretty sure, but what wasn't clear was the ridge formed betwen it's position and the right parietal fenestra. I've tried to accentuate that in this version. I've tried to clean up the beak a bit, but if you can clarify "off" that will help. The frill is much reduced, and the jaw expanded. But, I had earlier versions of the jaw sketched looking bigger, and didn't keep them because of the perspective, so most of it's looking small comes from that I believe. I think a solution might be this version of the illustration plus the above diagram which shows the skull in perspectiveless profile (based on the link you indicated). Debivort 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! The skull diagram is awesome and the full body sketch looks much improved! Thank you! :) Now that you mention it, you're exactly right: the eye itself wasn't in the wrong place; there just needed to be a little more definition around that ridge. The frill is mostly open to interpretation, since it hasn't been found, but since its closest relatives had very tiny frills, I think this new version with a shorter frill makes more sense. Anyway, these get my vote; dunno what anyone else thinks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The new stuff looks great Debivort! The change to the ceratosaur is subtle but a big improvement, I think. Good job! (I do have a little concern about copyright issues with your fairly faithful reproduction of Jaime Headden's skull drawing--it would be helpful to find some kind of policy on that type of thing, or email Jaime to make sure it's ok...) Dinoguy2 21:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah good point. I'm not versed in the technicalities of copyright when it comes to images based on other images. Do you know how to reach the creator? I'm happy to email him or her. Debivort 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about that, either. Looks like Jaime Headden can be reached at qilongia(at)yahoo(dot)com . Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sent him an email. Debivort 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've heard back that we are welcome to use the vector version, and I've added a link to his original and an attribution in the image description page. Debivort 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sweet! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! Size chart. I'm going to go ahead and add this set to articles. Debivort 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


here is the sketch. any coments are welcome-LadyofHats 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aucasaurus dinosaur.png
Very cool looking! Only problem is the finger count--carnotaurines only had 4, three primaries and a fourth reduced to a backward-pointing spur. Dinoguy2 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm nothing close to qualified to critique other images, but the necks look like they have two segments - as if they are hinging on cylindrical projection of the torso. Is that the way it should be DinoGuy? Debivort 03:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
i know what you mean but that will disapear with the color and the scales, the lines are just indications for the wrinkles in the is my source.LadyofHats 10:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow!! thats all I have to say! --Dudo2 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Face-devil-grin.svg
ok it is done.LadyofHats 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good! The one in the back looks suitable for a size comparison chart, which may be interesting since this was a deceptively small dinosaur.Dinoguy2 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some redo[edit]

Pteranodon Cunningham style, Giganotosaurus with bigger head and thicker lower jaw and Thescelosaurus again. Sorry, LadyofHats, I've taken your excellent advices into account but on second thoughts, the breast you added to the drawing was a tat too exaggerated and human-like for my taste so I've made them less apparent. Otherwise, thank you again for the improvement and all your hard work.ArthurWeasley 08:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

do not worry for me, i just wanted to show you where the oversized arm came from. LadyofHats 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the new Giga and Thescelo look amazing! Well done. I think you may have misinterpreted Cunningham's hypothesis on pterosaur patagia, however... in fact removing the uropatagium completely would be just about the opposite of his stance ;) Pterosaurs certainly had uroptagaia (membrane between the legs and tail). JC's theory is that the uropoatagium was very extensive, going essentially from ankle to ankle, possibly incorporating the "webbing" pterosaurs had between their toes (or not--the membranes between the toes could have been useful in fine pitch control if they were free, like little rudders). The most radical pert of his idea is that in flying position, the legs would be swept as far forward as possible, together with the uropatagia creating a hind wing. This is best illustrated in some of John conways pterosaur paintings and skeletals [19]. Also note JC's idea of the "wing filet", with a narrow-chord brachiopatagium down to about the elbow, at which point it veers back and connects with the upper leg. Obviousl though, there are as many different ideas about patagia shape and attatchment points as there are pterosaur researchers. Darren Naish provides a pretty good summary of the situation with cites [20]. Dinoguy2 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The uropatagium is actually there but too thin. I should make it bigger and more apparent. I'll certainly look more closely about the shape of the brachiopatagium. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The new Thescelosaurus, with his arm firmly back in its socket, looks great! I have a feeling User:J. Spencer will be pleased. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


siluete then :)LadyofHats 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

this is one of those cases with tons of illustrations but no skeleton. would you prefer a siluete or you want to risk a whole image?-LadyofHats 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any skeleton on-line, either. There may be books which illustrate this one; I don't have one which does; there are indications it looked very much like T. rex, but smaller; however, the "Therizinosaur" arm material which is no longer included in this genus may in fact belong to it after all.[21] It seems to me this genus is a bit of a mess. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see this 'till now. Looks good to me. :) At least, from what I can tell, without a good skeletal. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Bust of Tsaagan, based on the photos in the paper. Dinoguy2 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsaagan mangas
Tsaagan mangas
You beat me on that one, Dinoguy, I've just read the Norell's paper and was about to finish the sketch! ;) No worries, I'll modify it and make it a different genus of dromaesaur. Your sketch looks exactly like the skull photos on the paper so it is highly accurate as far as I can tell and artistically well done (IMO, better than Nick Frankfurt's restoration). ArthurWeasley 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Arthur; the image looks really neat. It will be a great addition to the article! However, on my monitor, the clean-up edits, which were made presumably to remove smudges, show up very clearly and are a little distracting. They entirely encircle his head, too, meaning you can't really look anywhere without seeing them. Would it be possible, Dinoguy, to clean up the clean-up? The last image with clean-up didn't appear to be nearly as noticeable; did you bump up the opacity or something? Sorry for being kinda picky. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a version with the clean up cleaned up, and darkened a bit in the mid-tones. I'm worried about the signature though. It might get the image flagged with a {{watermark}} template. How would you feel about removing it DG2? Debivort 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning it! It was really strange, as the first version I uploaded looked clean in PS but extemely smudgy in Wikipedia. I cleaned it even futher and it looked ok in wiki. My constrast setting in my browser must be messed up or something. Feel free to remove the sig--I included it primarily for the version to go on my personal site. Dinoguy2 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you using a laptop? The angle of the LCD can really change the gamma ballance. Actually, I find it a useful took for looking for near-white smudges - just angle the screen forward. Thanks for being flexible re: the signature. Here's the new version. Debivort 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah, edit conflict there--I replaced the original with your new verison and no sig. Out of cutiosity, any more artifacts on this one? I'm using an LCD monitor with a pretty good viewing angle, but I may have to readjust the settings. Dinoguy2 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • looks good to me. Debivort 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I also see no more artifacts. Thanks all. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I ran into this problem when I was messing with user:Ballista's museum photos: the image looked great on a flatscreen, but sometimes very dark on a CRT. I was mildly horrified when I saw a few at home on my CRT. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to keep that in mind. I may have to fix up my Jinfengopteryx as well--if I look at a severe angle I can see plenty of cleanup marks on that one too. Dinoguy2 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dromaeosaurus, Jeholornis, Cynognathus[edit]

Sketch of Tsaagan was turned into dromaeosaurus by modifying the shape of the head. Jeholornis based on skeletal by Scott Harmann. Cynognathus based on various skeletals and skulls found on the web. ArthurWeasley 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Very cool stuff. I like the angle on the Tsaa- er, Dromaeosaurus a lot. The Cynognathus also looks very good, and you nailed that pose--lateral view but still kind of dynamic looking. The Jehelornis is very good except for one area--the wing. I notice that the middle finger is a bit short compared to the skeletal you used (should be a bit longer than the skull), which isn't a big deal, but there's something weird going on with the attatchment of the wing feathers. In birds and other maniraptorans, the primary feathers are anchored to digit 2. The odd thing in your drawing is that the primaries don't seem to be anchored to anything... except that almost pterosaurian structure you have stemming from the middle of the hand. Should be pretty easy thing to fix though, I imagine--the arc of all your primary feathers point straight towards digit 2 anyway. Also, this isn't a huge deal, but given its phylo position it should probably also have a feathered propatagium connecting the wrist to the shoulder. Still, it is very cool looking overall! Dinoguy2 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Nipponosaurus dinosaur.png

here is the sketch. let me know any changes :DLadyofHats 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall they look very good--the detail on the foreground one is especially cool looking. However they do suffer from the same problem as Debivort's first Lambeosarus image, the tails are way too flexible (they actually remind me a bit of the hyper-flexible whip-tails of diplodocids ;)). Hadrosaurid tails, especially derived lambeosaurins, were stiff as boards. The fingers on the front feet also look a little too "distinct"--hadrosaur front feet were basically hooves with all but the outermost small finger bound together in a "mitten" (this is a pretty good example [22]). Dinoguy2 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

i just made the tails that way to aboid making a long long image. in any case is it this way right. or they would not move it to the side either?. happy holidays for everyone. -LadyofHats 15:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That looks great! I really like the way you did the scales, and the tail looks stiff enough to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ok it is finished. i hope you like it. if you want to still change anything just let me know.-LadyofHats 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeholornis,Eudimorphodon, Yunnanosaurus[edit]

Jeholornis wing fixed + one pterosaur and one prosauropod. ArthurWeasley 08:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the new Jeholornis vs. the old one, and I don't see the difference. Can you point it out, Arthur? Your Yunnanosaurus seems just fine to me: the illustrations on-line seem to usually illustrate a slightly thinner fellow, but this may just be artistic licence. No objections from me. I cannot comment on the accuracy of Eudimorphodon. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The new Jeholornis looks better (the propatagium came out perfect!), though the feathers are still free of digit 2. The second finger, especially in early avians, would have been basically invisible under all the feathers, and the primaries attatched to it all the way up to the claw (a new study on dromaeosaurid hand motion shows that even there, digit 2 was basically immobile, probably present only to support the wing). Just to illustrate what I mean, I defaced you drawing a bit ;) [23] Incidentally, I really, really like the way the overall style of the wing came out in the new version--I don't have the old one to compare, but whatever you did with the more prominant, contrasty coverts this time, keep it up! Bird wing anatomy is tricky, but I think you're close to nailing it. The Eudimorphodon looks, except for those pesky patagia... the brachiopatagia probably connected lower on the leg, at least in rhamphorhynchoids. Checking Unwin's book, he has them connected to the ankles with a pretty broad chord. I disagree with him on the ankle connection in pterodactyloids, though new specimens might prove me wrong, but the evidence in basal pterosaurs for extensive patagia is pretty good. The uropatagium should also most likely extend between the long inner toes to the tail, basiacally from foot to foot with the tail connected in between. Unfortuantely this would pretty much prevent the legs from extending downward like that while the arms are extended upward. Eudimorphodon would have been overall much more bat-like in configuation than advanced pterosaurs. Here's a good general guide to use for basal pterosaur wings [24] (I don't know of any evidence for a tail rudder in Eudimorphodon so don't sweat that part). I agree with Firsfron--the Yunnanosaurus looks excellent, can't find any nits to pick there! Dinoguy2 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Protoceratops, Ornitholestes, Gozilla and more[edit]

Merry Christmas to all of you! ArthurWeasley 08:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What a lovely Christmas present! And what a rogue's gallery! Looks like most major clades of reptilia are represented here! How long did this many illustrations take you? Jeholornis/Shenzouraptor with its finger fixed, Ornitholestes without a reversed hallux, a very nice Protoceratops (nice work on the jugal bone/spike), and assorted other Sauropsids, which I don't dare comment on accuracy. On Gracilisuchus, I think the indentation around the antorbital fenestra looks really nice. Can't comment on the pose. Thanks for your very nice work, Arthur. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How long did it take? About 30 minutes/image. Some took a little longer like the Dakosaurus. ArthurWeasley 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Everything looks great! The new versions of old pieces are much improved, can't find any nits to pick this time! The Shonisaurus seems based on a somewhat outdated model, however. Shoni is now known to be a faitly primitive shastasaurid, which were much more slender than advanced ichthyosaurs. They lacked dorsal fins and the dorsal tail fin was not as well developed as the ventral one. This [25] seems to be a more recent restoration to go by. Glad to see a rhynchosaur added to our picture pool! The lesser known sauropsid groups are pretty cool but most people would have no idea what they look like. Getting at least one good image for each major group would be a worthwhile side project, IMHO. Dinoguy2 22:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Shonisaurus, Dromiceiomimus and misc reptiles[edit]

Redid Shonisaurus, Dromiceiomimus based on skeletal on, Erythrosuchus based on [26]etc. ArthurWeasley 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't comment on the sundry reptiles (though they're great artistically!), but the new shonisaur looks fantastic. The Dromiciomimus suffers from a neck that's a bit too short and hands in an incorrect pronated position, though (this is due to the skeletal--while that site is good overall, it looks like many of the skeletals suffer from these kind of common errors). Your drawing seems to add a dewclaw that's not present on the skeletal. If I remember correctly, ornithomimids lacked digit 1 completely. Dinoguy2 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bummer, I knew there was something wrong with the Dromiceiomimus but couldn't figure exactly what. Think the length of the neck is about right though if compared with the above mentioned skeletal. That's only my first attempt on an ornithomimid so can hope the next one will be better ;) I still have an oviraptosaur and an ankylosaur to draw and then will have pretty much covered all the major types of dino I think...Will probably then do some of the odd ones, the likes of Agustinia, Herrerasaurus, Rugops, ... ArthurWeasley 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, looking forward to your new stuff! The neck length thing is basd on my own recollection of GSP's skeletals, but I don't have any of his books on hand at the moment so I could be wrong, and 'beefing up' the body with feathers could also be making the neck appear relatively shorter. Dinoguy2 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chirostenotes, Brachytrachelopan, etc..[edit]

Dromiceiomimus redone, Chirostenotes based on Scott Hartman's skeletal and the short necked sauropod with an unpronounceable name. ArthurWeasley 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The new Dromicei looks very good! Can't comment on the Chasmat, and the Brachy looks very good... except the head, which looks very ornithischian to me. Dicraosaurids were stegosaur mimics, but I'd make the tip of the snout a bit morr rounded so as not to imply the presence of a beak. You also don't see cheecks on non-ornithischians, and I'm not sure their presence in sauropods is very well supported. The Chirostenotes is excellent... except for those wings! Same problem as the Jeholornis--the hand, the primary component of the wing, completely lacks feathers. This is especially problematic in oviraptorosaurs, since in the only feather impressions we have from them (the various species of Caudipteryx), long, modern-type feathers exist only on the hand and not on the arm, so it's very unlikely that any caenaganthoid would lack true primary feathers. Just for clarity's sake, here are a few handy wing anatomy diagrams: [27] [28]. Dinoguy2 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been unable to find any good skeletal reconstructions of Chasmatosaurus in any of the usual places, and illustrations vary, from animals with a short snout and upright pose, to those which have a sprawling gait and long crocodilian-style jaw. Proterosuchus (the name it was formerly known as) also displays a lot of variation from image to image. Do we have a skeletal? Finally, this site indicates the animal had five toes on each foot, while your illustration appears to show only four on the hind feet. The site could be wrong, though; I haven't conducted a very thourough search. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
On the Brachytrachelopan, I might make the neural arches form less of a "sail" and more of a muscular hump. More buffalo, less pelycosaur, if you see what I mean. Also, the tail should be longer, as in Dicraeosaurus. And finally, I think the head here's looks a little too ornithopod. Though the skull's unknown, it's likely very near that of Dicraeosaurus. But I do like it, otherwise.--Nar'eth 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, folks, new versions have been uploaded replacing the old ones. Chirostenotes with primary feathers on the hands (used the same trick than for Jeholornis ;). Should I get rid of the secondary altogether? Brachytrachelopan with longer whip tail, hump like neural arches, and a more dicraeosaurid look. I however kept the nostrils low on the snout as for diplodocus. And yes, Chasmatosaurus had 5 toes (missed one). Couldn't find any skeletal on the web, although a skull of the related Archosaurus is at [29]. The shape of the skull is mainly based on Steve Kirk's reconstruction. All the reconstructions I've seen show a rather long snout. Also added two pterosaurs.ArthurWeasley 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thumbs up on the new Brachytrachelopan.--Nar'eth 15:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
New versions look great! Don't worry about secondaries on Cheiro--I think the nesting oviraptorid postioning implies the presence of secondaries, so their absebce in Caudipteryx is either secondary or an artifact of preservation (the AMNH model shown on the article here does have them). The Jeholopterus looks fantastic (based on the AMNH model?). The Pterodaustro also looks good, especially the skull. If I had to nitpick, I'd say the upper arms look a bit wimpy for a flying animal, and the hands should point backwards more when contacting the ground, as in ctenochasmatid footprints (IIRC digit 1 points prettmy much straight out laterally, digit 3 points straight backward). But those are very minor issues. Dinoguy2 17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you added the fifth toe to Chasmatosaurus, so, as I still haven't found a good skeletal reconstruction, I obviously have no valid objection. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Small fix on Pterodaustro and a sketch of the skiny basal archosauriform with a big head, based on skeletal by Jaime Headden [30] and skull by Benton [31]. And yes the Jeholopterus was based on the reconstitution at the AMNH (I've seen the exhibit, very nice).ArthurWeasley 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The color you used for Scleromochlus is artistically very stimulating, Arthur. You've generally used very muted colors on earlier images. This is a pleasant change, in part, I think, because it's such a small animal. I think the head closely resembles that of Headden's reconstruction, but the rear end does not closely resemble that of Headden's reconstruction, or that of Benton's, either. On Headden's reconstruction, look at the sacral vertebrae. They barely protrude above the ilium. Same is true for the Benton reconstruction. On yours, the thickest part of the body is beyond the hip, which isn't shown in either the old-style or new reconstruction. Sorry. :( Firsfron of Ronchester 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Easily fixed (made it too fat on the belly!). How about now? Also added Euparkeria. ArthurWeasley 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The Sleromochlus looks good, though still a tad thick around the pelvis, I really like the look of the head. I'm not sure what the hand position situation is in basal archosaurs like this--the fingers might need to point toward the viewer when on all fours, or the arms be splayed more, though it's hard to tell if the elbow is pointed at the viewer or not. If it is, the hand pose is fine (my understanding is that no reptiles at all can pronate, except in a few derived cases, and the reason the hands point forward in lizards and such is due to the extreme splaying of the forelimbs). Speaking of hand position, the Pterodaustro's looks the same to me... I can't seem to find pics online, but the hnds literally point straight backwards, with digit 1 out to the side. Yours appears to still be oriented with digit 1 facing front. The Euparkeria looks pretty good, though it should be narrower around the hips. All my skeletals have the torso looking almost like a cheetah--widest around the shoulders, then a graceful curve back to narrow hips. this also makes it very front-heavy--I doubt it could have jumped up like that without a good hard push off the ground! Overall it doesn't seem 'long' enough to me... Eupark reminds me of a cross between a croc and a lizard, sort of slender with those big, long feet/toes... yours reminds me a bit more of a rauisuchian :\ Dinoguy2 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
How about now? :P ArthurWeasley 07:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The third Scleromochlus looks good to me; dunno what anyone else thinks. It appears to closely resemble the skeletal reconstruction, near as I can tell. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)