Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Archives: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[4], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews). Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page: Criterion sufficient for using an image: If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria sufficient to remove an image: Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Brontoscorpio chasing a Cephalaspis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Click here to submit a new image for review Images in review Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus Size Comparisons I created this size comparison of Ichthyosaurus a long time ago, but I have finally uploaded it. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC) I have also created this size chart for Eurhinosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I do not know much about ichthyosaurs, but they look good. Super Ψ Dro 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I'll go add the Ichthyosaurus, but I would like to have addition confirmation on the Eurhinosaurus, because I'm not so sure about that one. Does anyone specialize on ichthyosaurs? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Request: Erettopterus and Mixopterus size diagram Erettopterus Mixopterus I would need a size chart for both since I am going to expand them. The largest species of Erettopterus is E. osiliensis (90 cm), and the smallest is E. globiceps (9 cm). There is a larger species, E. gigas, of 250 cm, but this is not completely safe and it would be better not to add it. The largest species of Mixopterus was M. simonsoni (75 cm), and the smallest was M. multispinosus (40 cm). Images for the silhouettes: [5] and [6]. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC) I'll take these. I've already got a silhouette for Erretopterus, so that will be quick to make. I also have always wanted to make a size chart for Mixopterus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Erettopterus is done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks, but the image has an error, you have put twice "osiliensis" instead of "globiceps". Super Ψ Dro 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Should be fixed now... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Finished the Mixopterus. Tricky because of no exact dorsal view. I sit okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, it looks good! Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC) I added E. grandis, although I'm fairly suspicious of it. I also am in the process of correcting the filename. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC) How come the article states Mixopterus kiaeri was the largest species, which contradicts the diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Well, I do not know, but in the document from where I took the sizes it says that M. kiaeri was 65 cm in length. Perhaps the one who wrote that was confused or M. simonsoni was previously included in M. kiaeri. Anyways, I deleted that from the article. Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Updated Mammuthus Size Comparison Old Mid New Hi guys, I'm no expert with (stinkin') mammals, but I decided to create a new (SVG) size chart for Mammuthus, as the current one is a PNG and the sizes aren't totally clear (no grid), and the old one is a JPG! I based the skeletals on Laramendi (2016). What do you guys think? (I have not restored M. trogontherii or M. primigenius with their extensive hair in this image, but I can see what I can do if that was the wrong move.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Hmmm, I never saw the point of size comparisons where animals of similar size overlap each other this much. It is very hard to appreciate their full lengths in that way. The new silhouettes look kind of strange too, very skinny, with tusks seemingly coming out of the trunks. It seems to be a result of the "incision" for the mouths being much longer than in the original skeletal silhouettes of the paper. Why not just take the silhouettes directly from the paper? The human too, which again, looks less cartoonish. I think it would maybe be better to just add a grid to the existing png image or make an svg version of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I'll remake this as a new file sometime, but from my understandind, mammoths are measured by shoulder height, right? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I think most quadrupedal mammals are. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC) I think the sizes need a double-check. I noticed the size of the southern mammoth is a bit off, as it's shoulder height is a bit under of what Larramendi (2016) estimated it to be, but the others might also be a bit off. Also, on the deviantart page of Larramendi, you can see the southern mammoth in the more regular pose present in most of the skeletals in the paper, and the proportions seem to be a bit different than in this size comparison picture. Palaeoloxodon Species Scale Chart Carrying on the elephant theme; Here is a link comparing three species of Palaeoloxodon. [7] I have currently kept in the fragmentary femur specimen of P.namadicus but greyed it out. I'll mention its uncertainty in the image description. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) The colours are all very similar, more contrasting ones would be useful. An indication of what the greyed-out individual is in the legend would also be useful. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC) I've adjusted the colours, [8] I've decided to remove the larger P. namadicus specimen; I'll hold off until it's better described. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Request: size diagrams for all palaeo FAs and GAs Ok, so we are almost done with the size diagrams for all dinosaur GAs, but I noticed that there are a lot of other palaeontology articles that need diagrams too... So I'll try to list them all here, feel free to add. Some animals are maybe not suited, having no published overall size estimates or being too small. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Livyatan - perhaps show next to a modern sperm whale as well. Cryptoprocta spelea - perhaps show next to a modern fossa as well. Archaeoindris Dinocephalosaurus I finally GOT AROUND TO UPLOADING THIS!!!!! What do you think? The silhouette's pretty old, so it might need updating. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC) The front limb seems like it may be a bit too far back? FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC) It might just be the position, but I'll look into this sometime. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Brancasaurus Brygmophyseter Zygophyseter Tiktaalik Here's the first one up, Tiktaalik. What do you think? Dinocephalosaurus my take until Wednesday, since it's a pretty old image. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Looks good to me, but I'm not really an expert on fish... FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Batrachotomus Arktocara Euchambersia I have charts for Tiktaalik and Dinocephalosaurus, I'll upload those whenever I have the chance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Pinging Steveoc 86 Paleocolour PaleoGeekSquared DaCaTaraptor Gamma 124, in other words, everyone who contributed a size chart this year. Sorry if I missed anyone. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Here are two more articles that I intend to get to GA and FA, but which do not have proper/any size diagrams yet, so I thought they would be relevant in this section too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Thylacosmilus Thalassodromeus Here are size comparisons of Brygmophyseter and Livyatan: Brygmophyester Brygmophyseter Livyatan Livyatan Feel free to make suggestions or even edit the images if you want to Gamma 124 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Dunkleosteus77 might want to take a look, being our fossil whale expert. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC) I’m assuming the person’s around 6 feet, so the Brygmophsyeter on the far left looks accurate, the other one seems a little big for the average size. Why is the smaller Livyatan approximation a modern sperm whale silhouette? Are the two modern sperm whales the biggest recorded above and the average size below?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC) The only difference between both Brygmophyseter pics is the presence of grid lines, the colours and the file format. An yes, the larger sperm whale represents the longest reliable measurement, while the smaller one represents the average male length. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Looks good. By the way, where’d the silhouettes of the Livyatan come from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Gamma 124, do you wanna go ahead and add them or should I? I prefer the black silhouettes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply. Here's the original drawing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Livyathan.jpg. You're free to add them if you think they look good enough. I'll add them in the Portuguese Wikipedia then. Gamma 124 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Gamma 124, Ornitholestes has created a new image of Livyatan. It seems to be more accurate, but I am kind of dubious about the dorsal fin: [1]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Well, the dorsal fin does seem kinda fishy... However, the dwarf sperm whale does have a similar fin, but not as dramatic as this one. And Brygmophyseter (the main reference) doesn't seem to have it. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC) You made the larger Livyatan to be 17 m long instead of 17.5 m (the actual upper end of the estimates) Also, the largest reliable record is 20.5 m for sperm whales, not 21. Uh... it is 20,5 m long. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I had a conversation with User:Ornitholestes, and he said that about the Livyatan size comparison here: "See for example the current Livyatan size chart on wikipedia, which someone based on my old reconstruction by just scaling its silhouette to 17.5m and 13.5m respectively. The problem is, a 13.5m Livyatan would be proportioned completely differently from a 17.5m one, because these are two estimates for the same specimen, with the same fossil remains, namely a 3m skull, irrespective of the different conjectural proportions and the resulting total length. We can’t just scale the same picture to both lengths and call it a day." After reading that, I was searching Livyatan size comparisons on the net, and I found this one: https://namufile.alphawiki.org/6b9245d8db3971ca6001753a2613c44d5a3debca.jpg It's made by a deviantart user with the username of bLAZZE92. I asked User:Paleocolour on deviantart if he would be able to ask for a license from bLAZZE92, as he gave Palaecolour a license for his Daeodon size comparison, but he haven't responded yet. However, I think the usage of these silhouettes would improve the current size comparison, as it takes into account that it has to have different proportions for the different estimates. Titanoboa compared to modern snakes Here's a size comparison I did, showing Titanoboa cerrejonensis, Broghammerus/Malayopython/Python reticulatus and two Eunectes murinus. Should I remove the 6,7 m anaconda? Or any other suggestions? Gamma 124 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not too big on snake knowledge, so I'll just comment on anatomy/aesthetic tips. I'd suggest smoothing the outlines of the snakes, especially Titanoboa has some strange lumps on its dorsal side, Broghammerus also seems to be lacking a head. You should also probably add grid lines, and some colors could also make the image more interesting, although that's more of an optional thing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC) I think it could benefit a lot from a bit more white space, it's very cramped and a bit hard to look at right now. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Did it. Gamma 124 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC) I think you should use a 6.95 m long reticulated python, as there was a 6.95 m long specimen reliable measured, while others are questionsble, including Medusa by looking at pictures of it. Macropredators Hi guys, I saw this chart on Commons, and thought that it might be kinda fun to create something like this. I noticed that it got removed from the articles it was in, so I thought that it could possibly be useful to create a chart like this. Any input? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC) I'll volunteer to make it, although it needs some changes, for starters the Saurophaganax and Allosaurus seem kind of random as we already have Spinosaurus as the large theropod, and as for Spinosaurus itself it's the reason I removed the chart. It just looks way too insanely robust and massive. I think the other silhouettes are fine, and with these changes this could be an interesting size chart. I do like the idea of a "Macropredators" comparison, I could also perhaps add a marine predator in there? Also, I don't know for certain why the skulls and some limb bones are showing through, perhaps to better illustrate the teeth and jaws for differing eating habits? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Hmmm... Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus are the largest marine reptiles. However, Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus are also both pretty big. Not to mention Pliosaurus. We have plenty of choices. Might be nice to have Arambourgiania, too. Andrewsarchus may not have been as big as originally thought. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC) By the way, since we both want to do something like this, maybe we could do a collaboration somehow. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Images by User:Ornitholestes Varanosaurus Elginerpeton Brygmophyseter Livyatan A new Livyatan These in-use images haven't passed through here yet. If you find any more, feel free to add them. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) The teeth of Livyatan seem to be jutting forwards for some reason, which seems to contradict other reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC) It seems that the author, Ornitholestes, has become active again and has made a new life restoration of Livyatan, which I have added above. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Would Livyataan have had a dorsal fin like that? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC) I don't see a reason why it wouldn't have. I've seen multiple restorations with dorsal fins, some of them with even with noticiably larger dorsal fins, and they didn't seem to be bad restorations to me at all. If I know well, it has a dorsal fin even in a 2017 paper. Until it isn't as large proportionally as in bottlenose dolphins, dolphins with similarly large dorsal fins to bottlenose dolphins and in orcas, I see no reason to refuse the idea of a dorsal fin in Livyatan. To Hungarian sockpuppet, stop posting because you are not supposed to post and you will be banned again 2001:569:7821:500:5D20:871:60A8:E00F (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC) The reconstruction for Varanosaurus looks too cartoony and nondescript, especially compared to the one created by Nobu Tamura. Monsieur X (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Not sure about the "new Livyatan" either, what whale ever had fins like that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) It kinda looks like it’s part Orca, it even has the stripe in front of the dorsal fin. The top-view looks almost exactly like an Orca with the dorsal fin too far back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Alopias Grandis Someone on devientart said they were OK if i cold use this. this is not mine. Credit: https://rahonavis70m.deviantart.com/art/Shark-Week-Alopias-grandis-695375790 The image might have permission to "be on wikipedia" but that doesn't mean is has the proper legal licensing to be here. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Xixianykus File:Xixianykus Restoration (Updated).jpg Xixianykus Restoration (Updated) I created this. Yes it may look a tiny bit cartoonist so someone can edit it. Honestly, that looks like a roadrunner collided with a pair of Prada boots. There is no way this can be edited into usability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Admittedly I am partially responsible, as I recommended to Bubblesorg that he edit his image and post it for review (after editing). However, if he is not willing to do the artistic or scientific research necessary to fix his own work, someone else would have to take over. At that point it would be better to just make an entirely new illustration and forget about this one. Sorry Bubblesorg, but your artistic vision (at least in its current form) is not up to any of the standards that this site requires. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Megladon size I created this my self There is a significant difference in style and quality between this and the other images you have posted here. Was this perhaps created with 3D models that are not your original work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) ~ ~ ~ ~ The Model is anyway free on the Microsoft paint tool. I just used the model as a template to recreate it. Took some work but i was able to get it right. I was rather cool as i did get someone there at Microsoft to actually look at it before posting it. There have been some disagreements on whether Megalodon looked exactly like a Great White Shark, so the carbon copy appearance you have here may not be the best interpretation. We also already have a quite well-made size chart for Megalodon courtesy of Scarlet23. Also, do the 4 ~ symbols without spaces when signing your comment. In addition, put the signature after the comment rather than before it. Fanboyphilosopher What do you mean "free on the microsoft paint tool"? If you used something that you modified you will need to make sure those images were either in the public domain or licensed under Creative Commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (Bubblesorg (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC))I Do know that there is a debate on Megalodons Appearance. (Bubblesorg (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC))The Megladon in Popular culture is usually depicted this way. If this is just a white shark, then it's not a reconstruction but a wild guess based on pop culture. Not acceptable. I won't even go into the copyright/derivation issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC) (Bubblesorg (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)) I will redo the design. But this for sure is mine i did this. Even if the image was compiled by you, you didn't draw the shark, which is the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC) The same would go for this: [9]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Iowan eurypterids I just made this map that shows places in Iowa where fossils of eurypterids have been discovered. Is it ok or should I modify it? Super Ψ Dro 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC) You should definitely add a source in the image description to what info you've based it on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Also, I'd suggest larger type. If it's legible at thumbnail size, that would certainly be preferable than having to click for the full version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Yeah, especially since there's so much white emptiness in the image anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC) I have increased the font of the letter. I have also included sources in the description. It's fine now? Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC) western interior seaway This shows the western Interior seaway disappearing between 70-66 mya.These are mine. I modeled them using a United states map. I can add canada and Mexico Western Interior Seaway disappearing between 70-66 mya I used these images. fixed a bit thanks to research Again, it is most important to note where you got the map itself from. If the source isn't free, you can't use it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Yes yes the map was from a free source. The Models you see however i mine. The maps i modeled these from are from 1915 and one was from a royalty free website. These Models however are mine. There just Modeled from US Maps and with some research the water is out in accordingly. I modeled the 3d maps. Bubblesorg (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) You need to link to the exact sources in the file description. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC) I modeled these.[10] Bubblesorg (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Yeah i did make these using that map. I used a modeling sofwere so i modeled on top of that image. Then i just colored it in.Bubblesorg (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC) I wonder what's the point in making a flat map in 3D? Also, if you update an image, don't do it as a separate file, but upload on top of the old one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC) I try to make it original. So I do not just copy and edit. Bubblesorg talk 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC) I will also try to upload the file on top of the old one. I just do not know how I have just heard about it. Bubblesorg talk 15:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC) This seems of limited use, seeing as it only shows the United States and not the whole continent. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Megacephalosaurus This was based on some other images and some sources souhttp://trieboldpaleontology.com/megacephalosaurus.htmlWilhelm, B.C., 2010, Novel anatomy of cryptoclidid plesiosaurs with comments on axial locomotion. Ph.D thesis, Marshall University, Huntington, WV. USA This is something I made. completely unusable 2001:569:7821:500:914A:3EFA:41C8:8414 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC) (Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC))Why? (Bubblesorg (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC))I made this compleatly by myself just to clarify. The first part was a typo. There are some significant issues. Eyes too large teeth too large paddles not properly articulated for in life. Also a non-dinosaur. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) (2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:68 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC))i know its not a dinosaur. I will correct those mistakes. What IJReid's trying to say is that this should be reviewed at WP:PALEOART, not here. You can move the section just by copy-pasting. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC) (172.58.43.123 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC))thanks i will go to the paleo art sextion but i am still getting something reviwed there. As you haven't added it to the paleoart review just yet, I guess I'll critique this here. In terms of image quality, it needs to be enhance because otherwise many of the details characteristic of the genus are lost. You may also want to move the animal in to the middle of the image. I'm unable to see most of the anatomical features from this resolution, but from what I can tell the skull is way too large compared with the head to body ratio of most Brachauchenines (which is around 1:5, in taxa such as Kronosaurus - from McHenry). In terms of the teeth, there are far too few. It is hard to see the arrangement from this size. As has been mentioned before, the Eye is way too large. And finally, the colour is very speculative, especially for such a large predator. No predator alive today has such vibrant colours, especially in that orientation. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Bathornis Hello everyone, it's been a while since I last came here. I see there has been a lot of activity recently :). Today I bring here a restoration of Bathornis grallator, a predatory flightless bird from Oligocene Wyoming. The reference used for the restoration is given in the image's source panel, although the paper is not open access (some pictures of the skull can be found by searching "Bathornis" on google, though). The mammal hanging from the beak is based on a shrew, and it's meant to represent the soricomonrph Proscalops. The vegetation is not based on any species in particular, although I intended to recreate a "swampy" setting. Any comments? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I don't really know much about birds etc but I think it looks good. Might want a second opinion. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I wonder if the nostril should be further to the front? Supposedly, the external nostril is always at the very front of the boy nostril, it seems to be a bit further back on this drawing, compared to the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, you were right, the nostril was in the wrong position. Now I've updated the image, with the nostrils placed nearer the beak's tip. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Request: A modern reconstruction of Geikia Early 20th century reconstruction of Geikia and Sclerosaurus by F. John Bogdanov's Geikia restoration edited by Monsieur X A modern dicynodont reconstruction of Geikia is needed to replace this inaccurate, monstrous and reptilian depiction of Geikia from the early 1900s. Monsieur X (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) https://www.deviantart.com/popular-24-hours/?section=&global=1&q=geikia https://www.deviantart.com/tag/geikia To Hungarian sock puppet, none of those images can be copy pasted onto Wikipedia and you know it 2001:569:7821:500:A995:D152:3AA5:75FC (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I do apologise, but I am not the Hungarian person you speak of. I also did not add these links to deviantart. Monsieur X (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC) In F. John's restoration is the eye in the wrong fenestra or am I just interpreting the skull wrong? (Geikia has one heck of a skull!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC) No the eye is in the correct hole. But you are right the skull has a very large amount of openings. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Hey, Monsieur X, Dmitry Bogdanov just uploaded this image of Geikia! Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) It looks fine for the most part, but they're might be some problems with the face as Geikia and it's close relatives aren't know for having long tusks or even having tusks. I think Dmitry may have misinterpreted Geikia's strange beak, but it could be fixed with some slight editing. Monsieur X (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Ooh, on that note, it might be good to put all DBogdanov's new images up for review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) I've added my amateur edit of Dmitry Bogdanov's reconstruction, any thoughts. Monsieur X (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Looks good! I think the old restoration could be included as well for historical context. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Acherontiscus skeletal Over the past week I've been working on expanding the article for Acherontiscus caledoniae, an snake-like stem-tetrapod from the order Adelospondyli. This is my first attempt at an entire skeletal, how does it look? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Goodness, that's an impressively in-depth article! - Nice image, anyway. So you are going with "shoulder girdle means front limbs"? If I understand correctly the jury is still out on that (including Carroll with himself :), so maybe note that in the description? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the glowing reviews. I agree that the jury is still out on limbs, but I have been starting to lean towards the "no limbs" now that I found access to Andrews & Carroll (1991). They documented how the supposed identification of limbs in various adelospondyls were actually misinterpretations. Also, I've been looking at skeletons of modern small-limbed amphibians such as sirens and amphiumas. These animals, despite their tiny arms, still preserve not only arm bones but also the endochondral shoulder girdle bones (aka the scapulae and coracoids). Adelospondyls, on the other hand, preserve neither. They do preserve the dormal shoulder girdle elements (aka interclavicle and clavicles), but these did not connect to the limbs. So yeah, I should probably remove the limbs and note in the article the new info I have found as well. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Extinct shearwaters Lava shearwater Dune shearwater Hi everyone! Some months ago I made a group of restorations of extinct animals from the Canary Islands, and perhaps some of them could be used in the respective articles (a couple of them already are, the long-legged bunting and the Trias greenfinch). To start a new round I bring here the restorations of two extinct shearwater species: the lava shearwater (left) and the dune shearwater (right). The restorations are based on the skulls that can be found in the respective articles. Colouration is based on similar species of the same genus. Opinions? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Looks good at first glance, but I think it might be better to look at the description papers and see if there are some skull diagrams to compare with. A bit imprecise to base restorations directly on photos of fragmentary, distorted fossils... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Yes, you are right about the loss of precision by basing the restorations on fossil and sub fossil skulls. I took a second look to the description papers of the species and updated the first one by placing the nostril tip a slightly forward. The images are now added to their respective articles. Thanks for the review, soon I will try to bring here more of the restorations I made during the last months--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Request: Herefordopterus and Hughmilleriidae size diagram Herefordopterus Hughmilleria Hughmilleriidae Before nominating both to GA, I need a size diagram for both. Herefordopterus was monotypic, with a size of 12 cm. Hughmilleriidae only had two genera, Hughmilleria and Herefordopterus. The largest specimen of Hughmilleria reached 20 cm. In fact, Slate Weasel made a size diagram for it (link). Images for the silhouettes: [11] and [12]. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC) I'm working on it right now. While I'm at it, I'll probably update my old Hughmilleria scale diagram with my new hand that I used for my Adelophthalmus diagram. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Seems fine to me. Super Ψ Dro 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Here's the Herefordopterus diagram. Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC) And here's the updated Hughmilleria. What species does the big one belong to? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC) It belonged to H. socialis. And yes, it looks great! Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC) I've compiled them together now. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Great too! Thanks. Super Ψ Dro 18:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Mosasaurus life reconstruction update After reading more on the subject I decided to update the piece I uploaded to the Mosasaurus page back in january. I'm running it by here again to make sure others agree with the update. The current version is still up on the page. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d0/20180727195605%21Mosasaurus_hoffmanni_life.jpg Changes include: larger eye Additional small fauna: Decertis and Hoploscaphites Tongue more like a gila monster tongue in accordance with Schulp, Mulder and Schwenk 2005 Updated tailfluke to adhere closer to preserved soft tissue in ERMNH HFV 197 Changed the landscape to be more readable. Updated the colour scheme to be more sensible and to work better with the perspective. Jonagold2000 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC) I wonder if the eye is too large now, compare with this skeletal.[13] The visible part of the eye should be able to fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Seems you are correct there, will fix. Jonagold2000 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Definitely looks improved otherwise. The background could have more activity especially above the pelagic cliff but nothing accuracy wise I can see other than the eye. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC) https://sta.sh/02edvypahz Fixed the eye and added a shark for some interest on the left. I think it looks good. Definitely an improvement. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Moanasaurus Is this Moanasaurus worthy of making an appearance in the article? I made it using MS Paint, only the water reflections were done in Adobe Photoshop. The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Would look more appealing if the hard pixels were smoothed out. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC) I'd recommend using GIMP's smudge tool or something like that. GIMP is an excellent Free Open-Source Software Program. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC) There are many anatomical inaccuracies like the width of the body or tail and flipper shape. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I'm going to have to agree with IJreid here. The placement of the flippers seems to indicate a very short torso and long tail. Hindflippers should be somewhat in front of the larger tail wound. The torso itself also looks rather flat. It should be more cricular in front view as opposed to the tall elipse you have at the moment. It is kind of difficult to discern where the torso ends and the water begins on the underside as is due to your colour choice. I'm not entirely sure on the ear placement either, if mosasaurs would've had visable ears. And finally in regards to anatomy your tailfin does not match any known from any mosasaur specimen I am aware of. As for the art style your mix of hard pixels and soft transitions is kind of confusing to the eye. Jonagold2000 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Is there anything else? The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 19:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Er, why was your edit on this page reverted? Adding the updated reconstruction is definitely constructive. I think that the tail might still be in need of updating. There may be more problems, I'll let the people who brought them up in the first place discuss them. (By the way, instead of uploading more and more files, you can just click the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file page.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC) I have re-added your newest image. Actually, I'm not to sure about my comment on the new tail, it at least is better than the old one, but the skull morphology may still be incorrect. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Is the skull too wide or too short? The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 16:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I cleaned it up a bit. The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 11:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Request: Eusarcana size diagram Eusarcana Just GA-nominated the eurypterid Eusarcana which currently lacks a size diagram. There is a full-body restoration of it in the article (link to image), though the tail is a bit curved. There only seems to exist size estimates for two of the three species, E. scoprionis at 80 cm long and E. obesus at 4 cm long. As E. obesus is so small and might possibly not be a part of the genus I think a size diagram might be best to only include E. scorpionis, but that is up to the creator of said diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I'm working on it right now. The tail shouldn't be a problem, as I've done something like it before with Mixopterus. I probably will only have E. scoprionis, as anything under ~10 cm starts to become unnoticeable. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Here it is! You might need to refresh to see the name spelled correctly... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Mosasaurs again Since we don't yet have a T. pembinensis life restoration in the article yet, and it looks like there might just be enough space to add one, I'm wondering what you guys think about this digital restoration I made. My main concern is that the black outline doesn't look very nice. The solution for this would be to simply put the tylosaur on a black background. Input/Opinions/Corrections/Questions? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC) We actually have one[14], there just isn't much space left in the article at this point... As for the new illustration the eye seems two times too big, should fit within the sclerotic ring. You could maybe just light the black outline, unless you want to try your hand at shading so the outline isn't needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Oh, didn't realize that. I've done some fixes, but it's not done yet, so I think that I'll just wait until this one's needed. Are there any mosasaurs that still are in need of more images? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC) There should be enough to go around, browsing through List of mosasaur genera... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I'm gonna go for Plesioplatecarpus. I'll add it here when done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Here's the line art. Before making it more realistic, I want to make sure that it is proportionately accurate, as it's easier to fixnow than later. Any inaccuracies now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The tail seems too long if you imagine it stretched out. The limbs also seem a bit too close together (like fish fins), makes the body seems narrow. FunkMonk (talk) Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I think both issues can get an extra nudge, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Since no one's said anymore, I think that I'll work on this sometime today. If more inaccuracies are found, I still am capable of editing it with GIMP. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Do the color scheme and shading look okay to you guys? Scales will be added soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I have added scales. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I have lightened some of the contours. Does this effect look better than before? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Looks nice, I wonder if the pupil is a bit too large, maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, it is big in monitors, but I think that I made it a little too big. Does it look better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC) It's probably fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I have added it. I plan to do Kaikaifilu next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Gorgonops whaitsi reconstruction from 2007 G. whaitsi skull A profile reconstruction of G. whaitsi by ДиБгд. Is it just me or does this reconstruction of G. whaitsi look more elongated than it should be? The location of the eye, visible teeth and various pits in the head also concern me. Monsieur X (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I wonder if it was based on another specimen. It seems gorgonopsid skulls are often preserved in rather wonky ways, so maybe the drawing was based on such a skull. But yeah, looks more elongated than any skulls I have been able to find photos of. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Outside of this dubious image, I haven't found anything accessible about a elongated skull relating to the genus Gorgonops or "Scymnognathus". There is this paper with an image of a "Scymnognathus" skull, however it's inaccessible to me. Monsieur X (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Oh yeah, that Scymnognathus diagram looks like a match. Do we know where that image is from? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I found it on a Wikia that just copy, pastes and links stuff from Wikipedia , I did a reverse image search and appears to have been taken from these Russian Zoological and Palaeontological forums from around 2007. Perhaps ДиБгд used that skull diagram to create this G. whaitsi reconstruction. However, I have no idea if these russians artists were working with outdated or previously unknown information as many promising papers relating to this subject are only available in pieces or just plain unavailable online . Now I'm starting to wonder if that G. whaitsi skull was simply mislabeled. Monsieur X (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I still haven't solved the strange G.whaitsi/Scymnognathus skull case, but I decided to fix the restoration anyway. Monsieur X (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Dunkleosteus Artist's impression of a Dunkleosteus. Hello! I've been very busy. But now I had the time to make another 'Artist's impression'. Any thoughts? Triangulum (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Which species is this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Good question. I often tend to forget to add a species. I've tried to make D. terrelli, which was op to 6 metres in length. Triangulum (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC) This is not directly related to accuracy, but it would appear that there's a little gray smudge just above the head/body transition, presumably an artifact from photomanipulation. Should be an easy fix. I'll let someone who better understands fish comment more. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Not an expert on these fish, but I don't think I've ever seen this genus depicted with such large scales on its flanks before? Is it base don any fossils? FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your reactions. I will delete the smudge. And I will look om the internet for fossils of the body. When you search for Dunkleosteus fossils on the web, most of the results show the skull. Indeed I used the skull, but I haven't looked at fossils of the skin yet. Triangulum (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I've searched the internet but I can't find any fossils of its skin. However, I found one website where they said this: The posterior of placoderms, where known, is thinner than expected for the equivalent osteichthyan or shark and generally scale-less, although there are exceptions. Also on this wikipedia page, Placodermi, it doesn't say specifically that the Arthrodira (Dunkleosteus is an Arthrodira) had scales. And because none of the other Dunkleosteus restorations have scales I'll just try to erase them. Triangulum (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) The head of Dunkleosteus would have likely been quite a bit fleshier than most popular art suggests. The bony plating and big gnashers may have been hidden under skin. Take a look at lungfish, which have a skull very similar to Dunkleosteus which is practically invisible under fat and muscle. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I am currently on vacation and I didn't bring my laptop with me, so I will work on the restoration when I get back. Thanks for your feedback, I'll see what I can do. Please let me know what you think when I've uploaded the newer version. Triangulum (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Updating Gorgonops torvus reconstruction from 2008 Updated Gorgonops Torvus, original art by Dmitry Bogdanov A palaeoart trope in many stem-mammal reconstructions is to expose the teeth and parts of the skull, nothing seems to suggest that these animals have these features. So, I've done an edit of this G. Torvus reconstruction that removed these emaciated features and I want to know yours thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Hmm... that's pretty nice. You may even want to sheath the canines, it seems reasonable enough: [15]. Shrink-wrapping is annoying since the nares and other fenestrae are not visible even on shrink-wrapped animals like crocodiles, so I fully support their removal. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Mark Witton and his article did inspire me, although I must admit that I haven't read that article in sometime. I'll probably edit those canines out, I initially left them out because I thought they were similar to Tasmanian Devils, but clouded leopards might be a better analog. I hope to do this with other Synapsid genera, many are in dire need of some updates. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I have sheathed the canines and removed the pointy chin, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Nice - I strongly support some realistic padding, that shrinkwrapped coyote from All Yesterdays continues to haunt my dreams... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, looks good. By the way, I think that it's a cat(!), not a coyote. The "explanation" for their association with humans is that "the killer Cats wandered into their lairs before slaughtering their hapless victims." (pg. 73). Someone could use this art technique to make quite a terrifying movie. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Looks good, and gorgonopsian teeth are probably short enough that they could have been covered. I don't buy the idea of covered Smilodon teeth, though, that whole "enamel needs to be hydrated" theory was bogus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I wasn't a supporter of that idea for Smilodon either, unless it had a big chin pouch, but that seems more likely for Barbourofelids or Thylacosmilids. I'll start working on other Synapsid reconstructions with similar features. Monsieur X (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Sounds like a huge task, though! Since we don't know whether these guys had exposed teeth or not, there might be other images that need fixing more urgently, but it's of course your call. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Obviously those are also high priority, but I have a lot of free time at the moment and I want to fix some reconstructions based on some more well known genera as well. Monsieur X (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I'm definitely considering working on some gorgonopsids once I'm done doing mosasaurs. There are quite a few genera that lack life restorations, and not many hidden-toothed restorations of these guys on the wiki. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Now we're at gorgonopsians, I drew this image years ago (was reviewed here[16]), and I'm kind of not sure whether the eggs were a good idea. The specimen it was based on has also since been moved to another genus, which is kind of annoying, and you can see the head is quite more elongated than in other specimens (though none of the specimens look identical). Any thoughts? I see only the tips of the fangs are exposed, fortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Editing the Andrewsarchus restoration I edited out visible parts of the skull, shortened the tail and added a speculative "fly-swatter" tail seen in other even-toed ungulates, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Not sure if that edit was needed, though. If you look at the skull of a hippo, the skin hugs the skull rather closely in parts of the head. "Shrink wrapping" isn't necessarily always a problem, some animals do have very little soft tissue on their heads other than the skin. As long as fenestrae don't look sunken, it should be fine. Mark Witton also had a blog post about that here:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Ironic as I had Hippos (and warthogs) in mind when I was working on this, my original intent was smooth out some features on the head, while keeping various "bumps", "warts" and grooves. Should I revert it, edit the head back or leave it? Monsieur X (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Nah, it looks fine, just saying it isn't always necessary. But even in humans, it isn't uncommon to see the lines on the cheekbones and so on, so it seems a bit excessive to remove it here. Apart from the trunk area, the head of an elephant is also very skull hugging. In mammals, it is usually the snout area which is extra fleshy. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the info and your criticism, I'll keep it in mind if I decided to fix any future mammalian reconstructions. Monsieur X (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Watongia, Apsisaurus and Heleosaurus reconstructions from 2014 (Possible Plaragism) Obviously based on Dmitry Bogdanov's Watongia from 2012. Possibly based on Theropsida's Mycterosaurus from 2009 Seems to be a composite of Theropsida's and John Sibbick's reconstruction Copied from the Macmillan Illustrated Encylclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals Copied from Macmillan Illustrated Encylclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals Copied from Macmillan Illustrated Encylclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals These reconstructions by Ghedoghedo seem to be based on other people's reconstructions, I've put links to the originals in the infoboxes. The most damning is the Watongia reconstruction, which is strange as Dmitry's work is used on Wikipedia. Monsieur X (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Maybe they are just based on the same skeletals? FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Perhaps, but these reconstructions also show up as the first results on google images and are much older than Ghedoghedo reconstructions. It also seem oddly coincidental that Ghedoghedo's Apsisaurus head looks quite similar to Theropsida's Mycterosaurus , when Ghedoghedo could of easily used a Archaeovenator skeletal, which there are many of just on google images (not counting David Peters' horrid work) and none look like Theropsida's Mycterosaurus. The hind foot that's off the ground on Ghedoghedo's Heleosaurus just looks like it was poorly traced from Theropsida's reconstruction. Monsieur X (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Perhaps Ghedo~enwiki will react to a ping so we can hear what's gong on. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Not sure about those other two, but that first one is very blatant; and if one was plagiarized, that's a big red mark against the other ones. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC) If a clear case can be built for them, and if the images they are based on aren't already free, they should be nominated for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I hope he's just using the same skeletals as you suggested earlier, his Lupeosaurus actually uses this skeletal. Monsieur X (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I have found three images that seem to be plagiarized from The Macmillan Illustrated Encylopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, even retaining the same perspectives. We've gotta do a thorough examination of Ghedoghedo's life restorations. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Edits to the Eothyris, Mycterosaurus, Lycaenops, Gorgonops and Dinofelis reconstructions Made the fenestra less visible Removed visible fenestra and added lips Removed visible fenestrae and other visible parts of the skull, as well as sheathed the teeth. Sheathed the teeth and added lips Simply sheathed the teeth. Any thoughts on my synapsid edits? BTW, I also made some other minor changes to Lycaenops' bottom jaw and nose. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Seem generally fine, but the Dinofelis looks weird now, with a large black bar for a mouth. If you look at the original, it seems the mouth is supposed to be a bit open, so the teeth shouldn't be painted out entirely, but be visible between the lips. And while you're at it, could you maybe clean up some of the dirt on the Dinofelis image (a lot around the feet and tail)? That is a problem in many of DBogdanov's images. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I see, I've cleaned the image up and opened up Dinofelis' mouth. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Looks much more natural. You might want to fill in the background with white, seems it's a shade darker than the white you used to clean up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Seems many of these lack ear openings too? Same goes for the Gorgonops linked earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Unless I'm mistaken, the Mycterosaurus, Eothyris and the black Gorgonops still have their ear holes. I fixed on the other errors on those restorations, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Rhamphorhynchus Size Comparison I created this size comparison this morning. Is it accurate? Also, this is my first pterosaur image that I've uploaded to Commons! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I think it looks fine. Have you taken beaks and claws lengthened by keratin[18] into account? But at this size, the proportions of the man becomes more apparent, have you tried overlaying the arms over each other to see if they match up? Now the right arm looks very long, with almost gibbon like proportions of the lower arm. He also seems to have no wrist. It is a bit jarring when the animals seem anatomically sound while the man is so simplified, but you know, I've repeated this plenty of times now. I think the human should be based more on the proportions of an actual human, it can still be stylised, it just needs some anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I did add keratin. I'll see what I can do for the man. I'm terrible at all mammal anatomy (except for cetaceans). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC) FunkMonk I have temporarily fixed the issue by using the silhouette from here. I am still working on updating my usual human silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Since no further objections have been made, I'll add this to the article sometime this afternoon. If further inaccuracies are discovered, then I'll refrain from adding it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Nothosaurus Size Comparison I also made this. Does it look okay? I restored it with a caudal fin, although that might not have been a good choice... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I removed the caudal fin. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC) For added visibility, it is now blue. Does this look better than white? Also, should I add in N. giganteus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Zygophyseter Size Comparison I drew this in the style of our other whale size comparisons. The whale is scaled to 7m. Dunkleosteus77 seems to be our expert on prehistoric physeteroids. Is this image accurate, and is this style okay, or should I just use my typical style? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) The forehead seems a little small, and he’s all around kinda thin (but it’s not like I can prove they were thicker). He kinda looks like a beaked whale. I think it should be a silhouette to match up with the other article size comparisons (Livyatan and Brygmophyseter)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Is this better? I did use beaked whales as a reference, perhaps I made a bit too much like a beaked whale... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I have finished updating it. Does it look any better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Slate Weasel Yeah, it seems just a bit too lanky still for a sperm whale, but it’s fine. Again, I can’t really prove it should be thicker. I think it’s the flippers that make it look like a beaked whale, try positioning them more parallel to the body and use the modern sperm whale for reference. Sorry for coming back so late   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Better late than never! I beefed it up a bit and changed the flipper shape. I increase the proportion of sperm whale in the beaked/sperm whale mix that I used. Are the flippers too far back? Oh, it also life-size, by the way. If you have a printer that handles 7x2.5 meter sheets, then this would make a nice print out. ;) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, looks good. Good work, go ahead and put it on the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Edits to various Synapsid and reptile reconstructions I left the front teeth visible, because it looked a display behaviour. Arctops Eriphostoma Arctognathus Oedaleops Varanodon V. brevirostris Ennatosaurus D. limbatus Arctognathus Theriodonta The Arctognathus from the Theriodonta image Varanops Protorothyris I removed visible fenestrae and added lips, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The ophiacomorphs, Arctognathus, and Aerosaurus look good. The fenestra on NT's Titanophoneus still is somewhat visible. The lips on DB's image don't look like they'd completely cover the teeth when the mouth was closed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I don't think fenestrae need to be 100% invisible, they aren't even in modern lizards. See for example this monitor lizard[19] there seems to be a visible dent for the postorbital fenestra. We shouldn't always go overboard with this shrink wrapping issue. No animals have completely smoothed out heads. Also, there are plenty of living animals today that don't cover their teeth completely with lips when the mouths are shut, we don't have to be more dogmatic with these things than actual animals are. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I made the back teeth less visible, but I kept the front teeth visible as it looked like a speculative display behaviour of some kind. Monsieur X (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I decided to pitch in and fix Nobu Tamura's Arctops. I sheathed the teeth and added a bit more flesh to the lower jaw. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Good job with fixing those 3D models, it should be harder to make it match the rest of the images than a drawing. But I guess it helps they are so low res... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Oh, I just noticed the Arctognathus image was shrunk by 100 pixels, watch out that we don't lose resolution when doing these fixes! FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I have no idea how that happened, I've tried to restore it back. Monsieur X (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Here are two more images that I edited. Do they look okay? I took your advice and didn't completely hide the fenestra. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC) It seems a bit more obvious on the Eriphostoma where the teeth were, because it is a close up with more detail, perhaps try to paint out the "shadow" that is left where the teeth were, and there is also a kind of dent at the bottom of the lower jaw where the tip of the fang was, which could be filled. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I think that it should be better now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I've uploaded some more synapsid fixes, any thoughts? I personally feel like the last three Arctognathus images I did aren't "all that", but it's the best I could do. Monsieur X (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Here's two ones I decided to pitch in, sorry they're a bit minor, but I don't have my better image editing software with me right now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Have the Gimp software? FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, but I rarely use it since I'm not too accustomed to it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Good work in general, though it seems to me that the latter Varanops image (File:Varanops brevirostris.jpg) should be reverted back to the original version. Even with lips, teeth are usually visible when the mouth is open. Teeth get covered when both lips are in contact, so that the upper teeth slip inside the lower lip, rather than outside it. However, when the mouth is open, completely covering the teeth (so that absolutely none are visible from the side) is not really justifiable. The original image looked like there was enough lip material to cover the teeth when the mouth was closed, but not enough to completely obscure them when the mouth was open. This is accurate for lipped tetrapods in general, as seen in these images: [20] [21] [22] [23] Simply removing the teeth entirely would not make it accurate, so that image should be reverted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, agree with that last image, and I think we shouldn't go too overboard with this, as I said earlier, we shouldn't be more dogmatic than the animals themselves... Especially with animals where we have absolutely no idea how they would have looked, and have no actual scientific studies that try to reconstruct their oral tissues, only a handful of blog posts. I also think smoothing out the entire head of the Oedaleops was a bit much, most modern reptiles have weird lines and demarcations on the dorsal surfaces of their heads, can't think of any with smooth heads like that. Especially removing the brow demarcation seems at odds with how all reptiles look today, for example. I would say the same about the upper surface of the Dimetrodon head. That area is probably where all animals have the least amount of soft tissue (apart from crests and wattles), so it makes little sense to smooth it out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC) You're right how we have no real studies pointing to the advantages and disadvantages of "lips" or "no lips". However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't revise "lipless" paleoart regardless. Lips are the default in fish, reptiles, mammals, you name it. They should be considered the default in most paleoart due to phylogenetic bracketing. Jaime Headden, Mark Witton, and other "pro-lip" parties were not going against a scientific precedent when arguing that paleoart should include more lips, they were simply going against a precedent in paleoart which seemingly contrasts with most modern animals for no discernable scientific reason. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, but the thing is that there are few if any actual scientific studies giving the pro and cons, it mainly boils down to blog posts and pop science articles. So scientifically (published literature), there is no consensus, since you also have the no-lips Thomas Carr camp for theropods. But as I stated elsehwere, this doesn't mean we shouldn't add lips to old images, or include them in new restorations. It just isn't really a valid reason to remove an image as inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC) True, I forgot about Carr. Nevertheless, my request in this specific instance was about something both sides agree on, which is that the teeth would probably be visible when the mouth was open (regardless of lips of no lips), and that the revised Varanops would therefore be more inaccurate than the original image. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I agree on the Varanops, and I'd like to add that even in modern mammals where the teeth are normally covered, the canines sometimes poke out. I've seen this personally in Tasmanian devils, see for example these photos:[24][25] No one seems to have mentioned that during the "lips for hydration" debates some time ago. There is also a condition in cats that give them "saberteeth".[26] So I think there is nothing wrong with showing a bit of teeth poking below the level of the lips. As was the case with this older version of the Titanophoneus image[27], the mouth was not even closed, so I don't see why the teeth had to be entirely covered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Reverted the image then, you guys make valid points. And I'll also take the chance to note that the same can apply for skin-wrapping. Take a look at a lot of modern day animals and you'll see things like ribs showing through the belly (such as in rhinos)[28], sharply protruding shoulders (giraffes)[29], or how surprisingly skinny elephant feet are.[30] Of course, the same applies to reptiles, which have many things like demarcated orbits,[31] and visible neural spines[32]. So overall there should be a balance in paleoart, so we don't go either too skinny[33], or add so much fat to the extent we can't even see the creature's joints[34]. But then again, nature doesn't always do what we expect, and we'll never know exactly how much fat or muscle tissue all prehistoric animals had. But for Wikipedia it's probably best to play it safe and stick with that balance. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC) More edits to the various Synapsid and Diapsid reconstructions Wasn't sure of the likelihood of lips on this one Same here Comes with a bonus Eryops edit I thought the last discussion was getting crowded, so I started a new one. Anywho, any thoughts on these edits? Monsieur X (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC) A general thing, again, I don't see why the various lines and ridges on the top of the skulls and around the eyes need to be removed (not talking about fenestrae)... Such are present in modern animals. There just isn't much soft tissue in such areas. To go back to the hippo example again, the ridges and lines around the eyes and face of that Steppesaurus weren't too different from those of a modern, live hippo[35], for example. Making them that smooth seems too neat and unnatural. But good call on not giving lips to primitive, crocodile-like archosaurs. We have no idea whether the liplessness in crocodilians is a primitive condition or not, so it would be arbitrary to make any such decision about primitive archosaurs (especially those with crazy, overhanging jaws like that, where lips wouldn't neatly close the mouth anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Generally, more rugose bone = less flesh. But yeah, proterosuchids are another animal where the skull defies any form of complete lips (like Smilodon, plesiosaurs, etc.). However, I am curious as to whether or not ichthyosaurs would have had lips. Generally, their dentition is less gnarly than that of plesiosaurs, and although some taxa (Eurhinosaurus, Excalibosaurus) would have almost certainly had exposed teeth, would an ichthyosaur head have lips like a cetacean (after all, there is Eurhinodelphis)? I'm thinking of eventually doing ichthyosaurs, so I'm curious about this. It may also help us find more images to fix... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Hmmm, we also have to think of precedence (this being Wikipedia after all). If the idea has never been suggested before, we are in WP:OR territory. Don't think even Witton has said a word about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC) I see some mosasaurs have been modified too, which look mostly good, but one has been made more inaccurate than it was before, the eye of this[36] Prognathodon has been made huge, which is not in line with the fossils. The visible eye should fit within the sclerotic ring.[37] The weird red ring around the original eye was maybe unnecessary, but then it should be smoothed out (though it is similar to for example chameleon eyes), not turned into an ovwersized eye. And the snout of this Plotosaurus[38] has become way too pointed compared to the original image. FunkMonk(talk) 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the critique, I do apologise for not putting them up for review, I've been ill the last couple of days. Anywho, I took your advice with the Sphenacodontids, as well as fixed those Mosasaurs you highlighted (You'll have to get close to the Plotosaurus to notice). Reasoning behind the enlarge Prognathodon eye thing was me misintripting those late 19th century depictions of Ichthyosaurs that had tiny eyes within their sclerotic ring, the Plotosaurus on the other hand was me mistaking what appears to be some pixels or JPEG artifacts for teeth. I also edited restorations for D. angelensis and D. borealis, although the D. angelensis on closer inspection looks a bit sloppy. Monsieur X (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Changes look fine. This[39] image struck me as a bit strange, since instead of teeth it now has a white blob, which kind of looks like it's fuming at the mouth... Like the earlier Dinofelis, it seems like the original had a slightly open mouth, so there might be other ways to improve it while still showing teeth between the lips. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Jeez, here I thought that D. angelensis looked sloppy. No idea what I was thinking with that one, I've updated it once again, hopefully it's more to your liking. Monsieur X (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Hehe, looks less rabid now! I think the tail fluke I added myself to that same image looks kinda sloppy too, but better than nothing... Doesn't help the eel-like pose, though... An image which might be better off replaced completely (if someone makes a new image, that is). FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Here's a new batch of Sphenacodontid edits and a Nikkasaurus edit, any thoughts on these? Monsieur X (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Look good. But while you're in there, maybe remember to remove dirt, there is usually weird spots in the white on Bogdanov's images... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC) I've gone back at my archives and cleaned every image that had visible artifacts on them, hopefully I haven't missed or forgot any specks. Monsieur X (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC) You know, if you're in the habit of revising "pelycosaurs", you may want to try exposing the tips of the neural spines as Scott Hartman has advocated for. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC) While Scott Hartman is pretty confident that the sail of D. grandis was exposed to an extant, he wasn't sure if the same held true for the myriad of other Dimetrodon species. I'm surprised nobody has talked about depicting Dimetrodon and other extinct sail-backed species with scars, holes, tears and other injuries some modern animals with sails deal with (e.g., sailfish and basilisk lizards). I'm kinda burnt out on Pelycosaurs at the moment to embark on editing reconstructions to line up more with Scott Hartman's skeletal. I also just want to work on some Therapsid reconstructions, many are in dire need of some editing. Monsieur X (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Check this out if you're looking for a dimetrodont that looks like it's taken a beating. Too bad that scars aren't shown more often in non-dinosaurs. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC) In the case of Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, the purpose is to show an ideal, representative depiction of an animal's anatomy. For example, we wouldn't use an image of a battered, scarred lion as the taxobox image in the lion article, we would show a specimen that show its features best, without distracting blemishes. Doesn't mean we can't draw images of imperfect individuals, but we shouldn't really go around needlessly adding scars to old restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC) By the way, the Eryops which had teeth removed also shows a small, inner fifth finger on the hand, while it would only have had four. It should be removed too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I fixed that Eryops you were talking about. Now about that previous discussion, I wasn't talking about "needlessly adding scars to old restorations", I was just lamenting the lack of additional restorations depicting general injuries (or just things don't involve hunting, fleeing or fighting), not counting famous specimens of course. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, let's just drop it. Monsieur X (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, I forgot to mention, Monsieur X, it has been suggested that the spine tips in at least Dimetrodon giganhomogenes were not part of the sail, see:[40][41], so these two images are still wrong:[42][43] This image shows how it could have looked:[44] FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Very well, should I also dial back the sail on some of the other large Dimetrodon species reconstrction? Monsieur X (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Probably, at least Scott Hartman did that to his D. grandis too, but it's hard to say how far back, since the other species have not been examined for this... FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC) I've updated Bogdanov's D. giganhomogenes. I'll start working on other D. giganhomogenes reconstructions, D. grandis and maybe D. angelensis. Monsieur X (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Cool, yeah, it will be a bit of work, but it is actually pretty urgent, as this is something we know is (probably) wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC) There is a weird different coloured bar at the upper left of the group image that could maybe be coloured in with the same white as the rest of the background. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC) I hope i got it, it was kind of hard to see while editing it. Monsieur X (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC) hehe, seems it is a much larger "issue", seems the left and right halves of the image have different whites as background... One thing could be the completely replace one white in the entire background. If it's too hard to figure out, I can give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Pachycormidae Size Comparison Pachycormid assortment A size comparison for an assortment of Pachycormid fish. Leedsichthys restoration based on skeletal by the Peterborough museum, other fish based on respective restorations in literature or skeletal mounts. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Hmmmm... not an expert on fish. Would Leedsichthys and Bonnerichthys have had those trailing fins? I've never seen them restored that way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Yes, they're a feature present in most, if not all Pachycormids as far as I've seen. They are also preserved in Leedsichthys. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I think the text should be a bit bigger so you can almost read it at thumbnail size, or as large as possible if it will never be large enough to read. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Enlarged the text, hopefully it should be visible now. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Phoberodon life restoration I just made a life restoration of the odontocete Phoberodon which was previously assigned to Squalodontidae but might not be a squalodontid according to Viglino et al. (2018).Extrapolaris (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian Looks a little... Rough? Simple line art is fine, but the proportions should at least match the fossils. Compared with the skeleton here[45], there is a good deal of issues (size and shape of head, teeth, eye, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Parabalaenoptera life restoration A life restoration of the primitive rorqual Parabalaenoptera I just created a life restoration of the primitive balaenopterid Parabalaenoptera and I want you to consult Nobu Tamura to see if he wants to make some adjustments to the restoration so he can make a life restoration of Parabalaenoptera.Extrapolaris (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian In very rough terms this fits alright with the anatomy I would expect, but it doesn't meet the minimum standard requirement of being usable due to its very unfinished or simple appearance. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Archaeopteryx specimens compared to a human being Specimens compared to a human in scale The diagram includes the Haarlem Specimen (holotype of Pterodactylus crassipes), which is now assigned to the separate genus Ostromia in Anchiornithidae, and the Thermopolis specimen is now referred to Archaeopteryx siemensii following Mayr et al. (2007). Therefore, a new version of this diagram should exclude the Ostromia holotype, and refer to the Thermopolis specimen as Archaeopteryx siemensii.Extrapolaris (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian Should be easy to remove them or relabel them for someone who can edit SVGs... FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Just passing by, removed and relabeled! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries until 2007 The timeline is outdated and should be updated because it doesn't include new specimens reported by Foth et al. (2014) and Rauhut et al. (2018).Extrapolaris (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian Skull reconstruction for Pisanosaurus Skull reconstruction of Pisanosaurus The outline of the skull reconstruction of Pisanosaurus ought to be modified to resemble silesaurids because Pisanosaurus has been recently reassigned to Silesauridae (Irmis et al. 2007 considered it possible that the advanced craniodental features of Pisanosaurus in contrast to those of Lesothosaurus stem from feeding habits rather than support an ornithischian classification of Pisanosaurus because the postcrania of Pisanosaurus are morphologically similar to those of basal dinosauriforms).Extrapolaris (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian You speak as if this is consensus. Changing it is jumping the gun and WP:OR. 75.156.69.248 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC) What's really funny is I, the creator, took into account silesaurids when I made the skull in the first place. The skull is already rather boxy like others in the family, moreso than in ornithischians, and I still think it represents a good intermediate skull for either placement phylogenetically. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Did silesaurs have palpebral bones? In any case, I agree, it's not a big deal when the findings are so preliminary, as long as the known parts are shown correctly and the rest is generic enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Well, if you follow the Cabreira phylogeny on Buriolestes and Ixalerpeton silesaurs are within Ornithischia, so everything is really a mess. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Not related to accuracy, but there's a giant smudge beneath the angular. Could you remove it, IJReid? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I can't see any smudges in the full sized image ... I honestly am not too fond of the style and if I edited it I would probably just redo it first. Any suggestions? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Requests: Strabopida size charts I'm currently working on the Strabops article and soon I'll move on to the rest of the strabopids, so I would need several size charts. I will need one for Strabops, Paleomerus and Parapaleomerus, and if it is possible to do all of them, also one of Strabopida with every species. From what I understand, Khankaspis seems to be more related to Beckwithia than Strabops, so I prefer to omit it. I'm going to divide this into three points: Strabops could be difficult since we only have fossil images. Would it be possible to create a size chart based on those fossils? If not, I will try to look for a valid and accurate restoration. In any case, it seems to measure 11 cm. Images for the silhouette (if useful): [46] and [47] Paleomerus already has a restoration (in fact mine, that I will try to fix soon) but has two species. I will investigate more about their sizes but I think the size of the second is only available in the original description document (which I am waiting to receive in the Resource Request). Silhouette: [48] Parapaleomerus measured 9.2 cm and 9 cm wide. I just finished the restoration (link). I hope the original restoration (page 148) will also be helpful (but without appendages please). Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Okey, a recent document that I had not read before seems to indicate that the telson represents the 11th segment and the real telson is unknown, so the restoration is hypothetical and therefore, the silhouette too. I guess it's better to exclude this one. Super Ψ Dro 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Many thanks in advance, I know this ones are harder to do. Super Ψ Dro 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC) If the legs are omitted, would File:The_Eurypterida_of_New_York_plate_1.jpg work for Strabops? I can't guarantee that I'll have enough time to do this, so if someone else wants to take a stab at this, I'll let them. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC) No, the telson did not end in a point, it had a trapezoidal shape. Also, the 1912 segments are different from the ones now, they are very... I do not know how to say it. In the restoration of Paleomerus for example, the segments are more visually separated than in the Strabops of 1912. In fact, Strabops and Paleomerus are very similar, only differing in the form of the telson (Strabops has it longer and narrower) and in the position of the eyes (should not be visible in the silhouette as they seem to be slightly in Paleomerus). Technically you can use Paleomerus restoration as Strabops, as was done with Acutiramus and Pterygotus (only the form of the chela was changed if I remember correctly). Super Ψ Dro 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I have made the silhouettes. Since there is 1 way that this arthropod can bend to make it useful for a size comparison, are the silhouettes of these animals copyrightable? This hasn't previously been a problem, since eurypterids have lots of limbs that can bend to make a different silhouette, but I'm less sure about these guys. Can I (legally) upload the silhouette of a strabopid into the public domain? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure if it can be released to the public domain... By the way, I just finished the restorations of both Paleomerus species. P. makowskii reached 7.3 cm, while P. hamiltoni was 9.3 cm long. Silhouettes: [49] and [50] Super Ψ Dro 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Unmodifiable, naturally occurring shapes shouldn't be copyrightable, so I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Well, for my images there is no problem, in case you were asking. I do not want it to seem like it bothers me. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Well, here's the WIP: [51]. The evil black box has returned here, and I'm not sure how to get rid of it (as I seem to be incapable of actually finding it). I'll ping for help if I can't remove the darn thing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Looks great! I wonder if you could change the color of one of the Paleomerus species so that they have a different shade of the same color, as in the size charts of eurypterids. Super Ψ Dro 08:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Ah drat, now that the black is gone I realize that the file name was misspelled... (sigh) not the first time that's ever happened. I changed the smaller Paleomerus from red to navy. It should be ready as soon as its name is changed... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much! I'm going to add it. Super Ψ Dro 13:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Hopelessly inaccurate synapsid scale chart This image was added to the pages for numerous recently-named stem-mammals. It's completely wrong, as it makes almost everything too big (Nochnitsa had a skull only 82 mm long, for example, and is noted as being much smaller than Gorynychus, contrasting with this absurd depiction) and many of the images are clearly mislabeled. Also, despite the uploader posting it as "own work", none of the constituent images are, and I'm pretty sure they aren't public domain. The Ascendonanus is by Ceri Thomas, the Leucocephalus is a Proburnetia by Sergey Krasovskiy, the Gorynychus is by Matt Celeskey, the Nochnitsa is a Lycaenops by Linda Bucklin, and so on. Since this presumably violates copyright/licensing and is horribly inaccurate, it should be taken down, but I'm not sure what to do in this situation. Ornithopsis (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Well, it's even more problematic than that, considering that the grid only covers 2/5 of the image, most animals still have a background, those that don't are in an ugly white rectangle which prevents their size from actually being determined, and at that, about half of the animals are at a perspective. Additionally, what the heck is that file name? This file should be nominated for deletion on Commons. There's a link on your sidebar that should do this, but I'm not sure on the details or I would have nominated the latter three. There probably is a tutorial somewhere. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC) It is an obvious copyright violation compilation, so I have nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Sus memes sock. 75.156.69.248 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Request: Thalassodromeus sethi size comparison Trying out a new human silhouette as well For upcoming GAN/FAC nominations. The skull and wing estimates are given in the article. The body proportions and wing shape should be based on Tupuxuara. Could be nice to show it in both profile and from above, like the Anhanguera and Rhamphorhynchus diagrams. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I'll take this one, haven't done a size chart in a while. Plus, I haven't made pterosaur ones yet so this should be fun! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks! Only problem is I haven't come across any good dorsal view illustration of a thalassodromid, so it might be a problem to get the right proportions. But Witton's lateral view skeletals of Tupuxuara can be seen here[52][53] FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Here it is: my first pterosaur size chart! I'm pretty happy with how it came out, but then again I'm not as acquainted with pterosaurs as I'd prefer to be... so let me know if there's anything that needs fixing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Looks good! I only wonder whether the skull should be farther apart from the body in the dorsal view? I don't think the neck would be lifted that much when flying for the neck to be that foreshortened. Also, does the estimated skull length match up in the side view? FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC) It's pretty hard to tell in this view, but the hindlimbs don't seem long enough relative to the forelimbs. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) That could be a good point, the hindlimbs of thalassodromids were 80% the length of the forelimbs (excluding the wing finger), the most equal proportions among pterodactyloids. The proportions do seem to match Witton's second image, but might be good to double check. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC) The length of the skull matches and I've separated the head more from the body in dorsal view, is that far enough? As for the hindlimbs are you referring to the top or side perspective? Because the latter has its leg and arm proportions straight from Witton's Tupuxuara. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I think the head looks much more likely now. I'll add the image once I've made enough room for it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Just a note, Gabriel Ugueto has illustrated Thalassodromeus in lateral and dorsal views: [54] Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Seems he goes for proportionately longer wings. Not sure what we should go for, the diagram currently seems to go for a lower middle approach, maybe go for higher middle (4.4 m) instead? The wings do look a tad short. That would of course skew the leg to arm ratio further, but maybe only the wing finger needs to be longer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Also looks like I didn't make the head wide enough. The dorsal view on the diagram is actually 4.35 m, but I forgot to write it in. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I've added the image, but the changes you mention could be nice. By the way, does anyone have an opinion on which life restoration to feature first in the description section of the article= This image of a flying pair[55], or this[56] of a wading individual? I've had to modify them both (mainly skull fixes), and neither were ever reviewed here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC) The image with the wading T. sethii would look real nice in the palaeoecology section, once it gets expanded. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I fear it's too vertically long, though, but could make sense in the locomotion section, which will cover possible terrestrial abilities. But I'm wondering which of the images that show the animal best as the lead restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I think the wading one gives a better view of the animal, and it's good to reinforce that the view of it as a terrestrial animal. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Widened the head and changed label from 4.3 to 4.35. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Very good! I actually feared there wouldn't be room for it in the article, but the description section grew to a size I hadn't expected... FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Request: Carcinosoma restoration If anyone is interested in restoring a eurypterid, a restoration of the currently GA-nominated Carcinosoma is needed. I would have just put together a line drawing as I have done with other eurypterids (such as Ciurcopterus and Brachyopterus) but Carcinosoma is unique in that (1) its entire family is lacking restorations with the exception of colorless drawings made with a top or bottom view and more importantly (2) that we actually know the pattern and color of one species of Carcinosoma (C. newlini) which should make a color restoration important. The article should contain enough reference images of fossils and body parts to allow for a restoration and there is a description of its inferred coloration and pattern as well. There are also several restorations of Carcinosoma that can easily be found through google images for inspiration but beware that these seem to almost exclusively actually depict the closely related Eusarcana (one obvious difference being that Eusarcana had a scorpion-like stinger and Carcinosoma did not). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) It seems you could actually make one by stitching the three fold-out pages here together: https://archive.org/stream/CUbiodiversity414805-8541/#page/n121/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC) It seems the cropped infobox image is also a mistake, the original isn't cropped: https://archive.org/stream/CUbiodiversity414805-8541/#page/n118/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I wonder if this is the case with other images from that source, could be worth a check up. Seems they are all available in higher res than what has previously been uploaded to Commons in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Some proper artwork was what I was getting at here but making the images in question not have a cropped out telson would of course be good too and I could have a crack it. Looks like the telsons have been reconstructed wrongly in those images though (not surprising considering they were made in 1912), leaving out the "post-telson" it seems to have had.Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I have uploaded the full version of the taxobox image. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks! I think it would be good to have some reconstruction to show its color as well, might have to see if I can find some artist willing to do it elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Maybe Apokryltaros or Triangulum? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I may be able to put one together: we have some good images of the original fossils?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC) We've put all the images of Carcinosoma fossils in this category on commons. In particular, these images should be of use: 1 and 2 (both seem to be part fossil and part reconstruction). The telson (tail spike) of the second image has been reconstructed wrongly and should look somewhat like in this sketch; 3. The article contains a description of its inferred coloration. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Request: Carcinosoma size diagram This one was tougher! Here it is! Add J. howelli Because why not? A little different... Carcinosoma could also use a size diagram, there are measurements for all species in the article (with seven species of varying size assigned to the genus depicting several would probably be best) though I'm not sure if depicting the smallest one (20 cm long) is possible on account of the size of the largest (2.2 m long). Either this or this might be useful for creating a silhouette, with the telson (tail spike and such) being based on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I'll do this sometime soon maybe today but most likely tomorrow. I assume that the species would all look more or less identical from above? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Much appreciated! Yes, the main difference between them lies in how pronounced the serration is on parts of the swimming leg but it would look virtually identical in a diagram since it's barely visible in the fossils without looking close. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Here it is! I was unsure of some aspects, such as telson size, torso width, spine shape, etc., so I hope that this is acceptable. And man, C. punctatum's one heck of a eurypterid! By the way, I'm wondering if maybe it's time to further divide the eurypterid size comparison category on commons? It's getting pretty crowded with all of the images you and Super Dromaeosaurus have requested, making it the group of invertebrates with the most size comparisons of all, in fact, probably more than half of all our invertebrate size diagrams are now of eurypterids! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Looks great! The aspects you mention look to be right in the diagram referencing with reconstructions in papers and the fossil images we have available. Dividing it a bit is a good idea, I have created new superfamily-level categories which should work. Of course most ended up in the "Pterygotioidea size comparisons" category but that category is now also "complete" unless new genera are described. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Slate Weasel: An idea; maybe you could do a size chart of some select giant eurypterids (in the vein of this)? Your size charts already cover the largest species, e.g; Jaekelopterus rhenaniae (2.5 m), in this size chart. Carcinosoma punctatum (2.2 m), in this size chart. Acutiramus bohemicus (2.1 m), in this size chart. Acutiramus macrophthalmus (2.0 m), not in a size chart, but just needs a slightly smaller Acutiramus silhouette. Pterygotus grandidentatus (1.75 m), in this size chart. Pentecopterus decorahensis (1.7 m), in this size chart. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Hehe, I was just thinking about this too! I'll get to work on it as soon as I can. Also, for every eurypterid I make, I give it its own unique color, which is a tint/shade of the base genus color, which makes compiling them together much easier! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC) By the way, is Erettopterus grandis worth inclusion or should I just leave it out (since its size is somewhat dubious). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I personally support this idea. Yes, I think we should also add the hypothetical Erettopterus grandis (2.5 m, size chart), as well as Megalograptus shiderleri (2 m, no size chart). Super Ψ Dro 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I would leave out both Erettopterus grandis (not talked about in the paper that declared Jaekelopterus the biggest which is odd, seems woefully under-researched) and Megalograptus shideleri (2 m size estimate seems to be wrong) for now. If the situation with either is cleared up, they could both be added later anyway, right? The list I put up here should be good for now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I guess you're right. Super Ψ Dro 11:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Here it is! Also, I'm wondering if J. howelli should be added to my Jaekelopterus size comparison, as it's known from good material. By the way, what's the next focus for eurypterid expansion, now that Pterygotioidea's nearly/almost complete? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Nice! J. howelli could be added, yeah. I do not have a huge focus at the moment but as I've already done 2 of the Carcinosomatoidea I think I'm going to keep working on them and I might be doing stuff with the main Eurypterid article as well (where I have added your new diagram). Judging by Super Dromaeosaurus's latest ones I think it is safe to say that most of the expansion efforts are within the Diploperculata suborder (which includes Pterygotioidea, Carcinosomatoidea and two other superfamilies) for now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I think the giant Hibbertopterus scouleri should also be included since there are only eurypterines. The exact size seems to be unknown, but it was a little less than 2 m. It would be enough for a separate size chart since the size of H. hibernicus is unknown. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Could definitely be added. Because Hibbertopterus and its relatives are unusually three-dimensional by eurypterid standards, it might be helpful to have a view from the top to work with when adding it to the "giant eurypterids" diagram, there is one on page 565 of this paper (figure F). If you make one for just Hibbertopterus as well, I would actually (for once) recommend a side view due to how deep-bodied it is (this should be accomplishable by basing it off the restoration in the Hibbertopterus article and perhaps also this image from a 2008? paper). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I have created a size comparison of Orcanopterus, so all families in Diploperculata now have a size comparison. And thanks for the barnstar! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Here's a Hibbertopterus. I'd sort of been obsessing with the idea of creating a size comparison for this guy, the only thing holding me back was the lack of images, but with that out of the way, here it is! I used a different format for this one. It seems really awkward in shape and too short lengthwise. The carapace also seems to be considerably larger than 65 cm. Any advice? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC) The silhouettes look good and the shape should be right (Hibbertopterids were unusually short and broad). The "almost 2 meter" estimate is from 2008 so should be accurate which is weird if this does not match up with a 65 cm wide carapace, especially as the top-view reconstruction of Hibbertopterus was published by the same author as the almost 2 meter estimate. This should be fine though as "65 cm wide carapace" is the only true measurement we have. Could this be added to the mega-eurypterids chart? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Various Tetraceratops reconstructions Somethings off with this Gremlin's legs Clear version of the previous image I'm currently focused on cleaning and fixing various non-mammalian Therapsids reconstructions at the moment and I was wondering if any of these restorations of Tetraceratops were accurate, inaccurate or just need some minor adjustments Monsieur X (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Can't say I know much about this guy, but yeah, the claws on the first one seem rather unwieldy, and the second one seems to miss the "boss" thing at the back of the jaw. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC) I think it's only known from a skull, hence the debate on where it sits on the synapsid family tree. Anyway, I fixed Nobu's reconstruction and as well as edited the two reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov. I decided to leave the front teeth unsheathed, seemed more akin to tusks, sorta like Musk deer or Water Deer tusks. I might edited them under lips if people have any problems with it. Sadly, I'm not a good enough artist fix Stanton Fink's weird Tetraceratops Monsieur X (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC) My version here is a very old version. I've made another one, but, I'm in the throes of fixing that one, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC) But muh hydrated enamel! If the teeth reach past the lower margin of the mandible, I think there's good reason to think they weren't entirely covered. Again, even Tasmanian devils have canines that extend below the lipline, so it certainly isn't impossible. Haven't been able to find an actual photo of the Tetraceratops skull, but it seems the boss should jut out ventrally from the mandible, whereas you made it jut out at the back of the skull in NTs image? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Without a good photo of a skull with the cheek horns, I had to rely on other life reconstructions to fix it, hopefully I got it right this time. Anyway, while looking for more info about Tetraceratops, I found that Dmitry had done a more therapsid-looking restoration with a rounder head and smaller horns. This image does line up with these two papers [1][2], perhaps we need to inculde a similar reconstruction. I've also added a skull diagram from commons to the Tetraceratops article. Also, my reasoning for the visible front teeth was due to the lack of fossils and proper info regarding the animal's diet, I was left speculate about the animal's diet and behaviour and so my mind went to Heterodontosaurs, swine (omnivores with nasty lookin' teeth and tusks), musk/water deer (vegan territorial biters) and tuatara (lizard-like meat nippers). Monsieur X (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)    I'd say when in doubt, don't modify. It's not really up to us to take any one stand on the issue of lips or no lips in taxa where this has never even been discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Of course, when making a new image, it is up to the artist what to do, but it becomes a bit of imposing one's own biases when it is done retroactively to older drawings by others. Fixing pronated hands in dinosaurs and sunken fenestrae in general is one thing (those are now universally thought to be inaccurate), but I really think we should be much more careful when it comes to features nothing has ever even been published about. Most of these animals probably had lips, but would they have covered the canines entirely in sabertoothed taxa? There is little indication this would universally be the case even if we look at modern taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Thoughts on Biarmosuchian and Raranimus restorations Edited Edited Edited Edited Edited I'm not sure of the skin on this one. Any ideas on the identities of some of these "recently discovered" burnetiamorphs? Are these restorations accurate, inaccurate or in need of adjustments? I've also edit and cleaned the first five restorations and wanted to know your thoughts Monsieur X (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Seems a bunch of them are missing ear openings? And yeah, maybe the skin on that Hipposaurus could be smoothed out with something like Photoshops's blur tool. As for the teeth, that's of course uncertain, but I do agree that incisors and molars (if that term applies here) would most likely be covered by the lips when mouths were closed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC) I wouldn't give them visible ear openings. The mammalian tympanum is probably not homologous to the saurian tympanum, so a tympanum might not have been present in biarmosuchians (the earliest good evidence for a tympanum is in dicynodonts). Even if it was present, it was probably located on the lower jaw and not behind the skull, so that Herpetoskylax is wrong. I also see no reason to place the tympanum deep within an ear opening (honestly, with it located on the side of the lower jaw I'm not even sure if that would be possible). This hasn't been discussed in the literature to my knowledge, but I don't see why it couldn't have looked like a frog or turtle ear in which the membrane is flush with the surface of the head and potentially difficult to recognize as a tympanum. Agreed that the incisors and postcanines should be hidden by lips—and I don't see why the canines wouldn't be either, at least in this group. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC) They are both amniotes after all, and even some amphibians have externally visible tympani, so why wouldn't synapsids? Even if the tympani evolved independently somehow, why does this rule out openings in synapsids? We know all their descendants have them. In any case, like with the lips, if the issue hasn't been covered by peer reviewed literature, we should follow how the animals have usually been reconstructed in reliable sources. Making our own novel interpretations is close to original research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC) The tympana of mammals, frogs, and saurians are probably not homologous structures. I meant to say that it is possible that the tympanum was flush with the surface of the head, like in turtles and frogs, rather than set in a canal like in mammals, lizards, and archosaurs. Additionally, it is uncertain whether biarmosuchians would have had a tympanum at all, as its presence is not confirmed in synapsids more basal than dicynodonts. Therefore, the lack of an obvious ear opening is not necessarily wrong, but an ear opening behind the skull (as in the Herpetoskylax) probably is wrong. Can you show me a reliable source that depicts biarmosuchians with a visible ear opening? I've shown reliable sources that show that the one illustration here with a visible ear opening is probably wrong (at least, in the placement of the opening). My point is not that I think they should be drawn without an ear opening, but that I don't think they need to be edited to have one. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC) That is similar to the issue of completely covering oversized canines, though. We just don't know, so why bother making such edits? We have living examples of animals with and without, so imposing one is personal bias. In the case of early synapsids, we know even less. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC) That's exactly my point. I don't think they need to be edited to be given external ear openings, because the jury is out on that one. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) In that case, it is up to personal whims with these images. There is nothing unquestionably wrong with them, except for maybe the ear placement you mentioned, and the scaly one. Personally, I'd add indications of ears, and cover all teeth but the canines. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Indohyus sculpture How accurate is this sculpture? Looks more like a weird looking Archaeocetian than a Indohyus to me. Monsieur X (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Seems like the image is mislabelled, it is Ambulocetus:[57] FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Nundasuchus This low quality and strangely drawn restoration of Nundasuchus is concerning. 2001:569:782B:7A00:28D8:7D68:B793:B05B (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC) It certainly isn't easy to the eyes, but could it maybe be fixed with some edits? FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC) The quality is acceptable to me, albeit a bit unusual in terms of lighting. It seems to be based on the silhouette published in the Nundasuchus paper. There's not really enough conclusive info about Nundasuchus to really remove the image for accuracy-based reasonings, as it could be anything from a Ticinosuchus-grade suchian to an ornithosuchid-grade basal pseudosuchian. I might expand the article within the next month, so I may have more to say once I start on that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Hard to see, but the claws seem to be taking up too much of the finger length. The osteoderms seem a bit cartoonish, but who knows. The background could certainly need to be wiped... FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Decuriasuchus The pose reminds me of this Decuriasuchus image I encountered that has never been reviewed, but probably needs some editing too. Again, the claws take up to much of the finger length, there is a signature on top of the animal, and other parts seem a bit wonky too. But seems salvageable. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC) Gallotia goliath Hello there! Today I bring here a restoration of the Tenerife giant lizard (Gallotia goliath), which lived in the homonymous island (located Canary Islands) until recent times. The restoration is based on extant relatives (mostly on other giant lizards of the same genus, endemic to other islands of the archipelago). The scaling of the head is based on the diagram shown here (page 132), drawn from a mummified specimen. I assumed the diagram shows a deformed skull, so I modified slightly its shape to resemble those of extant relatives. Colouration is also based on other lizards of the same genus. Finally, the canary bird is represented for size reference. Any thoughts? By the way, I like the new section-starting system, it makes easier to submit a new image. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Looks nice, although I'm no lizard expert, so it would be good if someone else gave a second opinion. It looks more robust than living Gallotia, but bigger lizards tend to be stockier than their smaller relatives (e.g. Komodo dragon, marine iguana, giant day gecko), so this is probably a good decision. User:IJReid is the one who created the new button, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Looks good, but one thing to remember about most reptiles is that their limbs taper towards the joints, whereas here the limb segments of the arms are very even/straight. The perspective/angle in the bird's tail also seems a bit off compared to the body. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I have reduced slightly the arm's width near the elbow and modified the orientation of the bird's tail. Perhaps now the arm is too thin?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC) I was mainly thinking of the lower arm, but I think the other fixes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Now the width of the forearm has decreased slightly towards the joints. I will add the image to the corresponding article, if no more changes are required.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Two Dimetrodon reconstructions from Commons I found these on commons. I'm not sure about the accuracy of first one, due to its age. However, the last one is definitely inaccurate as it's missing digits! Monsieur X (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Everything made by the author of the last one is inaccurate, so they should pretty much all be tagged. As for the first image, the main problem is that it doesn't state which species is depicted, so it is hard to use, especially since we have so many other, better images... Not sure if it is that inaccurate, but it may need the sail pulled a bit back. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Oh, seems it is labelled as D. limbatus here:[58] FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Also, the shape of the animal's torso in Ryanz's image looks like a disposable water bottle that someone stepped on. The sail isn't even made by the vertebral spines. I think that this image is beyond any hope of being editable into something useful. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Slimonidae Size Comparison One more. Excellent job on getting Pterygotiodea to GT, Ichthyovenator and Super Dromaeosaurus. To honor this occasion, I give you a belated size comparison for Slimonidae, the last article in the superfaily (besides Necrogammarus) to not have a size comparison. It's an older one, so it might not be the most accurate one I've ever made. Is it acceptable? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) Thank you very much! It looks good to me. Super Ψ Dro 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Looks good, thanks! On a stylistic note, is it possible to change the color/shade of Salteropterus as the small size combined with the light color makes it a bit difficult to make out? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC) I generally wouldn't recommend too bright neon colors on a white background for size comparisons, it's rather unpleasent on the eyes and makes the outlines of the animals harder to make out. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC) The Salteropterus also somehow looks blurry. I'm not sure of its sizing either does it match well with the diagram I made earlier? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Should be 15 cm now. Any more problems or is it ready for the article now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Looks good to me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Looks good, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Could a second colour other than a similar green be selected? I can't tell which one is which at all. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Cretoxyrhina reconstruction Cretoxyrhina Ginsu Shark Hi! I would like to post my lateral reconstruction of Cretoxyrhina at its article and potentially replace the prior one featured there. Any critiques and advice are welcome. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Nice to see you contributing art! It looks pretty good, not too different anatomically from the current version. I'm not particularly knowledgable on sharks though, so any of the other reviewers who are should probably take it from here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) The eye does seem to be pretty huge, and the scarring may be a little over the top. But it is stylistically a nice image. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Yeah, not sure whats up with that eye, looks like the size in much smaller sharks. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Parahughmilleria Size Comparison It was a joint effort of eurypterids... Made this for the Parahughmilleria article, a GA made by Super Dromaeosaurus. Still got a few eurypterid articles in need of size comparisons. This one was harder to make. Is it accurate? I'll probably also take on Pittsfordipterus and Nanahughmilleria, any advice on those? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Yes, it looks good! I wonder if it could be added to P. salteri, which measured 8 cm. Regarding Nanahughmilleria, I think it would be better to wait until I finish its restoration. I am not very sure of Pittsfordipterus, as it is very little known, but I think it could be feasible since Bassipterus (the sister taxon of Pittsfordipterus) was very similar to the derived adelophthalmids, so probably Pittsfordipterus was similar as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Added P. salteri, now the coloration looks much better since there's an odd number of the eurypterids! Could this silhouette be used as the body of Pittsofordipterus with the paddles of Bassipterus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Great idea! That would probably work. Super Ψ Dro 22:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Hehe, it's the same principle with making Salteropterus, Jaekelopterus rheniaea, etc. although a bit more extreme here! Here it is, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Great! Thank you very much! Super Ψ Dro 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I have finished the restoration of Nanahughmilleria (link). The size of the species are in the article. N. lanceolata should be omitted, since it is most likely it was not a real adelophthalmid. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Request: Removal of backgrounds in two images Not quite an image request per se this time; would it be possible to remove the background in these two images and upload new background-less versions of them? Versions without backgrounds would be very useful in a cladogram in the currently being worked on Eurypterid article. I have no idea how difficult this would be and I am not experienced enough with image-editing software to do it myself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Obsidian Soul might have a bg less version of the first one? Also, the second image is tagged as inaccurate, but I don't know enough about the animal to judge whether it is appropriate or not. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC) I tagged the second image as inaccurate myself. It's supposed to be Hallipterus but everything other than the head is erronously based on Stylonurus (due to Hallipterus here being referred to as a species of Stylonurus). Since both are in the Stylonuroid superfamily and the inaccuracy is only visible with the image at full size I thought that it might be possible to use to represent the superfamily in the cladogram. If not, it might be possible to edit it into an accurate restoration of Stylonurus (though this would change the genus intended to be pictured) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Why not rotate this image by 90 degrees if you need a Eurypterus for a cladogram? That way, perspective doesn't cause problems and the animal's anatomy is more visible. Also, do you need any silhouettes for this project? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC) If you take a look in my sandbox and scroll down to "Classification" you'll see what I'm going for. All the pictures I've used there so far (just 4, but still) are artwork with some degree of perspective and it would be nice with consistency. It's not vital but I think it'd look good. Right now, there already is a size chart (by you :) ) used in the article, depicting six of the largest eurypterids. There could potentially be one made for the smallest ones too but their articles haven't received a lot of work and I don't yet have anything to go on for you as to what they looked like. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Ah, I was actually referring to the usage of silhouettes on cladograms (like at Diplodocoidea). But I would be interested in a smallest eurypterids scale diagram, so I guess I'll wait for awhile before proceeding (after all, there's plenty of other work to do and size comparisons to make!) I'll see if I can do something for Megalograptus and Brachyopterus sometime this week. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Ichthyovenator, FunkMonk, Slate Weasel: Here's the base render for Eurypterus with no background or image editing. Thanks for the ping. You might have to manually crop Nobu Tamura's work, however. --- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Cool! I didn't realize that you were still active here! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC) I'm still crossing my fingers for Obsidian to return to paleo articles, hehe... As for the second image, I think it would be good to correct it first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Speaking of corrections, would it be possible to fix another image? This one needs work in the appendages, since the Megalograptus on the right does not seem to have a fifth pair of limbs and the swimming leg is too thin and unaccurate, and the one on the left lacks swimming legs. In addition, in both, the third to fifth pair of appendages have no spines and the telson has a rare form. This other restoration could be helpful. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC) This would go for other restorations of the same animal by the same artist as well; 1, 2. Might be quicker and easier to just make new artwork than to edit these. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Correcting the Hallipterus/Stylonurus would really just be changing the shape of the head a little bit from what it is now into a more boxy shape as seen in these 1, 2. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC) I'll ping Monsieur X to see if he wants to try out some invertebrates. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC) If he doesn't respond, I'll give it a shot. Seems it would be pretty easy to just shorten the head by moving the mouth parts back. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Invertebrates are sadly foreign to me. So I don't think I can edit these reconstructions. Monsieur X (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Ok, I will try, is the rest of it accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Largely accurate to Stylonurus, yes. Going by this, it looks like the body is too long and the restoration might have an extra segment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC) It is not assumed that all eurypterids had 12 segments? It is possible that the restoration of 1912 has become obsolete. Super Ψ Dro 14:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Snap, yes of course they all had the same number of segments (12). The body might still be too long (not sure anymore, will investigate) but the number of segments is right. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC) FunkMonk, looking at the most recent reconstruction I could find, the inaccuracies in the image are 1) the wrongly shaped head and 2) the body being to long. Both the head and the telson spike seems to be proportionally right to each other as well as the legs, but the body itself is way too long (refer to the 1912 reconstruction linked above). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC) How is this for the Hallipterus?[59] I can also try the Megalograptus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Here is an even shorter version[60], haven't painted out the background yet, though, as I'll wait to hear which version is more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Whoa, well done! Worth pointing out that it looks nothing like Hallipterus which was the main issue to begin with; Hallipterus would have looked something like this, with the artwork you're editing clearly being based on Stylonurus powriensis more than Hallipterus as it was essentially a Stylonurus with a Hallipterus head. That being said, the second ("even shorter") matches up very well with what we have of Stylonurus powriensis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Ah, ok, are the other anatomical edits that should be done on this one to pass it off as powriensis even better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Looking at it there isn't really anything major that could be done, the only thing I could think of would be that the edge where the head meets the body could be shaped a bit differently (going by this image of a fossil Stylonurus) but that is a very minor change. S. powriensis is the only currently recognized valid species in the genus (there is one more dubious one, the rest have been reclassified or synonymized). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC) You appear to be using Stylonurella as a reference: [61]. Were the two really that similar? Because that may warrant a random size comparison, considering that I already have one for Stylonurella (which needs updating to Herefordopterus-style format): [62]... I think it's more likely that the Stylonurella image is heavily based on Stylonurus than the other way around (seeing as it is labelled as Stylonurus in its original source), they were synonyms at one point. Referencing this new edit with images of Stylonurus fossils and more or less modern restorations it matches up well with Stylonurus. We might have to check if the appearance of Stylonurella has changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Alright, I've now updated the image, and I made the back of the head less concave. I'll let you change the name to whatever it fits best, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Definitely a big change! Now it would be necessary to include the new Stylonurus in this image... Super Ψ Dro 22:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you! Looks good, I might be able to manually crop it out myself to produce a version with a white background as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Replacing the image in that collage should be easy for anyone to do.I'll try to fix the Megalograptus images next... Anything wrong with them apart from what has already been listed here? FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC) The Megalograptus images have multiple inaccuracies if you compare them with an accurate depiction. These include wrongly positioned (and shaped?) eyes, virtually every appendage being shaped wrong (in particular the spines of the large frontal appendages being positioned wrongly), the "mouthparts" being too small (and wrongly shaped?), the highly distinctive telson being wrong and overall weirdly reconstructed body (too thick for instance). Not sure all these can be fixed through editing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I see, which of them is least inaccurate/easiest to make accurate? We probably don't need both anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Out of the three, the side-view one is probably the hardest to fix as it has all the issues clearly visible. This also goes for the one with two Megalograptus, but to a lesser extent. The one of Megalograptus being devoured by Cameroceras is probably the easiest to fix since much of the anatomy is obscured by tentacles and it's from the same angle as the more accurate depiction. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) I wonder if the Cameroceras is accurate... It would not be surprising having the account that the Megalograptus is wrong. Is there someone who can confirm it? (by the way, what a subtle reference to the Sea Monsters documentary). Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Just so anyone browsing by at a later time know, I cropped out the background of the Stylonurus myself, so the request has been fulfilled. The result isn't perfect but it is only intended to be used in a few cladograms as a heavily miniaturized version. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Request: Thalassocnus‎ size diagram and life restoration I noticed that Dunkleosteus77 aims to take Thalassocnus‎ to FA, and for that it would probably be best to have a size comparison and life restoration ready (as is customary). I was thinking of doing the life restoration (I did the ground sloth Nothrotheriops once), but someone else could probably do a better diagram. Any ideas on how the restoration should look? FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC) The one here seems most accurate to me. I don’t get why the other restorations have hair if it’s aquatic, that would produce a lot of drag. Thanks for doing this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Oh, I see there's precedence for a hairless restoration then, though seals and sea otters of course have fur. Any request for skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I always imagined it was either a gray, maybe a gray-blue, and kinda pinky in places; or a sand color with darker coloration on the extremities and face. Other restorations I’m seeing have really long, flowing sloth hair which, for something that was 9 to 11 feet long and dog paddled, does not seem very plausible considering it spent a lot of time underwater. However, before you start, I should tell you the study describing it used a depiction that gave it a lot of hair   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I’ll see if I can carve out time for a size diagram. I was planning on doing a reconstruction last month but I’ve been so busy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC) I'm doing it in paint, and, after resizing, everything's going all pixelly. Are there any good blurring tools?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Hmm... I'd definitely try to do it in SVG, using a program like Inkscape (that's how I made my entire gallery of size comparisons here). Not sure what you mean by "paint." MS Paint? Physical paint? If you want a good non-SVG program, then GIMP would be a good choice. But in SVG, there are no pixels, so everything retains its former quality, so that's why it's the desired file type for size comparisons. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC) I couldn't figure out how to use either of those applications. All I have right now still are three pixally sloths in MS paint   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Here is a work in progress sketch.[63] The pose is based on that skeleton in Paris, but do we have any idea which species that is supposed to be? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC) concept sketch looks good. As for the skeleton, when you took the picture, did you see this next to it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Ah, nice, could be added to the image caption in the article, I'll add it to the Commons file description. I don't remember that model being there when I took the photo, but it was 10 years ago, so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Started to colour in the front of the animal[64], is this something like what you had in mind? It is surprising how extremely different all restorations of this animal seem to be from each other. This one will be one of the more outlandish ones, hehe... But the Carl Buell illustration at least gives a published precedent for such an interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Yeah it’s looking really good so far. Appearance in this case is really just anyone’s game   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Westlothiana and Hylonomus Size Comparisons Westlothiana Hylonomus A bit of an odd section, granted, but basal amniotes could use some love (and I could use a "W"). Are there any modern non-DP skeletals of these guys? If not, an old Hylonomus skeletal should suffice. Is the skeletal at the bottom here: [65] good for Westlothinana (I don't even have a clue to what Peters restored it as...)? Fanboyphilosopher may, know, as he seems to have been expanding the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Curse it, that one was also by Peters. Are there any other skeletals of Westlothiana? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Probably in some technical papers, but someone with an overview of the literature probably knows best. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC) The Peters Westlothiana is not that awful, it just could use a bit more flesh on the top and bottom of the torso. Using its proportions should be fine, and then you can use other skulls and different limb views. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC) It seems like people are in need of someone familiar with Westlothiana's technical literature, and I'm happy to help. Westlothiana hasn't been considered a basal amniote since before 1993. It's probably a basal lepospondyl instead. Also, Peters steals many of "his" skeletals from the literature. The palaeos skeletal is directly copied from Robert Caroll's, as featured in "Westlothiana lizziae from the Viséan of East Kirkton, West Lothian, Scotland, and the amniote stem" by Smithson et al. (1993). It's a pretty good skeletal complete with scale bar, so Peters' reuse isn't problematic. If you want the original source, you can find it on sci-hub with the doi 10.1017/S0263593300006192 Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Here's the size comparison of Westlothiana. Hylonomus will be delivered soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC) The limbs (particularly the front ones) seem a bit thin for a supposed skink-like burrower. I'd assume that the body would be more sprawling in posture, and that the tail would lay flat on the ground rather than stay in the air its whole length. I also think that the 20cm estimate for total length is a bit underestimated considering that the tail is incomplete. 20 cm is a good ballpark if it had a short-ish tail (as Smithson and others may have assumed). However, in Carroll's skeletal reconstruction the vertebrae don't taper off in height, so a long tail seems more likely in my reckoning. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC) I did the updates that you recommended (I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who thought that the leopard gecko style tail looked pretty weird). Is this old skeletal good for Hylonomus: [66] (in addition to the skull in the article). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) It looks good. All of the small reptiliomorphs/early amniotes kind of look the same anyways. I haven't done much research on Hylonomus, so I can't give you many details the same way I could with Westlothiana Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Here's the Hylonomus. Is it accurate? And, by the way, do you know of any good Vancleavea skeletals? (I think that I found my "V") --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I can't vouch for issues with Hylonomus, but it looks good in a general sense. As for Vancleavea, try figure 20 of this [67] source. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC) New art by Liam Elward Erythrosuchus Zygophyeter I really like this guy's style and I'm happy that he has started putting his work on wikipedia. But rules are rules, so they need review. They all look accurate to me, even the weird hand of the Chilesaurus closely corresponds to the findings of Chimento et al. (2017). It also has kind of a green hue to the filaments, but it might just be a combination of dull yellow and grey, so carotenoid rules aren't really broken. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Note that a similar section is up on the dinosaur review page for this guy's art[68]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Pinging Dunkleosteus77 for the Zygophyseter. I'm not sure if it needs some more flesh around the distal caudal region? But yeah, these look really good. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC) I left a message on the guy’s talk page. Aside from the forehead it looks like a beaked whale   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Apologies for not going through the proper channels in terms of submitting artwork. Thank you all for both your kind words and seriously in-depth analysis/constructive criticism. PrehistoryByLiam 17:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Keep up the good work, they look really professionally done. Do you do it entirely digitally or by hand and then digitally add color?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) The Erythrosuchus has the same perspective issue the Rugops had, where the arm closest to us is seemingly above the one behind, which doesn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Megalograptus Size Comparison Enter Megalograptus, the most gnarly eurypterid in existence! I finally got around to creating this, Ichthyovenator. I scaled them based on the Pentecopterus paper. Didn't Super Dromaeosaurus say something about a 2 meter specimen? Should it be included like what I did for Erretopterus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, it would be better to include it like that. By the way, the size of the rest of the species is known (except in M. alveolatus), so it would be good to include them. M. ohioensis reached 78 cm and M. williamsae reached 50 cm. M. welchi reached 150 cm. The last size is doubtful and should probably appear as in Erettopterus. The two-meter specimen (of M. shiderleri) seems that it really did not exceed 56 cm. Super Ψ Dro 13:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Allegedly, M. ohioensis (at 78 cm) is the largest species overall. The 50 cm estimate for M. williamsae is probably correct but I would seriously doubt M. welchi being 150 cm unless we can get a better source for that than the otherwise used excel document. The previously discussed 2 meter specimen was, as Super Dromaeosaurus says, incorrectly estimated to exceed 2 metres but was in reality much smaller. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Here's the updated version with the two other species. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Looks good for me now! Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Again, I doubt the 150 cm size for M. welchi and would advise against including it unless we find another source for it seeing as the 78 cm M. ohioensis has also been referred to as the "biggest species". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) So what should I do? Rename or remove? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I would wait to see if it is possible to find the source. I have searched previously and have not found anything. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I'm much better at silhouettes... [69] & [70] Here's my crude restoration of Drepanopterus, any comments? I'm planning on using the right side to create another size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC) It's not bad, but it has several flaws. This publication should help you. About the sizes, D. abonensis measured 50 cm, D. pentlandicus reached 30 cm and D. odontospathus had a length of 40 cm. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Why does the paper give it 5 pairs of limbs? Wouldn't it have been more like Megarachne or Hibberopterus? And yeah, that was more or less just a random experiment that I did in fossil restoration, without really studying how to do it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC) All eurypterids had 6 pairs of limbs of varying size depending on classification, so 5 "large" pairs of limbs is definitely reasonable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I do not know much about the stylonurids but I think they had very small chelicerae, which is why they are not visible in the dorsal view. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Here it is. Brachyopterus comes next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Looks great! I just added it to the article. Brachyopterus measured 8 cm. Super Ψ Dro 07:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Surprisingly easy to scale Here Brachyopterus is. Scaling was easier due to a lack of appendages going in front of the carapace. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I just added it to the article. Thank you very much for these size charts! Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)