I've made this image of Brontoscorpio with size estimation based on Kjellesvig-Waering (1972). The only evident part (free finger of right pedipalp, does anyone know the specimen number?) highlighted in dark grey, while the remaining parts were based on Vaejovis. It might be better to use a close-related taxon as reference, but I can't find any further taxonomic interpretation on Brontoscorpio. So I went after Vaejovis, an extant genus which had been selected as a reference for size estimation by the same paper. Any thoughts? --Junnn11 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this looks good! The fossil material of Brontoscorpio is too fragmentary to dismiss anything as inaccurate; the image matches Vaejovis, which the paper suggests is the most comparable modern genus of scorpions, so that checks out. As of last year, Brontoscorpio is still incertae sedis (which means we don't know what it's closest relatives are), so all should be fine here. This reminds me that we still have to do an article on the Devonian giant scorpion Praearcturus, which was IIRC both slightly bigger than Brontoscorpio and better known in terms of fossils. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about (actual) scorpions of any kind so I can't say much, but it looks good to me too. By the way, responding to the question about the specimen number, Kjellesvig-Waering (1972) on page 41 mentions the names of the specimens, including the free finger (In31405, the other two are counterparts). Since it says that it is reposted at the British Natural History Museum, the full label would be BMNH In31405, which gives one single result in Google [1]. SuperΨDro00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn't BMNH change to NHMUK though? Not sure what this means for the specimen number, though, I can't seem to find anything on the web for "NHMUK In31405" ... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Did it? I've never seen "NHMUK" in journal articles, I only saw "BMNH". Although I see that NHMUK is now used on several Wikipedia articles. SuperΨDro01:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the informations! For now I'll label it as "In31405" until any new description with notes on the full specimen number comes out.--Junnn11 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, TheRealLTG here. I've uploaded my first life restoration to Wikimedia Commons, but i think this might be admittedly inaccurate. Can you give me a little help on finding inaccuracies on my restoration of Albumares brunsae? TheRealLTGtalk03:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've created this image of the preserved upper snout of the Peloneustes holotype as part of my expansion of the Peloneustes article. This diagram's based on the photos in Ketchum & Benson (2011). Any thoughts on this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This white on black style does not seem to be ideal because there are no outer borders. I think the diagram can be even more useful when bones and features are labeled. Also, it is quite loaded with lines and features, so it is quite difficult to see which lines are representing sutures and delimit bones. Maybe you can simplify to a point where you have the sutures and the alveoli, and not much else. Or you could use thick lines for the sutures and alveoli and thin lines for the rest. Or you could even color the bones differently. Maybe a light grey fill will make the alveoli more evident.
A few details: You put a lot of attention into this crack extending from the fourth alveoli on the right, but yet you didn't draw its full extend. Maybe you can just get rid of it entirely, since it does not relate to anatomy. On the other hand, you are interpreting pits (circles) in front of the vomer, in an region which is apparently damaged. Maybe just remove those circles. Would be nice to indicate the foramina on the dorsal surface of the premaxilla; such features do actually matter (their exact number and position does not matter so much I think). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that I've addressed all listed concerns. I've revised the ventral crack. Since this is supposed to illustrate a particular specimen, I disagree that it should be removed, as it is really quite a prominent structure. Since you requested the individual bones be more strongly demarcated, this revealed to me that the vomers apparently are broken off before the posterior reaches of the preserved fragment, something I didn't realize before. How does the new shading scheme look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. Do you think we can have labels, so that the viewer knows where the vomer, premaxilla, maxilla, and alveoli are? That crack, ok, but I think you should draw all of it then; it crosses through the whole snout? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added a key, expanded the crack (don't know why it's giving me so much trouble), and added an alveolus I forgot. I'm not really sure how to include alveoli in the key, since they're basically just part of the premaxillae and maxillae, and the 10% darker shade is also used to indicate broken bone (basically any major depression). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking good! Maybe we don't need to label the alveoli. But if we do, the more flexible alternative would be to use arrows instead of the legend. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added the diagram to the expansion of the history section. I've finished up the expansion, so feel free to continue the review! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Life restorationSize comparison
While we're on Peloneustes, here's a work in progress version of the promised life restoration for it: [2]. I've learned that if I ever draw a plesiosaur head in perspective again, the mouth will be shut. I've also learned that perspective on the flippers can be tricky, is it sufficiently convincing? Besides any anatomical issues pointed out in the review, finalization will include some cleaning and adding of other details (skin folds, scars, etc.). Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks cool! One thing, in the upper jaw, I don't think you should be able to see the attachment points of the individual teeth, which would be obscured in that view? FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, looks good. I know it is only a work in progress, but the contrast is very strong, the white background is a bit dazzling. Maybe a slightly darker background (of even a slight blue color?) can decrease contrast a bit. Also, consider applying some blur to the edges of the body, so that they do not appear so sharp (cut-and-paste like). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Good to know about the teeth, that'll make drawing it a little easier. I actually considered putting it on a black background, but I refrained because I'm usually requested to use a white background instead. I'm thinking that a dark gray background might do the trick. Adding an outline should hopefully make the edges a bit more blurred. I'll start working on a new version. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the newer version, I decided to just upload it! Ultimately, it seemed like the black background ended up working out the best. Comments? Also, I realize that I've neglected to give it a tongue. What would plesiosaur tongues have looked like? Off the bat, the only modern restoration of a plesiosaur showing a tongue in the literature that I know of is that of Morturneria, which may not be the best analogue... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks better! I can't find many images of pliosaur skulls from that perspective, but there might have been visible, circular socket "mounds" for each tooth that could have been visible, but I'm not sure, could also have been covered and obscured by flesh. And by the way, the peer review of the article was just archived, but I'd recommend just copying it to the WP:PaleoPR, where it will stay much longer without being archived. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at false gavials (which I assume are a relatively good analogue for the flesh profile, although definitely not integument!) [3], it seems like such structures might be visible (although probably quite faint). I assume that these are the semicircular protrusions over the teeth? Also, I wonder if these crocodilians might be good models for the tongue. As for the peer review, I'm kind of considering just going straight to GA after the image stuff here and a few more minor improvements to the article are done, as I plan to send it back through some sort of peer review prior to FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the shading, thoughts? I made the "caps" over the teeth a bit more prominent on the larger ones, and added a little shading between each tooth to give more of the effect. As for the tongue, I'm not even sure if it would have been super visible at this angle. I've also smoothed out the flipper outlines. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And here's the size comparison! The larger individual is currently scaled to the largest known mandible, but I'd much rather have it scaled to the mounted skeleton in Tübingen, which actually has a size estimate (Linder, 1913). Does anyone know of its specimen number? Also, (tangentially) does anyone know of any thalattosuchian skeletals? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've scaled it to GPIT uncatalogued 1, which resulted in a length within centimeters, if not millimeters, of Linder's TL measurement, so it looks like that was indeed the one! Thanks! Also, good to hear about the possibility of new specimen numbers! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added the size comparison and life restoration to the article, due to the positive and/or neutral feedback on them. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made two diagrams of eurypterid opercula, with terminologies follow those of Lamsdell (2011) and Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017). For reconstruction, the ventral view follow figures from Lamsdell (2011) with some comparison to Braddy & Dunlop (1997). While the sagittal section follow those of Lamsdell et al. (2020), with tagmosis based on Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017) (hence the dismatch of opisthosomal somite and tergite count). The reconstruction of Lamsdell et al. (2020) included internal organs and articulation between sternites and opercula, but I tentatively omit it in my diagram since I can't find any significant reports on their occurence.
The chasmataspidid size comparison were based on the maximum size measurement/estimation from the original description or redescription of each included species (references listed in summary). I did not include Nahlyostaspis, Skrytyaspis and Kiaeria in the diagram, as these fragmental taxa still lacking any full-bodied reconstruction (nor any estimation of body length?). Since most of the original reconstruction did not including appendages, I choose to omit it all at once to avoid any uncertainties (also a better view on their unique body outline). Any thoughts?
--Junnn11 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! I don't know much about the eurypterid opercula but both images seem good. The chasmataspidid size comparison is good too, but I would prefer Diploaspis' species to be more explicitly shown to be of the same genus (perhaps by coloring them in the same color) as this may not be obvious at first unless readers read the names very carefully. Maybe the rest of the chasmataspidids could also be colored.SuperΨDro14:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! In my opinion, since the comparison is species-based and arranged by body length, I think the taxonomic relationship isn't an information that significant enough to be highlighted in this diagram (perhaps I can make another diagram exclusively for Diploaspis). I prefer to use character or line as a primary method to indicate featured subjects, since colors may not work well for viewers with color blindness (colors, if any, would be auxiliary like the opercula diagram). Perhaps I can modify the image in a more diagrammed, readable style like the size comparisons done by User:Slate Weasel. --Junnn11 (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I know there are some colors that are easier for color blind people to distinguish. There doesn't seem to be anything about this on Wikipedia or Commons (although it would be quite useful), but there are some webpages with tips (this one for example). If you decide to add color to the species in the end, you could take them into account. SuperΨDro10:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm red-green colourblind, if anyone wants to run something by me, haha... But in general, as long as similar colours are not used for different objects, it's not difficult to see differences, even if you can't identify the exact colour. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the infomations! Recently the diagram was modified with addition of ruler and colors (based on the 15 level colorblind-friendly pallet). If that considered better, I'll plan to renew some of my previous colored diagrams and the synziphosurine version as well.--Junnn11 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That's good, but I had first proposed adding colors so that Diploaspis species have the same color or at least similar shades of a color so that people can see that they are of the same genus without having to read the names. This is perhaps excessive on my part so it's of course up to you. SuperΨDro19:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Theosodon is too large?
I think this Theosodon size comparison by Nobu Tamura is wrong.
I compared ilium in this paper [4] and this [5] skeleton image, but it can't be too large like this image. Also, in "Illustrated encyclopedia of extinct mammals" (by Yukimitsu Tomida. 30 January 2011.), shoulder height of Theosodon is 1 meter, much smaller than shown in this image. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't match the 2 m length estimate in text. I think what happened was that it was scaled to 2 m in a straight line, not along the vertebral column. Reasonably complete skulls referred to the genus measure around 32 cm in length, so a ballpark estimate suggests the animal is 50% too large. That's assuming the human is 1.8 m tall, which it should be if it isn't. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
You may only need to cut out the animal part of this illustration. Alternatively, you can create a separate size comparison image. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact size. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made this image of the trunk appendage of Cucumericrus decoratus based on the interpretive drawing by Hou et al. 1995, since this species is problematic as a radiodont but still lacking any media on Wikipedia and Commons. Recently I'm not going to label any of the structures due to the different interpretations of this appendage as either dinocaridid or euarthropod-type (component and commonly-used terminology between this two appendage types are quite different, see this for summary). Any thoughts? --Junnn11 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Would only the tubercles be visible and not (the entirety of) the underlying neural spines? I'm not familiar with how soft tissue is supposed to work with edaphosaurid sails. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is decent evidence that the base of the sail hosted at least some muscle in some edaphosaurids, but the distal portion of the neural spines are rounded in cross-section and probably not covered by much tissue. I think the restoration currently looks good, as there seems to be a bit of muscle at the base of the sail which gradually thins upwards. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of there being any word on how defined the spines should be within the sails of pelycosaurs (besides not being a hump), but as far as I was concerned this seemed within reason based on the range of variation of sails in lizards. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 11:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is the first tooth a different color? I also suggest to use dashed lines to indicate the upper, middle and lower sections of the teeth. Why is, e.g., "Lower" capitalized? In general I think that the placement of the text can do with some fine tuning; it looks very crammed and not always well-aligned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
So the first version was too cartoony so I decided to use pencil instead. I don't have the means to scan images so I had to use my phone camera. It's based on the female specimen DNH-7, and I haven't added hair yet. Any comments before I do, because it'll be hard to change anything after User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the lips should be a little more pronounced (not much, just a little). Otherwise, it looks all right (if not a little shifty-looking). Borophagus (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Necromantis reconstruction
This image was added to the page of Necromantis.
This image seems to depict Necromantis attacking a Gigantornis chick, but neither has fossils found in the area and it is unknown if they have met.
Also, since the skull of Necromantis is about 3.2 cm, the depiction of the Gigantornis chick seems too small. What do you think about this? --Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a duckling with the beak of a grown pelagornithid? I'd assume the beak would be a lot smaller in a juvenile... FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if anything is known about pelagornithid ontogeny, but I agree with that sentiment. Even merganser ducklings (which have the longest beaks I know of from any anseriform) don't have beaks that oversized. Besides, the perspective makes Necromantis's head look thinner than it should be, at least based on other restorations. Borophagus (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Histology of pelagornithid beaks suggests that the pseudoteeth didn't grow in until fairly late in their ontogeny[8], corroborated by the only known immature specimen of a pelagornithid jaw. With that in mind, I wouldn't expect a chick to have any pseudoteeth at all, especially one this small. The same juvenile specimen also implies that their beaks would have been proportionately shorter than an adult's, like you said. I wouldn't be surprised if the duckling look is a nod to their potential affinity with anseriforms, although given that pelagornithid chicks are presumed to be altricial based on that study, your mileage may vary on whether that's an appropriate pelage for them or not.
Hey guys - I'm unsure if this is how to reply to these, so bear with me (I;m relatively new here). I appreciate and agree with your fedback - I didn't do as much research as I could have done. I originally mistook Necromantis for an actual African genus, Witwatia, so that explains why the two are together where they otherwise wouldn't be. Would you like me to either (a) remove the artwork, (b) replace it with more up-to-date artwork, or (c) re-edit it to a generic Anseriforme? Thanks.
Hi, thanks for responding! I think b and c are the best solutions, and you can probably pick whichever is best for you. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Mystriosuchus only has some vintage paleoart on its main page. How scientifically accurate are these three modern restorations? Monsieur X (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, phytosaurs had a single paired row of osteoderms. So the first and third modern images are inaccurate. However, the skull shape on the second one does not look right for M. planirostris, see [9]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In particular the angle between the tooth plates seems way over-exaggerated compared to the figure in the paper, to an almost comical degree like they'd never be able to actually touch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it myself based on the 3D model in the paper. As can be seen, this is still pretty bizarre, but more plausible than previous restorations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe some color-coding would be nice, with separate colors for the meckel's cartilage, palatine, quadrate, tooth blades, and chondrocranium? The portion of the chondrocranium which is not well-preserved can be colored in a slightly paler version of the main color. Integrating a legend or labels into the illustration will help with defining the different components as well. I also agree with Dunk's point that the lines are still a bit thin. They look somewhat fuzzy from a distance. Truth be told I've considered making eugenedont skull diagrams now that the pages are being revised, but I just haven't had the time. Your work is appreciated greatly. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the width of the lines from 1 pixel to 3 pixels, I also labelled the bones using arrows, because I am unsure of the correspondence of the bones in the dorsal view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a Xinpusaurus size chart, depicting the holotypes of the two generally accepted species. X. xingyiensis has the dubious distinction of being Guizhouichthyosaurus food. I wasn't sure if the limbs should be paddle-like or webbed, so I went with the latter because it would be easier to change to the other. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just from the aesthetic point of view, everything looks a bit crammed, too close together. Maybe remove that grey bottom bar (this does not make too much sense for aquatic animals in any case?), which would give you a bit more space. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Kairuku in this image looks too tall. In fact, its height should be in the range of 120-130 cm. If a man is 180 cm, it doesn't fit the measurement. -- Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
K. grebneffi is estimated as having been 128 cm tall. The Glen Murray penguin (K. sp.) was up to 20% larger [10], indicating a maximum height of 154 cm. Either way, this may be slightly too large. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that this might be my first freshwater marine reptile size comparison. Here's the newly described Albertan elasmosaurid Fluvionectes in size chart form, with the length estimates matching those in the paper pretty well. Comments? Also, does anyone know of a Dakosaurus skeletal? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, don't see anything off.
Young et al. [11] have some skull reconstructions for Dakosaurus. If I am not mistaken, there are no good postcranial remains for the genus. Metriorhynchid postcrania in general appear to be poorly known. The best you can do might be Cricosaurus suevicus[12] and/or C. bambergensis[13]? Maybe Rhacheosaurus gracilis[14] as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of Lindwurmia, which doesn't even have an article yet! I tried a new layout this time, how does it look? Comments on the plesiosaur? I've not been super productive this month, but I'll try and make a dinosaur (and update my Savannasaurus' skull), as well as a chart for Peloneustes (does anyone know the specimen number of the mounted skeleton at GPIT?), over the next few days. Also, if no one has any objections, I should probably start adding some of the August and November size charts to their respective articles. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Lindwurmia did have a page, but it was created by a now-banned sockpuppet... Anyway, I think it could have a rounder tail fluke, as has been reconstructed for Rhomaleosaurus: [15] I also wonder if the neck could be more differentiated, e.g. by making the ventral margin slightly concave. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Nobu updated this Sthenurus model, but not the anatomy
Nobu's recent reconstruction
With the 2014 paper revealing that sthenurine kangaroos were bipeds that walked tips of their "toes", it's probably best to review & eventually modify these pics. Monsieur X (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I realize that (a) the posture is different and (b) you can only do so much with photomanipulation, but would the metatarsals still be so close to the ground in the crouching position? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I had so much trouble with that image due to its posture & my own unfamiliarity with kangaroo anatomy. I'll have another go at it again soon. I found some close up of some modern roo metatarsals for reference. Monsieur X (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that are no images of Xenorhinotherium. No fossils, skeletals or paleoart. Despite possibly being the trunked creature seen in the pictographs from Colombia's Serranía de La Lindosa rock formation. Are there any fossil images that fall under the public domain or are licensed under Creative Commons? Monsieur X (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Since images of fossil materials are out of the question. Is anyone willing to do some drawings of the fossil materials or perhaps a restoration for the article? Monsieur X (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The closest thing to a reference for Xenothinotherium is this image:[16] which is in turn based on a skeletal from here: [17] Unfotuinately I haven't found references in papers since that they are not accessible. --Rextron (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Another Helicoprion skull diagram, and discussion of a life restoration
Fanboyphilosopher skull diagram (left) and DiBgd life restoration (right)
We discussed this a bit on my talk page, but it turns out that both I and Hemiauchenia were working on crafting Helicoprion skull diagrams independently for the article. I don't want to make this feel like a competition, but I still thought that we should discuss and compare our diagrams further. Here is my skull diagram, which incorporates a speculative chondrocranium (albeit one with a general shape which is fairly well-supported by phylogenetic bracketing). My rationale was that by solely illustrating the jaw structures, we may unintentionally confuse readers who are not aware of the specialized skull structure of chondricthyans, and therefore may mistake the palatoquadrate for the skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't really think a dorsal view would be necessary, in the CT scans the palatoquadrates are pretty straight and simple in dorsal view, so it would not be very informative. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, this life restoration by DiBgd may not be completely accurate, though it does come close. Helicoprion postcrania is not fully known, but other eugeneodonts are known to have five or six shark-like gill slits, not a fleshy chimaera-like operculum. That may have simply been an over-correction based on the confirmation that eugeneodonts were holocephalans. The tail also looks a bit thin relative to the powerful lamnid-like keeled tail of eugeneodonts like Fadenia and Romerodus. Would someone be able to make a few edits if possible? Other options would be just to remove it (since we also have the Stanton Fink reconstruction without the same issues), or it could be replaced with a new life restoration. I have a few off-Wikipedia friends who are very knowledgeable about eugeneodonts, and they may be willing to give some of their art a CC BY license if asked nicely. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I also like the one with the chondocranium better. But I wonder why the labial cartilage attaches to the palatoquadrate in one reconstruction but not in the other? Which is correct? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Mine was based off figure 2C in Ramsay et al. (2014/2015), where I believe the mouth is closed to its maximum extent. As Hemiauchenia said, the shape of the labial cartilage differs a bit between the CT data and the Tapanila et al. (2018) models. Cross section diagrams in figure 7 of Ramsay et al. (2014/2015) show the labial cartilages bracketing the inner surface of the palatoquadrate when the mouth is closed. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I also like Fanboyphilosopher's restoration better. There's still plenty of Helicoprion diagrams to draw. I should note that the chrondrocranium is based on some pretty distantly related eugeneodonts, not even members of Edestoidea. A few minor things: 1. the encapsulating cartilage that surrounds the whorl and is partially preserved in the CT scan (see yellow coloured part) is missing. 2. the actual articulations between the chrondocranium and the palatoquadrate and between the palatoquadrate and the Meckel's cartilage could be labelled. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Edestus is an edestoid (albeit a very specialized one with a small palatoquadrate), and basal holocephalans have a fairly conservative chondrocranium in most regards. Basing edestoid crania and postcrania on caseodontoids does require some assumption, but it's the best guide we have for now. Fair point about the encasing cartilage, though I realized that it means none of the teeth would be visible in lateral view when the jaw is fully shut. I will add a disclaimer to the description noting that the encasing cartilage is not shown, in order to illustrate the structure of the tooth whorl in relation to the rest of the skull. As for labels, the chondrocranium/palatoquadrate articulations are not visible in lateral view and the palatoquadrate/meckel's cartilage articulation is pretty self-explanatory, at least in my opinion. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the life restoration, is the big green eye accurate? These seems to be present in deepwater chimaeras, dogfish, and catsharks, but Helicoprion doesn't seem to be a deepwater taxon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that FbP has gotten the skull down. I thought I would do the jaw motion. The figure is based on those in Ramsey and Colleagues 2015, perhaps a bit too closely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I hope it would be legal, since it's a very useful image. Then again I'm usually a bit biased towards bending the rules a bit with tracing over scientific diagrams, so someone else may object. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Based off figure 7 in Ramsay and Colleagues 2015, I didn't include the interior revolutions of the whorl because I thought that they were not necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It's looking very nice. The only other edits I'd recommend are to specify whether each cross section represents the jaw as closed or open, and to space out the colors from the text in the legend a bit further. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
First thalattosuchian! Cricosaurus is really-welled preserved. I'm not super well-versed in thalattosuchian anatomy, so I do have some questions regarding some aspects of my silhouette, especially the amount of flesh on the caudal fin, the flexibility of the hindlimbs, and whether or not metriorhynchids had external claws. Comments? Next up will likely be Dakosaurus, assuming a bunch of plesiosaurs don't beat it. As suggested by Lythronax, I'll probably use the postcranium of Cricosaurus for Dakosaurus, although after seeing how slender Cricosaurus is, it'll probably need some beefing up to accomodate the macroraptorial nature of Dakosaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Soft tissue suggests that the caudal fin looked like this: [18]. The extremely reduced ilium and fourth trochanter in metriorhynchids suggests that perhaps the hindlimbs were not very mobile: [19]. Unsure about the unguals... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Gyrosteus article has been updated recently and yet still does not have any art now that the old (and as I understand it, outdated) art that was on the page prior has been removed. I would like to suggest adding this piece depicting Gyrosteus and Hauffiosaurus by Fishboy86164577 as a possible replacement. Pryftan213 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Evidently the file was deleted due to a misunderstanding by a Commons moderator while I was adding it to this page, I have left them a message requesting that the file be restored as the deletion was unjustified, so ideally it should be back soon enough. Pryftan213 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added a comment on the admin's talk page explaining what I think happened... Yewtharaptor has a habit of commissioning artists to make restorations, but he often doesn't have the right "paperwork" in handy, to prove their licenses and consent from the artists. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort on your part, though this particular moderator seems to be more concerned with going on an ego trip so I suspect that the situation is not going to be rectified. A shame , that piece would have made a rather fine addition to the article I think. My sincere apologies to you if I've wasted anyone's time here, I was certainly not expecting any of these absurd complications to follow when I started this thread. Pryftan213 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
To be quite frankly fair, Yewtharaptor is a serial copyright infringer, for which he has been blocked on several occasions, and the block on commons is justified, even if several of the images were deleted were actually CC BY licensed, I can hardly blame the person who simply deleted all of them without carefully sifting through them. Goodness knows how many times Diannaa has had to revdel text that he has simply copied from a research paper. Yewtharaptor's native language is a romance language and not english, and all the text that he writes is effectively in broken english has to be extensively copyedited by someone else, usually me. I don't hate Yewtharaptor or think he should be banned from Wikipedia, he's gotten better recently at not blatantly copying the text of research papers, and the articles that he extensively expands (usually articles on Lower Jurassic geological formations) like the Ciechocinek Formation and Posidonia Shale I doubt anybody else would bother to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see the point with them, the drama here was more to do with the fact that the actual artist who painted the piece (not Yewtharaptor) tried to upload it and was blocked pretty much instantaneously for it. Yewtharaptor evidently had uploaded the same piece earlier and so one of the moderators believed that the artist was an alt of that user but then refused to rectify the mistake when I brought it to their attention. Pryftan213 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I did both of these freehand using the figures in Dupret 2004 for reference. The linework and and the exact outline vary substantiantially from the originals, though there are substantial differences between the left and right halves of Dupret's original drawings anyway, which in some cases vary contacts between bones, so I think this is fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Unless those are pseudoteeth (are they?) I think it's not a good idea to make them the same colour as the corresponding bones. At least white with black outline or something. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The teeth of Sphenodontians are acrodont, which means that they are fused to the bone, and it is not possible to distinguish the teeth and the bone without a cross section. The teeth are usually not distinguished in the drawings of Rhynchocephalians for that reason. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
On having a second look I realise that there is an inconsistency between the size of the premaxilla between lateral dorsal views with respect for the lateral posterior boundary, which is located significantly down the length of the nasal fenestra in dorsal view but only touches the anterior edge of the nasal fenestra in lateral view. It's like this in the original diagram too. Not sure what to do about this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
the current reconstruction by fink differs substantially from the known skeletal and non skeletal elements of the animal so i am providing an alternative reconstruction based more on living mitsukurina but also the well preserved fossils of S. lewisii
I have reuploaded it with clear indication that i am the original creator of the image since there seemed to be confusion on that. EvolutionIncarnate (User talk:Evolutionincarnate talkRestoration of S. lewisii
Lazarussuchus
Restoration of the skull of the Menat Formation specimen of Lazarussuchus After this figure in Matsumoto, R.; Buffetaut, E.; Escuillie, F.; Hervet, S.; Evans, S. E. (2013). "New material of the choristodere Lazarussuchus (Diapsida, Choristodera) from the Paleocene of France". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 33 (2): 319. The original drawing was pretty wonky to begin with (at least in dorsal view). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The tip of the snout is missing the naris. Also, I would recommend not using the exact same colors as the paper, since we're already scraping the edge of fair use. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Ehhhhh the figure i am drawing from is a CT-scan of a complete and articulated skull, which is not really any different to drawing from an image of the fossil itself. Where copyright is an issue is when you are directly tracing other people's reconstructions of fossils, where there is substantial original interpretation, which is not the case here. It's also not exactly the same as the CT scan as I mirrored the complete left half. I only kept the colour scheme the same to avoid becoming confused when labelling the bones, and I will recolour it once I have done the fossil in ventral view, which I intend to do tomorrow. Good catch on the naris, it isn't very visible in the Ct-scan, so I've fixed, that, and will upload alongside the ventral view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I should note that the paper the images are sourced from is already CC licensed anyway, but are under a noncommercial license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done, there was a lateral view in the same figure, but the skull of Champsosaurus is very dorsoventrally compressed so I am not sure how useful it is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Realised that the diagram considered the parasphenoid and exoccipital the same bone, so I've distinguished them, I've also added the palatal dentition. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, a plesiosaur beat Dakosaurus. I've been sitting on this for awhile (more than a year), but it only came together properly recently (thanks to my understanding of plesiosaur anatomy improving). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, is it the semicircular bulge behind the rostrum? If so, then that's actually a crest located above the orbit, not the temporal region. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm... the skull of Westphaliasaurus is unknown, and I had some trouble trying to make it look convincingly sized when drawing it. It does look strangely large, so I think that I might try to cross-check it against Hydrorion (of which we have good images of the whole skeleton). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Brachauchenius has come, and brought about a change to this section's title (hearkening back to what ichthyosaurs did in June...). Any comments? I don't know why, but it seems to look kind of off. I've made a size comparison for almost every single brachauchenine now, I realize... perhaps I'll have to do Megacephalosaurus soon... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't gotten into pliosaurs for awhile, so I don't have much to say at the moment. But I would probably say that since Megacephalosaurus is known from a skull and few ribs, there's probably a lot of artistic liberty allowed for the postcranial. For the skull, [20]this would be the best reference, and I guess you could proxy another brachauchenine for the postcranial like Kronosaurus. Macrophyseter | talk16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: A bit off topic, but would be open to making a size diagram of Mosasaurus? I've attempted at one in the past, but there were some potential issues with it, and I think your expertise in the sort would make a far superior diagram.Macrophyseter | talk23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I definitely could try to do this. I've got quite a bit of stuff going on, but I think that I should be able to squeeze some time in for this over the weekend (it will probably take longer to finish than that, though, if Tylosaurus was anything to go by). I have actually previously chopped up the M. lemmonieri quarry map and turned it into a crude schematic: [21], which would be useful for this project. Which species do you want included in the diagram? Also, what are the potential issues with the current one? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Tylosaurus took a while because there was so much to represent and there were some problems with verifying a few of the species. I don't think Mosasaurus is going to be as complicated as that was. The previous one I made relied a bit on an amateur source, so I ended up decommissioning it for that reason. Representation-wise, I think it would be best to put in M. hoffmannii, M. missouriensis, and M. lemonnieri; M. conodon and M. beaugei may be invalid taxa in the future per Street (2016).
Some comments on individual species:
M. hoffmannii: This one's a bit problematic because I'm convinced that the Russell proportions are inaccurate, yet it hasn't been questioned in scientific literature (At least one study provides an alternative that I personally think closer to the actual, but it doesn't address Russell's ratio). As a solution, I think you can do it the same way you did with your Kronosaurus diagram, in which two proportions of the same specimen are depicted. In this case, it would be the ratio from Russell (1967) (1:10) and Fanti et al. (2014) (1:7). Specimen-wise, I think CCMGE 10/2469 (1710 cm) is good enough. I would note though that I've seen literature informally size typical "large but not extremely large" individuals at around 14m (based on the assumption that the max size is 17.6m per Lingham-Soliar (1995), which is wrong because the ratio used to calculate it was misapplied), so you can also try scaling another to something similar to that if you'd like.
M. missouriensis: Large individuals of the species typically have skulls measuring around a meter or so (The holotype is only a few centimeters short of that), so I think you could either generalize a large representative with a 1m skull or depict KUVP 1034 (111 cm). Proportions-wise, someone posted a nice full photo of a complete skeleton (TMP 2012.010.0001)[22].
M. lemonnieri: I think your schematic is nice! But there are a few comments I have about it. First, I think the rear paddle should be positioned more anteriorly, as the beginning of the pygal series happens earlier (first pygal should be the 6th vertebra left of the first green one). Likewise, a rule of thumb for the positioning of the front scapula would be that it's transversally located somewhere right behind the seventh cervical. As for the skull, I think the reconstruction by Lingham-Soliar (2000)[23] would serve as a much better reference. Size-wise, you could scale the resulting model to represent both the holotype specimen (IRSNB R 28; skull length= 56 cm) and largest specimen (IRSNB 3189; skull length= 114 cm)
Both of these animals should probably have lips. The nostrils on the Moschops look like they might actually be bigger than the external nares, and something seems off about its teeth. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
From an artistic and compositional standpoint, I'm not sure that this image really is necessary for the article. Especially with the cartoonish motion blur. There are a bunch of other oddities about this as well—the eyes seem a bit oversized and in the case of the Moschops are oddly humanlike, the overall appearance of the Moschops mouth seems a bit off, the Anteosaurus skull doesn't seem to exhibit the full range of bosses present, the postcanines are seemingly vertical rather than being flared out slightly, the tail looks a bit short but that might be perspective, the overall structure of the pes looks wrong (in particular, the fifth toe should be of comparable length to the second through fourth toes). But I'm not convinced that this image really adds anything to the article that we need, so I don't really see the value of revising it. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this image accompanied a recent press release, and note some of the artist's other images (can be seen here[24], should also be reviewed) have appeared in published papers, at least the Euchambersia. FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It's that time of year, new megalodon estimates... Perez et al. 2021 propose a method of estimating total length by using the sum of all the tooth crown widths.[25] Using this technique, a large tooth produced an estimated range of 17.4 - 24.2 m, with the mean being 20.3 m. Here is a proposed update to the size chart. [26] However, there are a few issues to consider that might affect this size chart. Both Shimada 2019 and Perez et al. agree that using Shimada 2002 equations can produce wildly varying estimates, especially for the more posterior tooth positions. E.g. 11.6-41.1 m for different teeth of the same shark. This means that the 10.5 m average estimates by Pimiento & Balk 2015, which used the Shimada 2003 equations, is probably unreliable. Should it be included in the size chart?
Another issue is that the Perez et al. and Shimada techniques produce differing results. The Perez et al. estimates are generally larger than the anterior tooth equations. E.g. a shark that Shimada 2019 equation estimates at 12 m, the Perez et al. estimates 15.1-20.3 with a mean of 17.3 m. Having sharks estimated with both these techniques in the same size chart might be misleading to the viewer. Because of this, I've tried to clarify the techniques used in the image text. Any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I think making sure that viewers don't get the wrong idea and taking things out of nuance is one of the most important components to maintain when adding the new estimates. Seeing the new chart, I personally have some concern that it may be possible that lay readers may misinterpret Perez et al. (2021) as being the "new and official" estimate that overthrows Shimada (2019) as the "correct" method rather than being a novel possible method that warrants equal scrutiny. Perhaps this problem could be mitigated with better nuance in the article text. I would personally suggest the possibility of mentioning the identities of the mentioned specimens, i.e. how that GHC 6 is the largest known tooth accessible by scientists and its size. Macrophyseter | talk22:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't come across as the 'new official estimate'. The problem with an animal as popular as megalodon is that people are likely to copy-paste this image across the web. I usually do extensive image descriptions to help reduce the chance that the nuance and complexities won't get lost, but the description rarely makes it with the image. There's more text in the actual image than I would typically do, but I could add more? I seem to remember wiki preferring less text in diagrams? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I would probably run with shorter labels (nevertheless to be cited + amending my comment suggesting that they should be mentioned as being the largest teeth accessible) similar to something like: "Maximum estimate based on jaw width extrapolated from GHC 6 (12.2 cm CH; 13.3 cm CW)" and "Maximum estimate based on crown height of upper anterior tooth from NSM PV-19896 (12.0 cm CH)" or if to be more compact, maybe even "Maximum estimate based on tooth width of GHC 6 (12.2 cm CH; 13.3 cm CW)" and "Maximum estimate based on tooth height of NSM PV-19896 (12.0 cm CH)" although the compact version has the risk of being slightly misleading in regards to specific methodology. These suggestions may not have to best grammatical wordings, so take them as ideas. Macrophyseter | talk18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I like the revised version. If it's too much text, we could just leave it at "Maximum/average length according to xyz's equation" and leave discussion of methods in the actual text User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk18:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Yeah, the wording needs to be efficient, something I'm terrible at. I like the wording of 'Maximum estimate using xxx' for both the Shimada and Perez et al. estimates. The fact they're both 'maximum' helps suggest they're competing as opposed to one being superior. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_(14772730112).jpg)
Nobu's Crouching Procoptodon (Edited)
Apokryltaros' browsing Procoptodon (Edited)
Simosthenurus
Nobu updated this Sthenurus model, but not the anatomy
Nobu's recent reconstruction
.png)
![[2]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XdWUURKM8V4/YBBNzLY0iQI/AAAAAAAAA38/00PNw1MPVXU1_jRkEGtB01BgVUKR1zTcACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Peloneustes%2BSW%2BWIP%2B0.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reports_of_the_Princeton_University_Expeditions_to_Patagonia,_1896-1899._J._B._Hatcher_in_charge_(1901)_(14749571352).jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/biobook/MAMC058.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://mediacdn.nhbs.com/jackets/jackets_resizer_xlarge/22/227757_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Cricosaurus_suevicus_6743.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20190610163710737-0227:S0016756818000523:S0016756818000523_fig2g.gif?pub-status=live){kind=link}
![[21]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B7BHzr_kLkE/YEv1u_qKHjI/AAAAAAAAA5E/_r3i6skrF5IKyOt_uTaNAQXTymiIf-ICgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1304/Mosa-lemo-scheme2.png){kind=link}
![[22]](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/35f9d920-0e0a-49ff-a8b5-643f5e39acc2/ddlvn4u-0305a543-6fe4-49ef-ae36-d7b2955f4fa8.png/v1/fill/w_1280,h_336,q_80,strp/small_by_crowncrocopoda_ddlvn4u-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MzM2IiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMzVmOWQ5MjAtMGUwYS00OWZmLWE4YjUtNjQzZjVlMzlhY2MyXC9kZGx2bjR1LTAzMDVhNTQzLTZmZTQtNDllZi1hZTM2LWQ3YjI5NTVmNGZhOC5wbmciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.MfNJWFz15l4T5Tklb5gXq9f2eAIV-9ak1d4ATSZr4zI){kind=link}
![[23]](https://pasteboard.co/JSlPbYC.png){kind=link}
