Talk:Nipponosaurus

Restoration

Hi Lusotitan, I see you removed the old life restoration; there certainly aren't no copyright issues with it, it was created especially for Wikipedia, but as you say, there may be some anatomical errors. But these can hopefully be fixed if we list them here. Or maybe we should send it to the review page again. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The two big issues I noticed were apparent pronated hands and it being rather shrink wrapped, particularly where the neck meets the skull, similar to the restoration I recently removed from the Arenysaurus page. There might be further errors on close inspection, but overall it seemed like it was just minor details like that. Anyway, having a restoration is good, so if it could be adjusted to fix the inaccuracies that's probably the way to go. Lusotitan (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Those issues are easy to fix, I was more worried about the tail maybe bending too much... That would be hard to fix. But if it's only those things, I can fix it when I get back to my computer in two weeks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That definitely occurred to me, it probably is flexing to heavily at the base. Lusotitan 02:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Lusotitan 02:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a look at it now, and just to be clear, the "shrink-wrapping" at the neck is the fold between the neck and the head? I can tone it down, but I'm not sure why this would necessarily be incorrect? As for the tail, I can't find something that specifically states how flexible hadrosaur tails would be, but it seems the paper alluded to here[1] may give some clues. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not super knowledgeable on musculature, but shouldn't there be actual muscle connecting the neck to the lower jaw instead of a little bit of skin? Lusotitan 03:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how you mean (maybe you can show an example of how it should look), but if you look at the ornithopod muscle studies in Gregory S. Paul's Field Guide (if you have that), they don't seem too different from the LadyofHats drawing around the necks. Check Iguanodon on page 287 or Kritosaurus on page 294, for example. I can't find them online, unfortunately... FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just before the neck hits the head, it does this weird jump up so the bottom of the skull has no musculature attaching to it, merely a bizarre, tiny skin flap; I can't imagine this is right, and looking at Edmontosaurus and Lambeosaurus their reconstructions indeed show no such thing. Of course, I'm talking about the one in the foreground - the background one lacks enough detail to tell, although the neck certainly looks rather thin. Lusotitan 03:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There might have been some massive gular pouch. But I don't think major muscles connected the neck and the quadrates.--MWAK (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I can add a slight dewlap (note those edmontosaur restorations had none until I added them). Any thoughts on the tail-bend, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to assess the mobility of the tail base as the vertebrae apparently have not preserved their processus spinosi. However, ossified tendons would be expected, forcing the tail into a horizontal position. If the image is supposed to depict a juvenile, perhaps more flexibility can be allowed for.

Returning to the neck-skull connection, perhaps it's good to point out that a "weird jump up" is exactly what the anterior neck does. It curves vertically, making the skull rear run parallel to the axis of the vertebrae. The lower jaw rear is then at the level of the sixth cervical but is likely not directly connected to it by a muscle, as this would make no biomechanical sense. The neck muscles act on the skull via the occiput, not the lower jaws. The lower jaw posterior end bends upwards for the depressor mandibulae. Of course, all kinds of connective tissues might have bulged out.--MWAK (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a bunch of changes mainly on the limbs and around the necks[2], how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks better. But I fear the tail problem is insurmountable. There is a structural flaw in the entire composition. The perspective for the foreground animal is wrong, as the viewer has to look down on a horizontal tail to see it like this, but would have to be very close to the animal not to look down on the head — but then the tail should appear a lot larger! Also the vanishing points for both animals differ, unless they are standing on a different level.--MWAK (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to show exactly we're I'm seeing the issue by comparing it more directly to the Lambeosaurus reconstruction. That definitely doesn't look natural to me. The actual proper musculature and tissue stops connecting barely halfway down the skull. [3]. Lusotitan 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I think what's going on there is something similar to for example this horse:[4] When it turns its neck back, it creates a kind of crease. As for the perspective issues, to me it looks like the horizon line would be above the shoulder blade of the animal in the back? FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the proper musculature would have stopped halfway down the skull. The Lambeosaurus image suggests lateral muscles that simply wouldn't have existed. The background animal could of course have been a smaller juvenile.--MWAK (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can the image be saved at this point? What needs to be done further? FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It has its pictorial deficiencies but these are not too serious. I would simply accept them, do nothing and use the picture :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so there are no obvious anatomical errors left? Easier to fix than perspective issues... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So are we gonna put it back in? Lusotitan 03:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I need to upload the new version first! But if anyone has some last addition before, let me know. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Got further plans with this, Lusotitan? I think it could become a nice little GA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  Right now the big next step would be a good description section... but that's my big weakpoint in article writing. I don't have the technical knowhow to write a proper in-depth section on anatomy. I remember there were a few other things I needed to add to the palaeoecology section I'd have to track down again and it needs a lead too. At the moment my goal has been to get Ankylopollexia to GA then FA (work in Sandbox), but that's going to be a long-term project, so I could certainly do this on the side. I've also been looking at Coronosaurus for GA for quite a while. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  Hehe, most of what I know about dinosaur anatomy, and osteology in general, I actually learned by writing dinosaur articles here, so it is certainly worth trying out. And I'm sure I and others would look it over before you nominate it. Coronosaurus has gotten many new images recently, so it could be a nice contender too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  I've also been wondering if I could run Eolambia for FA, since it could definitely reach it but it's written by someone no longer active on the site. Is there a precedent for this at all? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  It has been done before, as long as you have access to and are familiar with the relevant literature, it should be possible for you to do whatever changes asked for by reviewers. I did it with Choiseul pigeon a few years ago, which was largely written by someone who suddenly disappeared during the first FAC. I would also add that it is a good idea to start out with low level taxa for practice/getting an overview of the literature, and slowly work towards higher level taxa, as these are much more complex. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Any news on what needs to be done to the restoration[5] before it can be included again? There is a tag saying "Torso too long, beak too small". What should it instead be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Began some edits here, bigger beak, shorter body, other modifications:[6] Perhaps I should take it to WP:dinoart. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely looks a lot better, I think it's fine to put back in but wouldn't hurt to put it up at the art page. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Cool, I'll do some more adjustments and put it up. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)