Talk:Rahonavis

Just out of curiosity

The same artist that did the current version of the Rahonavis picture also did a more recent, more anatomically accurate portrait of the animal, which appearently has been rejected. Is it because the author himself wasn't the one that replaced the current picture for the new one? Because the current image on Unenlagia wasn't also placed there by the author, but by another person. As you can see, its also a new picture that is more anatomically correct, so why doesn't can't the same occur to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.91.154 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly less anatomically correct than the original and was rejected at the Image Review page previously [1]. For one thing the wings are far too small on the new version. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AW has nominated the old one for deletion, so I was thinking of correcting the new[2] one. Is it mainly the wings that should be longer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yah, the arms (and probably wing feathers) are far too short relative to the body. The forearm, at least, should be about the same length as the torso, which would but the elbow (and hence *base* of the secondaries) near the tail base when folded (see skeletal [3]). In this image the secondaries don't even extend to the point they should be starting ;) In fact the way it's drawn it looks like there are no secondaries at all, all visible remiges are anchored to the manus like Caudipteryx. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

SIZE?!

How big was this thing? There aren't any size measurements on the entire page. Wingspan, length, maybe a size diagram... any or all of these would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.153.0 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New open access description

Being a Palaeontologia Electronica paper with the copyright held by SVP, we are free to use the images: [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool, the CC license is also stated specifically in the PDF version. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Figure 41 (the skeletal) is a bit distracting with the background... wonder if it should be removed? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)