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. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
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.
i could argue that, based on the trilophosaurus skeletal, the illustration you showed has actually kind of short arms, and that my depiction is within a natural range of motion for the creature, between the usually depicted limb that's far away back and the other far away forward [9]. So like a mid-step position LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the point is to ignore Peters' work entirely (found on his blogs "Reptile Evolution" and "The Pterosaur Heresies") since he usually introduces many misinterpretations due to his unorthodox methods. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean; ok, but that's not really the point, judging by other skeletals (like the one from its own paper) the arm lenght is fine in my opinion, and its in a natural middle-ground between the usually depicted far-away-back and far-away-forward foot pose, unless there's evidence of teraterpeton's legs being shorter which i haven't found yet LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all of this user's uploads (including Teraterpeton, discussed above). I can't speak to the little anatomical details, but they seem quite good artistically. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks!, i also wonder what other species could be in need of a good paleo-art, like i did with Puercosuchus, which even with how interesting it is, there's ZERO other drawings of it i the internet! LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good based on fossil images and a model I found from the Yale Peabody museum, but I am very unfamiliar with the specifics on these worms. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleoEquii: also created reconstruction of Pambdelurion (originally created as Omnidens and posted to Twitter but I recommended him to upload this as Pambdelurion). Spines on frontal appendage looks like different from reconstruction by @Junnn11:, but I think spine numbers are uncertain? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Some specimens seems to show a bit more of them. In my opinion, Even the size of frontal appendage itself seems to be somewhat variable (flexible?) as well. Junnn11 (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure its related but yes the appendages are extremely flexible. The appendage and head anatomy here was based on Supplementary Figure 9 of Young & Vinther (2016), MGUH 31551. This one shows the many thin elongate spines well, as well as the cephalic spines, and the extreme flexure of one of the appendages. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now new study[12] have shown complete remain of Ptychodus. Although paper is not freely licensed, supplementary information of the paper[13] is CC BY 4.0 which we can use some of fossil images. Either way, I think we probably need new Ptychodus reconstruction based on Mexican specimen. @Damouraptor: or @EvolutionIncarnate: would be interested in that? Supplementary material also includes size estimation of multiple specimens based on newly found specimen. I wonder if @PaleoNeolitic: would be good at making new size chart? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size comparison done. I depicted four species of each tooth morphology following Vullo et al. 2024, as well as the new body shape indicated by the new fossils. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Makarkinia, as I see there are no morphological issue but any opinions? This blogpost estimated flying posture of Kalligrammatids[14] and shows some videos which shows slow-motion of flight of neuropterans, comparing that this would be fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found two Paleozoic arts, Bothriolepis looks fine to me, especially since it is based on latest interpretation. While Pterygotus, is outdated. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Wanted to put this Vasuki life reconstruction up for review... since it's only known from a few vertebrae I didn't have much to go off with, but I've tried to keep it in line with Madtsoiidae in general, taking inferences from Madtsoia and Gigantophis Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those weren't supposed to be scales, just a pattern, though I see now that they look more like scales... I'll make some changes to make it look more obvious Edit: I have made some changes to fix the issue, please check now Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a size comparison, originally by Steveoc 86 and Oryctolagus XL reuploaded with the addition of Vasuki, I have used the mean of the lower and upper ranges provided in Datta & Bajpai 2024 (10.9-12.2 m has been averaged to 11.5 m and 14.5 to 15.2 m has been averaged to 14.8 m)
I have no idea about the others, I took the size comparison from the Titanoboa page so figured it might be right... If it is problematic though here's one specifically for Vasuki Vasuki indicus size comparisonAnsh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started an update to my version a while ago with the intention of adding Palaeophis but I don't know when I'll finish it. I should probably add Vasuki now. The current iteration can be seen here [16]. The extinct snake silhouettes in the diagram mainly use the size of known vertebrae to roughly estimate torso height, then draw the snake to the estimated length. Doing this resulted in my version of Palaeophis being slightly leaner but otherwise similar. I gave it a more rounded head shape, which some living sea snakes have, but I'm unaware of decent skull material for the group. The paddle is slight less prominent in my version as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better, then I think it'll be best to wait for the updated version for a size comparison. Adding only the life restoration for now to the Vasuki page then. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bright yellow isn't the best color for visibility, a more subdued shade would be ideal. Maybe Steveoc 86 can share his font and text size details so the labels for Vasuki can be standardized even further. But otherwise the diagram looks good! NGPezz (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to a potential update that adds Vasuki[17]. The skulls of both Vasuki' and Giganotophis are inspired by a diagram of Wonambi by Scanlon & Lee (2000).
Re Palaeophis; There's Archaeophis that is well preserved and doesn't seem to show evidence of a paddle. It also seems that the lateral compression of the body varies within Palaeophis and P. colossaeus 'might' not be as compressed as other species. So, I dialled back the paddle somewhat, but still speculative.
Re the anaconda; Living snake sizes seem fairly contentious. 5.21 m is usually mentioned as reliable and is leaned towards in the wiki article but just recently one was found dead that is larger. There's video of it being measured by rope that estimated it at around 6.45 m. Reportedly, it was later measured properly by a biologist at 6.32 m. However, most the information comes from Instagram and YouTube videos. So it might not make sense to include it here unless we can find a better source? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created life restoration of Pliodetes, lepisosteiform from Elrhaz Formation. Proportion and fin placement are based on Wenz (1999) (inaccessible, I obtained from resource exchange and shared that in discord server), and head anatomy is based on Cavin and Suteethorn (2006).[18] I already got review by User:Orthocormus but any opinions from others? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An impaled turtle was found at the Tanis sight, but this illustration was clearly not informed by the preserved material. As can be seen in the fossil, the branch enters near the head and leaves near the leg, thus not penetrating the carapace as shown here. Also strange that the image specifically depicts a nanhsiungchelyid rather than a baenid, since the specimen was suggested to have affinities with the latter clade. I agree with previous comments regarding overall clarity and detail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, this was a piece inspired by the finds in the Tanis, not necessarily a depiction of the actual fossils we find there. I wasn't, indeed, aware of what kind of turtle was the one impaled in the tree, just that it was a turtle. Considering the setting, a baenid seems just as likely as a nanhsiungchelyid, though the latter was ultimately the one chosen. Lacking much awareness of how exactly the turtle was impaled, naturally the result of this art was merely a product of imagination rather than one taken from a direct reference of the fossil, though I assumed the overall strength of a blast could, hypothetically, allowed a turtle shell to break after colliding against a strong tree branch, though perhaps that's still unrealistic (ultimately I suppose the lack of available pictures of the fossils reported from Tanis was a contributor to the poorly informed conclusions here, but maybe I just didn't look in the right places).
Regardless, thank you for the replies. I was a bit reticent about this artwork of mine, not going to lie, but I still thought it was worth giving it a try. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, could probably be impaled~in other ways, but the scenario shown here looks unlikely. But I don't know the details of the fossil, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that this image is added to page without review, and uploader seems to be author of the research[19] Dan Valentin Palcu. Seems that this image origins at late 2023.[20] Maybe it would be fine that is created by paper author himself, but there is some concerns, that first image includes multiple logos, and size chart seems to directly taken from Prehistoric Wildlife (which is already dead website, here is archive link[21][22]). How should we deal that and other than that are there any issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very rusty in my knowledge of Synapsids and even more so in their anatomy, and this image is from 2017, but I gave it a little background and improvements to make it look better. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about it, at the time of giving color to the background, it is very clear that it does indeed need correction in the posture of the legs, I will be reading more about this point in some papers and I will correct that detail. Thank you. Levi bernardo (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a much closer match to D. acanthocercus, though the grooves on the raptorial appendages, tail fan and final abdominal segment still seem to be missing (I annotated a figure from Schram (2007) to show what I mean: here). Olmagon (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The abdomen apparently lacking 1 short basal segment (see fig. 12). Other than that it looks nice to me as well.
Thoracic region around the wing base might be more complex like a dragonfly, but the previous reconstruction of this region are best considered doubtful (the author is known for faking insect fossil anatomy). Without further information, I think it's better to keep it rather simple like this artwork for now. Junnn11 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added another segment. And thanks for the information!, I will leave the wing base unchanged if that is better. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made basic improvements to an old Cryptovenator illustration, as I said before I'm rusty with synapsids. I added lips, put gingiva, gave more shadow to necessary areas, put a more natural and neutral color to certain areas and modified the neural spines. Any comment? Levi bernardo (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall looks ok for me as well, only the leg with following issues:
Absence of trochanter (a small, narrow, triangular segment located between coxa and femur, a general feature of insect legs). In the original decription the segment is even visible via the specimen photo, but ommited in the drawing for whatever reason.
Detail of tarsus. According to Li & Huang 2022 Manipulatoridae should have 5 tarsomeres instead of 4 unless it was regenerated (see fig. 8B, although it's a different genus but still from the same family). Also an arolium (median sucking pad) is evident between the tarsal claw as well (see fig. 5C).
As far as I can tell, Clark (2013) is the most recent publication to have described T. etheridgii so the comments I'm about to make are based on that:
By my count, this drawing shows 8 spines on the lateral margin of the carapace, whereas the study states there should be at least 10 (see figures 14 and 17a).
The antennal scale seems to have too many spines, which are also too small (see figure 16b).
Well a spatulated premax is present in paratypothorax, just not to the extent I've shown here. I'll update it. thnx for the critique! DNB XD (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletal is not a rigorous reconstruction of Venkatasuchus. It is almost certainly copied from this reconstruction of Typothorax: [26] And I will note the following passage from the paper I linked: "The tip itself appears to have been unexpanded as in Aetosaurus and Stenomyti, and is rather different from the shovel shaped premaxilla in most other aetosaurs." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's been a while, but can I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to reconstruct Koleken mostly based on the skeletal reconstruction from the official paper (?) in this page... https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/05/koleken.html For the scale with human, I am basing it on the femur length that is described from the paper which is 50 or so cm if I remember correctly? So that is for the reference. Is my reconstruction good enough to be put in the Koleken page? If the human scale is jarring or say "unartistic" and inaccurate, I can just omit it from the image... Thank you very much as always and sorry for my bad english!
The foot claws look overly curved, and like they're reaching below the line of the feet themselves, which would be impossible. Dinosaur palaeoart should be posted to WP:Dinoart, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I guess you are right. I just realized it is too curvy..
Oh I didn't aware that there is a page dedicated to dinosaur paleoart review.. Thank you for both of you guys input! I will not upload it then if there are some major issues.. DD (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aw how could I forget about that paper.. For the right foot, yes I made it to looks like its just about to lift from the ground DD (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the "official" skeletal diagram was for whatever reason not created with a scale bar(‽) (and wasn't actually published in the paper) and no size estimate seems to be given in the paper, the human scale seems to fall under original research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just quick illustrations of the type specimens, not much that I expect to be controversial but putting up for review in case anyone has comments. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could only comment on arthropods, the Opabinia looks good, while the first 3 leg pairs of Burgessia could be a little bit longer, representing the specialized exopods (see 1).
The body segments of Opabinia are not arthrodized or sclerotized, what you see in the fossils are raised ridges of the soft cuticle. They make a gentle slope back into the next segment, with zero overlap. These ridges also increase in height and definition towards the middle posterior, starting very faint behind the head. It is important that they are not depicted as sclerotized, arthropod-like segments, and they should fade into smooth cuticle before they reach the flaps.
In terms of proportions, I really liked your previous verion - Opabinia is very tall for a lobopodian. Lastly, Opabinia had a long-ish distinct neck region (see Budd and Daley [2012] figs 3a, 3e, and 8a). The head should be faintly annulated, continuing from the proboscis, with the annulations fading away around the neck region. There is probably no external 'segmentation' between the head and neck. I won't make any suggestions regarding legs, as although I believe they had them, this is still not agreed upon. Also, given that this is an ecological reconstruction before anything, I won't complain if you choose to keep it as is. As always it is a very nice drawing. PaleoEquii (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several skeletal reconstructions and diagrams done of Ornithoprion based on the figures provided in Zangerl's 1966 description. I've talked about this over in the Discord and these should be distinct enough to be Creative Commons, but let me know if they need to be differentiated further (and of course if there are any anatomical issues). No photos of the fossils are available on commons (Or anywhere but the description, for that matter) and even then they are quite severely crushed, so I'm not sure what can be done besides closely copying the figures in the paper to accurately represent them. I'm working on finishing up an extensive rewrite of the currently very barebones page for this guy, so I thought it could use some images besides the frankly horribly inaccurate life restoration I did a couple of years ago. Gasmasque (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
based on Texas Through Time specimen
New size chart
Lariosaurus
Eryops (have inaccuracy in fingers, I will tag)
No need to explain
Ostenocaris and other Osteno fauna
Pterygotus (already tagged as inaccurate)
Palaelodus etc.
.jpg)
Size Comparison for Dichodon
Dichodon Portrait
Maledictosuchus (seems file name typo, Maldictosuchus)
Rhacheosaurus (seems file name typo, Racheosaurus)
Ordosipterus planignathus
Caviramus schesaplanensis
![[7]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/776947525252939780/1225583180120195112/Teraterpeton.png?ex=6621a848&is=660f3348&hm=13845c7d648261a5ef62047c527cdf34491632f1cf576bca086fc624808658fc&){kind=link}
![[9]](https://www.reptileevolution.com/images/lepidosauromorpha/diadectidae/lepidosauriformes/Trilophosaurus588.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diprotodon_optatum_moulage.jpg){kind=link}
