This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it 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 dinosaur 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; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. 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" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), 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If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing 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: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, 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.
I and others have been modifying dinosaur images as they became outdated etc., made by artists who aren't active here anymore/unavailable. Any discussion of this has been done on talk pages of respective genera if at all, so I thought it might be a good idea to post the ones that have been most drastically altered here to centralise discussion, in case any issues have been overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed limbs and scales among other things, perhaps not enough.
Ha, I found it strange to edit because you have to change lots of details but try and maintain the artistic style. I wasn't sure whether to upload over the original since there are quite drastic changes, so I've uploaded it as a new file. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, well, since the incorrect versions are useless anyway once they are deemed inaccurate, and since they will still be in the edit history, I always just upload on top. I actually got permission to do so from most of those guys. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I was ever asked (must have done either too few, or perfectly accurate reconstructions), but fwiw, you can modify and overwrite mine. I'm also happy to chip in if the load is light. That said, I don't think drawings with known inaccuracies are worthless. It's Rumsfeldian - all drawings are certain to be wrong in many ways. We just don't know what they are. How do those unknown unknowns stack up against the known unknowns? I think it's perfectly acceptable to amend an image in its caption. E.g. "Outdated reconstruction of Xasaurus. Phylogenetic bracketing now implies that these dinosaurs would be feathered" - at least until the image is altered. deBivort23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the point was more that once an image is corrected, there is not much reason to keep the old one separate, apart from in the version history, where they are saved anyway. Oh, and I did actually modify one of your images once, but it was extremely minor, see what it is?[3]FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to do a new Triceratops image for the article. The old one, even post-edit just doesn't suffice any-more. Any objections? Tomopteryx
Sounds good to me, though it can easily be tweaked further. And one important point I forgot to mention before, if a modified version is uploaded separately, the old version will still be displayed on multiple non-English Wikipedias, and possibly on other pages on English Wikipedia, if they are not replaced manually. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the usage of the original file which is quite extensive, I've uploaded over the original. I don't have admin rights so I can't delete the new version. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stated modifying Saltasaurus. There is a slight problem with the composition now that the tail is longer. There is a lot of white space and it feels like the dinos are too far to one side, not sure what to do to improve that. I don't want to drift too far from the dinos original positioning. [4]Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extra white around all the edges seems to look better, I was under the impression that wiki preferred tightly cropped images. Anyway, here is the latest version. [5]Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, as for white space, I haven't seen any policies about it, the rule is to remove borders, not necessarily white space, but it can of course be too much in some cases. And for the record, I've personally acquired a lot of Photoshop skills just by editing images for Wikipedia (mimicking style, reposing, blending stuff/changing proportions seamlessly), and these have actually benefited me quite a lot in real life, so it wasn't a waste of time! FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subadult horridus. Final version is done. Not sure what you mean by 4 tildes. TomopteryxA subadult Triceratops horridus. Illustration by Tom Parker (tomozaurus.deviantart.com).
I don't think that pic is too bad. The error says tail too floppy, but it's only slightly bent, which seems within range of the tendons. Ossified tendons were stiff like fishing poles, not like dowel rods. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The perspective may be throwing me off, but it looks like the tail is actually bending at both the base and the middle; isn't that kind of hard, if impossible, for hadrosaurs? I know sauropods could probably do such a feat, but I'm not sure about hadrosaurs. Plus it seems to lack any sort of tooth; unless the teeth are blending in with the tongue. It's also really, really skinny, and the hands are innacurate (unless hadrosaur hands weren't lumps of flesh like a sauropod's hand). But it's at least got one problem; SWS (or Shrink-Wrap Syndrome). Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)--[reply]
I've uploaded a new version of my Leaellynasaura file I did a couple of years ago. Now the eye is smaller, but also the animal has a thicker coat of protofeathers (and now it's looking to the other side). The protofeathers are only hypothetical, but it could be included in the article as integument speculation (not supported by evidence, but likely). I've chosen brown color because after so many depictions with white feathers, this dinosaur needs some summer holidays. Any comments?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, but the posture seems highly improbable (see File:Apatosaurus LeCire.jpg, which is a bit more dramatic and, humorously, was tagged as inaccurate by you)
What is "highly improbable"? The posture in the image you link is improbable because all the limbs are bent, and the hands are almost facing away from each other. The new image shows straight limbs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the forelimbs should be a bit thicker in the middle, they seem too thin compared with the humerus and radius. I think it would be better off if the forelimbs were straight, or at least a little wider. Iainstein (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit late to this one. The one quibble I have is the head design. Whilst there isn't any head material known, it doesn't look much like a titanosaur head to me. I'm not sure what head shape would be more appropriate, a more boxy Malawisaurus like head or the Rapetosaurus, Nemegtosaurus style, D'Emic (2013) suggests it's a euhelopodid so that's an option. I'd also make the head slightly smaller. This doesn't seem to be the most complete sauropod so there is some room for error, but looking at images of mounts online I'd also make the neck ever so slightly longer. If this is a euhelopodid then it may be a fair bit longer. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is the orientation of the scapula. According to recent research (Schwarz et al. 2007), the scapula would have been orientated more vertical, resulting in a slightly inclined back. The possibly closely related Alamosaurus is usually reconstructed in a similar (though more extreme) posture, e.g. here. But, well, this is recent research, and I don't know if there is a consensus about this, so I think the sketch is fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks awesome :) I also have tried to draw a sketch to illustrate the scapula thing, hopefully it will help the reader understanding the stuff. It's already in the article. Any suggestions? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The skeletal mount in the MEPAN seems to have been corrected recently, now showing a steep scapula and an inclined back: (old and new). A pitty we don't have an acceptable picture of it … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can make it steeper! Actually was so in the first version[10], but I sadly changed it to match the other skeletals. The Polish uploader could be asked, if he doesn't have an old one, he could maybe takem a new one? FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Boston9 from Commons has offered to visit the museum this week to take shots of the skeleton :) He said the skeleton is very badly lit, but he would do what he can. See [11]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go too overboard with having a steeper back. Whilst changing the angle of the shoulder blade has an effect on the angle of the back it's not as drastic as shown in the diagram above. [12] This is a crude edit to Headden's skeletal, the shoulder blade was rotated and slightly moved. (I also added some deeper neck ligaments and a deeper caudofemoralis just to see what it would look like.)Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Looks great! Will be a valuable addition to the article :) @Steveoc 86: You are right. I think it depends upon which skeletal reconstruction you use. The sketch above is based on Borsuk-Białynicka (1977) for the horizontal back (A), and on Schwartz et al. (2007) for the steep back (B). Schwarz et al. produced their reconstruction by modifying the reconstruction of Borsuk-Białynicka. They stated that the shoulder would be located higher than the pelvis, but in the text they did not stated how much steeper the back would be; I think this is somewhat speculative. The important point is that the scapula is steep. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? If there are no anatomical issues, it should be ready for inclusion. Seems the article only needs a better photo and a size comparison then? FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I love the texture. I hope that User:Boston9 will also be able to take a few detail shots, so that we can illustrate some anatomical aspects as well. Do we need a size comparison? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Boston9 has uploaded a lot of excellent pictures here. Enough to illustrate some aspects of the anatomy as well. Which one should we use for the box? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The neck looks kind of thin to me, but then I like my sauropod necks fat. And I'm familiar with titanosaurs and macronarians, so maybe the thin neck is normal for euholopids and such. At least the feet look good to me, but again I'm no sauropod master. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a quick attempt at a scale diagram. Here is the link to it. It lacks a person and the meter boxes, but for now, I think it is fairly good. IJReid (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rhabdodon restoration on this and the Rhabdodontidae page needs replacement in my opinion. It has pronated hands; has a quadrupedal posture, which is unlikely based on phylogenetic bracketing; has a shrink-wrapped back (Neutral spines.); and has bird like foot scales[1].142.176.114.76 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Verry nice, Tomo. I'd personally give it some kind of gular pouch or skin flap for display purposes, but overall the conservative version isn't very bad. The lips seem odd, but then I guess I'm too used to dinosaurs not having lips. It seems rather bizzare that the feathers cut off right at the jawline but still extend far down the snout (ie: they cut at the jawline even though they continue further down the snout). I'd try croc-like lips, personally, but overall it's fine for the article. Certainly better than doing a JFC and making it a mini-T.rex, that's for sure. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they didn't, of course; just that I'm too used to lipless retrosaurs and such and that croc-lips are my preference for theropodan lips. But it's all my own opinion, of course, so I'm not going to demand Tomo change it riet naow cuz i r onle 1 wit correc pinion!!!1!; that'd be violating WP policy, for one, and it's also rather rude, something I try to avoid on the Intarwebz (unless provoked, but that's just natural instinct going to work ;)). To keep on topic, I'll still say Tomo's reconstruction is a fine piece, even if some parts of it differ from my personal preferences. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late last year, I was able to get email permission from Jaime A. Headden to use any of his reconstructions, on Quilong.wordpress or Deviantart. Finally, the permission was accepted on commons:File:Opisthocoelicaudia skeleton restoration.jpg. Now, any one of us can upload images from wis websites onto wikipedia under a CC-BY-3.0 license. His exact wording was:
"This note is to provide authority to the receiver that they may share, modify, derive from, and reproduce any and all skeletal reconstructions produced by Jaime A. Headden as appear on either qilong.deviantart.com or qilong.wordpress.com. These skeletal illustrations will be notable in lacking attribution to any other author, and by this omission may be affirmed to belong to Jaime A. Headden.
All skeletal reconstructions produced by me are licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution (CC-BY) license. They may be modified, manipulated, or displayed in any form, including in print, without requiring payment, royalties, or sharing in profits. The only restriction is that they include a statement that refers to "Jaime A. Headden" as the original artist. Otherwise, you are free to do whatever you wish with them. No financial penalties will be levied if no attribution is given; this is merely a requirement that tracks the creation back to me.
This includes any skeletals that may appear on Wikipedia, through Wikimedia Commons. As there is an author tag, that tag merely needs to have my name, or a reference to me from the modifying author (e.g., "Author: [NAME], modified from work by Jaime A. Headden under the CC-BY license" or something similar)."
Wow, that's a lot of skeletals. Will you be uploading them? Or should we somehow split the effort? Because then we won't risk uploading the same stuff. Also, beware that he has images by other people on his blog sometimes, so double check the authorship. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about, One of us goes through deviantart, and one through wordpress, linking all the images to a list here, and then as soon as one is uploaded, the uploader crosses it off a the list, so no-one else knows to upload it. I am linking all the images and what they illustrate, if there are repeats, they can be removed from the list easily. IJReid (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but you'll possibly get through them all before I get the time! And I undeleted Wulatelong myself. Also note that Headden does have a Wikipedia account, I think it's called Quilong (it is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qilong). We should perhaps wait with the blog until all of Deviantart is uploaded, since there is some overlap. Yet some images are found in larger versions on the blog, so we should probably get them instead of those on Deviantart. Or can you see them in larger res when you are a member? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acually, as I found out when finishing listing deviantart images, there is a button to the side of the image, above the small collage, that allows you to download a larger image. Try that. Also, I think we need help to upload the deviantart images, see the below list. IJReid (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for verification, I think it's best to link to specific posts/page in the source field. And oh, I fixed the filenames. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DoneAccidentally uploaded with weird name, but doneAccidentally uploaded with weird name, but done
Since we're putting up Headden's skeletals, should we also put up Hartman skeletals as well? I could always ask permission from the man himself on dA after I get back from school, and I remember he was willing to let WP use his Velociraptor skeletal.. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New revelation, I have found more skeletals by Jaime, on his own website http://qilong.8m.com/ but I'm not certain if they are covered by his statement above. They are not on his deviantart of wordpress sites, but I could ask him if he could post them there. IJReid (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently made a new skull restoration of Aralosaurus tuberiferus. Here is the link to the skull restoration. It is based off [14][15] these images. I have greatly derived from the first image, colouring in the fenestrae, adding an eyeball, removing the black dots on the known material, and colouring the unknown material light gray. Any comments on it? I created this image to help illustrate the article. As well I will try to be doing for a final project on lambeosaurines. IJReid (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also now made a skull for Amurosaurus riabinini. Here is the link to it. I have based it on [16][17] and less so [18] (yes, it is mostly incorrect, but it is still okay). It is, like the above image, a derivative from the images, with an added eyeball, light grey missing areas, removal of small spots, and colouring the fenestrae. Any comments? IJReid (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth skull finished, and still no comments. To the next person to read this, and hopefully comment, Here is the link to my fourth skull image, this one of Sahaliyania elunchunorum. It is based off [20], again modified like my first two skull, and again, any comments? IJReid (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth skull, if no-one comments in the next two days I will upload all the older ones. Here is the link to it. It will illustrate Kazaklambia convincens, althought it is based off Corythosaurus (images are easy to find, so I think I don't need to link any). It might look to much like an adult, in which case I will modify it according to which growth stage (click link) of Parasaurolophus it should look like.(PS - I anyone wants to, and they can find space, the linked image can be uploaded to wikimedia, it is from the article on juveniles linked in the parasaurolophus article and published in PeerJ) IJReid (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away form my PC for some days. Well, a general thing, I think eye movement is restricted in birds and crocodiles, so I'm unsure if the pupil would be able to move so far forwards. Probably safest to keep it in the middle of the eye. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated the Angulomastacator. Here is the new illustration. The Aralosaurus and Amurosaurus seem to be centered as much as is needed, but I have not checked my later images. IJReid (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth skull, based off the wiki image of Tsintaosaurus, is of... Pararhabdodon. Here is the link, and as you probably notice, I wrote in that Koutalisaurus is a synonym of Pararhabdodon, and added its material into the skull. Any comments or suggestions? Hey FunkMonk, how did you PC turn out? IJReid (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably make the lines a bit more solid, when they're this fuzzy it can be hard for the reader to comprehend I bet. Oh, the PC is fine, just wasn't home... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now fixed what you were referring to, if you were talking about the lower jaw. Here is the new link. Any comments about my first few images, especially the Angulomastacator, or are they good-to-upload? IJReid (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wit funkmonk, you need to retrace (right word?) the lines, make them solid black, I get that you cleaned the skull so to speak and are using the fill/paint bucket tool to change the colors right? that tool tends to have that effect (the gray looking lines). Otherwise I think they are find, I'm not exactly sold on the idea of including an eye but that is just me. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could remove the eyes completely, but I have no images of sclerotic rings to base them on. For Mike.BRZ, I am not using that tool. I am using a pencil tool which is much more precise, but colours in two pixel instead of just one, which is what most lines are, making them a bit too thick. I will fix the lines, but what images specifically need correction, because as far as I can tell, the first one or two look fine. IJReid (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the Aralosaurus is my oldest one, I have modified it without an eye or sclerotic ring, and outlined the black regions better, the other lines look pretty good. The link to the new skull is here. IJReid (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of them need thicker lines and something like this is what I meant with that:Link. Though it'll probably be needed to make them again at a higher resolution and then shrunk them down to their current size to eliminate the jagged look of the lines, you can also see there an idea of how to make the sclerotic ring. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and in cases where the sclerotic ring isn't known, I'd just leave it out (as well as any representation of the eye) FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You grabbed the example I made and only removed the sclerotic ring, I wouldn't upload it myself as it is, I'll remake it with increased resolution so the lines look smoother. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found online the size of Acheroraptor, it is similar in size to Deinonychus, but I am not sure if this length have been published in the paper. Does anyone here have access to it, and if so, does the paper publish a size estimation for Acheroraptor? I am thinking the page needs more images, and I have completed a scale diagram, but as far as I can tell, the length needs to be published in a peer-reviewed paper before we can use it in images without them being WP:OR. If I am mistaken in that context, please let me know so I can upload the image. Here it states that Acheroraptor was 3 meters long, and 40 kg in weight, it says here that it was 2.5 to 3 m long, on the Royal Ontario Museum websites about Acheroraptor (for example here), it says it was approaching Deinonychus in size - and wikipedia says Deinonychus was just over 3 m long. One more place a "near Deinonychus" size can be found is on David Evans blog, the describer of the specimen. Just to summarize, are these sources reliable enough for me to upload an image about size without it being OR, or should I wait until I can search the paper? IJReid (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the paper, no size estimate is given, which is understandable given how it's only known from a maxilla and a dentary. Based on the scalebars, the skull reconstruction in figure 1 is 21cm long from premaxilla to quadrate, compared to 30cm in the reconstructed skull of Deinonychus in Ostrom (1969)(scaled to the size of either YPM 5210 or YPM 5232, Ostrom doesn't specify), if a 30cm long skull belongs to a 3m long Deinonychus and Acheroraptor has the same proportions, the known specimen will be about 2m long. btw how did you made an skeletal if we only have two bones and some teeth? Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I seem to have made a mistake. I have made a scale diagram, which was based on Deinonychus but scaled down and modified to suite Acheroraptor, not a skeletal. Never mind about uploading the scale diagram, as press releases are not very reliable, and when calculated, Acheroraptor is 2.31 m long based on Deinonychus, which is mentioned in no source anyways. IJReid (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Levi bernardo is a spanish wikipedian who has lately been uploading images of dinosaurs. Most of the images are of dinosaurs we don't have an image on, so I was wondering if we could update them so they are more accurate. Is it worth it? IJReid (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've talked with this user and also I've explained him some of the basic problems with these images (proportions, posture, the lines, etc...) then I talked him about that these images must follow a minimal criteria to put in the articles. He promised make a new versions of some images. Unfortunately in the Spanish Wikipedia we don't have a review of paleoart like here, so I hope that if these new versions are uploaded some of you could help me with your comments. On another hand, I'm not a specialist in dinosaurs, but I can try to make reconstructions of the animals featured here if is needed.--Rextron (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Archaepteryx doesn't match the others in style, looks like a scan... He has uploaded images made by others in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's very well done (though I had to look closer to see the feathers, that's more a size issue for the thumbnail and not the image itself). The tail would have looked hilariously bad on a dromaeosaur, but since this is a Rhabdodon, I'm fine with it. Though if I had to nitpick, the tail is kind of skinny for my tastes. But again, that's a nitpick. ;) --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the fossil record isn't good enough for us to be able to determine a prehistoric animal's range. Also consider that the world looked quite different back then, so placing the range on a modern map makes little sense. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And especially considering that the ranges for the Morrison sauropods are misleadingly time-averaged. The distribution shifted over geological time, so there is no one single slice of time where these genera covered the entire region shown. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a better idea to illustrate where in a formation the specimen(s) of the species were found, and where on the map... Rnnsh (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is not accurate, for example the titanosaurus lacks of claws in their forelegs. I'm not sure if the toy image could be used here, do you take the photo?.--Rextron (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Titanosaurs probably did have thumb claws on forelimbs, as is demonstrated in Diamantinasaurus. They wouldn't have been directly connected to the other bones, and would wash away in preservation, presumable. Titanosaur skeletons are usually rather incomplete anyway. Capra walie (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not absolutely certain what material is known of it but this restoration is just great. I think it can be added to the article right away. IJReid (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dinosaur extinction due to Deccan Traps volcanic eruption
This image has been tagged as inaccurate since 2009 because the dinosaurs depicted don't match the specifications of any known dinosaurs. Nonetheless, the image is used in several articles spread out over multiple language Wikipedias. Should the image be deleted, or would anyone be willing to alter it so that it is more accurate? I am looking for an image to add to List of largest volcanic eruptions to depict one of the eruptions listed (such as the Deccan Traps eruption) resulting in a mass extinction. At present, the two images on the article are of recent eruptions that are much too small to be listed on the list of largest volcanic eruptions. Any help you would be able to provide in altering this image or creating a new one would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering to take on this project, de Bivort! I'm not in a terrible rush. I look forward to seeing what you come up with! I'd appreciate it if you would leave a message on my talk page when you're finished. Thanks again! Neelix (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I went and did this, whipped up really quickly and therefore is a little shoddier than usual. If someone finds something better feel fee to replace it.
Kulindapteryx and Daurosaurus were named from the same material as Kulindadromeus earlier this spring, and the specimens were reportedly stolen and housed illegally. The issue is described in more detail here (note the quote from Godefroit). Godefroit was originally going to present this material at SVP last fall, but was unable to (due to health reasons, iirc), so it looks like he was "scooped". Given this, I think it's reasonable for those names to redirect to the current article, though more detail about this controversy might be appropriate to include there. However, I am unaware whether Godefroit's comments on this issue have been published anywhere citable. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have been validly published. One of them has to be selected by someone rejecting that they are separate taxa. The name selected will have to be the one used by those who agree. Kulindadromeus is a junior synonym. Until a selection is made, it is an appropriate title for a single Wikipedia lemma. In fact, for us the third name is very fortuitous as otherwise we could not have made a choice ourselves ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"They have been validly published." Sorry to belabor the point, but can you provide a cite that they have? Online versions of articles often appear several months before print editions, and the current online versions do (did? I can't even access the journal's web site anymore) not meet ICZN criteria for online publication. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your comment. Indeed, the actual date of the printed publication is in this case decisive, as the publication had not been registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (neither has the Science article, by the way). Also, Springer has not yet provided the fourth issue and it seems unclear which month it represents (the third issue appeared in May). So, it is conceivable that as yet the names are non rite publicata and the Science article is printed earlier. Wouldn't count on it, though.--MWAK (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image looks cool! But based on the skeletal in the paper, it would appear more of the eye should be overlapped by the palpebral bone. Now the eye seems to be uncovered. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the paper and its supplementary material are now accesible. This would allow you to optimise the plasticity of the surface texture. Always a lot of work, that... I'm really curious how Ferahgo the Assassin would solve this pictorial challenge ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bending is correct. It just looks strange because the elbow joint is shown very low, on the (incorrect) assumption the lower arm is very short. In reality the shoulder joint was higher than the hip joint. Also the acromion-coracoid complex shouldn't be jutting out below the ribcage so much.--MWAK (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :o). Of course that doesn't really influence the joint range of motion. I presume that the reason for people experiencing the image as weird is the fact that the right lower forelimb of the animal in the foreground sticks out to the front. But it's only weird if you assume that this is caused by the wrist bending. In fact it's the elbow.--MWAK (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that Ladyofhats' Alamosaurus is now inaccurate, apparently because it lacks osteoderms. Is it true that an Alamosaurus specimen has been found with osteoderms, or is the possibility of Alamosaurus being armoured based on related titanosaurs. If Alamosaurus is in fact now known for certain to have had osteoderms, what changes should be made to the image, because over the summer I might be able to fix a large amount of inaccurate images. Any feedback is welcome, IJReid (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this Alamosaurus differs in body shape from the latest findings, just compare it with recent skeletal made by Scott Hartman: [21] --Rextron (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Does LadyofHats' drawing need modifications to the entire thing or just the addition of osteoderms? If just the osteoderms, I think I can fix it, but if it is the whole thing correcting it is beyond my skill so far. PS: I am having a deletion discussion about commons:File:Camarasaurus01.jpg, which one user thinks should be kept because it is a "good illustration". IJReid (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Searching through the inaccurate dinosaur files on commons I came across commons:File:Apatosaurus.gif. I modified it to become the image in the right, and think it is accurate now. I known that the neural spine bifurcation is not shown, but it is possible that the gap was filled with tissue as, and the entire vertebrae covered as well. As long as this is not contradicted by fossils, I think this image should be accurate, but any feedback is welcome. Originally the file also had the nostrils positioned way to high up on the head, but I think this is fixed without any further changes needed. Comments anyone? IJReid (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fear your changes were perhaps redundant. I know that Dinoguy2 on 9 April 2009 criticised it as "nostrils too high, lacks bifurcated spine", but that is disputable. Are the nostrils "way too high up on the head"? Well, that is simply where the bony nostrils are positioned. I would say that Dinoguy was deceived by Witmer's (in)famous 2001 article "Nostril Position in Dinosaurs and Other Vertebrates and Its Significance for Nasal Function". In it Witmer convincingly argued that "There is indeed a strong and consistent signal indicating that the primitive amniote condition, retained in all but a clade or two, is for the fleshy nostril to be rostrally or rostroventrally positioned within the bony nostril". Witmer added some suggestive illustrations of sauropods with their fleshy nostrils shifted far to the front of the snout. However, in this he was very inconsistent. His general rule delimited fleshy nostril position by the bony nostril position. But the images showed the fleshy nostrils far outside of the bony nostril limits — without any empirical support given in the text. In the case of his "Brachiosaurus" there might be some justification for this as the conspicuous snout depression can be seen as a narial fossa and might have been covered by a large flap, which might have had its air intakes in a forward position. But in the case of diplodocids this all becomes much too speculative as there is simply no clear delimitation of such a fossa. So I don't see why a drawing keeping closer to the hard osteological facts should be rejected in favour of some imprecise and largely unsupported speculation. Also, while you correctly point out that the bifurcated bony spines probably had soft tissue (perhaps the traditionally assumed central tendon) filling the gap between them, this also means that they were pictured correctly in the original version. Your well-meaning attempt to meet the criticism has resulted in a vague blot, obfuscating how broad the vertebral structure must have been and falsely suggesting a pointed transverse cross-section.--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the bifurcation are filled with soft tissue (as is likely), the "peak" between them is very misleading and suggestive of a single row of neural spines. The top of the neck would be flat or at least gently convex, and would appear much broader at this angle. The bottom of the neck is similarly too narrow. In general, this image seems to depict a generic diplodocid, not a hyper-specialized Apatosaurus. See this 7 part review of an Apatosaurus model for an exhaustive discussion of how its anatomy may have impacted life appearance. [23]Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "peak" was meant to be the outer edge of the left spine row :o). I agree that the animal as depicted is much too gracile, not like the extremely robust giant the real Apatosaurus must have been. Wedel in the part about the head appearance approves of Witmer's interpretation but then offers two arguments that backfire in the case of Apatosaurus. "The situation with extant animals is the null hypothesis". If so, the nostrils were still on the top of the head, not down the length of the snout. "A narial fossa indicates a low nostril position". A narial fossa cannot be a good test of a low nostril if the absence of one is not proof of a high nostril. There was a very good reason for sauropods to have high nostrils: their long necks worked like chimneys, increasing air flow speed. So it would have been advantageous to keep the nostrils away from vegetation and/or the ground.--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It is possible that the image would better depict Supersaurus than Apatosaurus. The former is much more gracile than the latter, and they have similar proportions. If the file description and name are changed to state that it represents Supersaurus instead of Apatosaurus, is the image no longer inaccurate, or do modifications still have to be completed? IJReid (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, it does look like a much better match for Supersaurus. The perspective would probably hide proportional differences like the longer neck. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the material of Eobrontosaurus but might it be a better match than Apatosaurus? It has no images, although it is apparently known from a reasonably complete specimen. IJReid (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! I have just come across the redescription of Eobrontosaurus by Bakker, and guess what, the only major differences from Apatosaurus (Supersaurus is not mentioned) are that the forelimb is much more primitive and more gracile. This means that the Supersaurus image (previously Apatosaurus) is pretty much a perfect match for Eobrontosaurus, and Eobrontosaurus doesn't have any images. Any thoughts on whether we should changes the image name and description again to show that now it is considered to be best to illustrate Eobrontosaurus? IJReid (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have completed another illustration this one of Achillobator. The outline is based directly off Headden's skeletal, and all the colours are completely speculative and not based off modern birds. I gave it the bright red wing, leg and tail feathers because in animals, when you are dangerous, you tend to show it off with bright colour, and in birds, more colour means better mating. The link to my Achillobator is here. I also saw that we used to have an Achillobator, but then it was tagged as inaccurate, probably because of the proportions and feather arrangement. Any comments? IJReid (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The transition between the red feathers and the others looks a bit unnatural, as if the latter were some kind of fleshy extensions that red feathers were stuck into. If I may be allowed to act even more pedantic than usual: why not switch to oil pencils? Here's a useful brand: http://www.dickblick.com/products/lyra-rembrandt-polycolor-premium-oil-based-colored-pencil-sets/ They are more difficult to control but this will, paradoxically, force you to express yourself more freely. And the result looks much better when viewed on a screen :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip MWAK, I might purchase some soon, the closest I have to them currently are oil pastels, and the ones I have are limited among colours. So far, I have just modified the transition using regular coloured pencils, but once I get the oil pencils, I think I will redo some of my art to make them more realistic and colourful. IJReid (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those oil pencils look lovely. However, in defense of normal pencils, a little post processing in Photoshop of even normal color pencils can yield a vibrant image. [24]. I stuck this on my site in case you want it removed (still your work). deBivort15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, don't care too much about where it is used, as anyway, I have updated my original. Will post a link as soon as I scan it. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The transition towards the red feathers is shown as a continuous line. That is fine as far as the thigh is concerned: the line would represent the edge of the thigh muscles. However, the same line apparently does not delimit the edge of the calf muscles, which is very confusing. It's better not to have a line at all but show a texture of individually curved shorter feathers. Same goes for the hand of course.
Try not to obscure the joint and muscle structure by filling in and rounding. Show the breaks instead. The knee wasn't rounded. The thigh had no concave profile when meeting the calf. There was nothing filling in the space in front of the ankle.
Tracing a skeletal provides a quick way of getting the proportions right. But as a draughtsman it often pays to be a bit dishonest. The drawing shouldn't look traced. Let a line be a line. The top profile of the tail should look like it was drawn in a single natural movement. We all know it will not be, but it must cleverly give that impression, if necessary by in fact employing a multitude of, often rather awkward, attempts.--MWAK (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another illustration, this one completed a while ago and recently modified, is my Europelta this article lack illustrations, but this one is not even close in quality to the best one I have seen. This is, like the above image, based on a free skeletal, this one the one in the paper, but modified like suggested on Scott Hartman's blog article about Europelta. Colouring is a again completely speculative, but the surroundings are more detailed that before in that they give a slight impression of what the dinosaurs habitat was like. The link to my illustration is here. Any comments? IJReid (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have three points: 1 The claws are a bit too long. 2 Even the non-armoured skin would not be smooth, but have all sorts of large scales. 3 The eye would be somewhat smaller. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed these queries. Here is the link to my image. The coloured part of the eye is too small to be visible, so only the black pupil can be seen. I have also partially redone the hind feet, so that the image looks more natural. The scalation is based off no animal in particular, but is sort of like Triceratops, even though that is definitely not what I based it on. IJReid (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: All my images can be modified at anyones will (after they are uploaded) if they are inaccurate and the modifications correct them. Just so you know, IJReid (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a restoration of some unspecified titanosaurs I did for something else[25], the head is loosely based on Nemegtosaurus. Any article it would make sense in? Some fragmentary titanosaur that lived in a similar environment? And also, anything wrong with the restoration as it is? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Want a fragmentary titanosaur, I give you Aegyptosaurus. It lived on the edge of the Tethys Sea, so I'm guessing that its habitat would be lush and green. I would also be a very good place for amphibians (pictured beside the head), and many dinosaurs are known from there. Just two questions, Are all the sauropods in the image pictured the same, or is the one in the background different? Would it be better if the titanosaur pictured was known from some cranial material, because otherwise the close-up of the head might seem out of place? I suggest that the best regions for where this image is of are in southernmost Europe (Spain, France, Austria) or northern Gondwana (North Africa, South America). The image can't really be criticized until it is specified what genus it is, although now it seems that titanosaurs with osteoderms are becoming common in many different groups (Magyarosaurus, Ampelosaurus in a group with Nemegtosaurus; Saltasaurus, Alamosaurus in Saltasauridae; Aeolosaurus in Aeolosauridae; Mendozasaurus in Lognokosauria; and many unidentified specimens) so it might be a safe bet to add osteoderms to your drawing. IJReid (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image was originally supposed to represent the indeterminate titanosaur (both are suppsoed to be the same species) from the Jydegaard Formation, which was a lagoon. But since that will never receive a name, and there are so many titanosaur genus articles that lack images, I thought it could be used in one of those. But the proportions of the known material should of course be a match. The teeth are kind of emphasised in the image here, so it could be for a genus whre no skull, but teeth, is known, for example. What is Aegyptosaurus known from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could use it for Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur ;o). On the serious side: a very pleasing image. There is one feature that would be incorrect for any titanosaur: the lower end of the ischia would not be located at knee level, but clearly above it. This also means that the entire tail base, if not showing the usual upward kink relative to the iliac axis (though itself never precisely horizontal and often quite sloped), would be more elevated than depicted here.--MWAK (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would make more sense as something other than a titanosaur (also because of the missing osteoderms)? Any ideas? If still a titanosaur, I could of course fix it, and maybe Neuquensaurus would be a match, judged on what appears to be a skull cast in the article? As for the Patagonian animal, would probably have to be bulked up a bit more for that... FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware no skull material has been described. Some osteoderms have been found in association to skeletal elements, so seem to be authentic.--MWAK (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Why not have the image illustrate Brasilotitan? It is a relatively incomplete, primitive titanosaur, which means that it might not have had osteoderms. Also, a lower jaw is known from it, which makes sense with the head closeup. the only skeletal I can find is here (scroll down and ten clicks forward). It is too incomplete to have any affect on the drawing, as only a partial ilium and ischium, one cervical and one dorsal vertebrae, a toe, and the lower jaw are known. However, like MWAK said, it should still be corrected to match generalized titanosaur anatomy. IJReid (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! We should clarify that the osteoderms are hypothetical however. D'Emic et al. (2009, [28]) had shown that osteoderms within Lithostrotia probably had evolved several times independently, and there are several titanosaurs (e.g., Opisthocoelicaudia and Alamosaurus) which are very unlikely to have possessed osteoderms. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better match would be Unqillosaurus, which is an unenlagiine (group of long-snouted taxa), and extremely fragmentary (only known from a pubis). Variraptor isn't quite a good as Luanchuanraptor however, as it might be known from more material assigned to Pyroraptor (a potential junior synonym). IJReid (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be too robust and have too short wingfeathers to be an unenlagiine. But Luanchuanraptor seems to be unknown enough to be a fit... Other restorations on Google also give it a long snout for somem reason... But I'll shorten it a bit anyway. Known fossils:[30]FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not the same drawing, but similar colours. The plumage itself is quite different. Retooled from another project. As for the "ugh", it is inspired by Anchiornis. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alxasaurus seems to have very skinny arms, and Abrictosaurus should have as much fuzz as Tianyulong (all over, not just the tail), so it is probably impossible to fix. Rest looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the forelimbs are completely wrong: the elbows are pictured as if they were knees...The image is beyond rescue, I fear.--MWAK (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Abrictosaurus is now acceptable. I have added more extensive quills, which I think are now on the smallest plausible extreme for Abrictosaurus. It is supposedly known from a juvenile, and like other dinosaurs, the integument might have developed with age. How is it? I will do a quick photoshop of the Alxasaurus and see if I can muscle-up the forelimb, otherwise I will tag it as inaccurate. IJReid (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now the Alxasaurus is also fixed. I altered the upper forearms to make them more muscular, and I am fairly certain that they are good. From what I can tell based on Headden's skeletal, the forelimbs of Alxasaurus were not extremely robust, so it is not like now the image accurately shows what miniman tissue on the forelimbs would look like. If I am wrong about something, and this renders the image inaccurate, inform me for I will attempt to keep this image updated. Soon I will attempt to correct the hindlimbs of Barosaurus, which are perhaps too small in comparison. I tagged the Barosaurus with its extremely plentiful inaccuracies. IJReid (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I know what needs to be fixed in an image I am considering correcting, what are the inaccuracies of File:Epidexipteryx (long fingers).JPG? I am personally thinking the nostril and eye are too large, the head is about 10% too small, the teeth are too large and the lower jaw should extend down farther, the bony tail could be larger, the second finger should be a little closer is size to the third, the kneecaps need to be removed, and the upper arms should be longer and attach to the shoulders much closer too the neck. Any of these observations incorrect, and are there more to add? IJReid (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to focus the effort on fixing images that represent genera that we don't have any images of yet, than for genera where we have multiple images already. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've just fixed File:Falcarius utahensis DWER 500.JPG. Is it good, or does it have other inaccuracies, like the Alxasaurus? I will run the Adasaurus image through photoshop, which I find is better that what I used to use to correct images at copying the style of someone's art. IJReid (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, It's been on my other computers for some time now, although not the current version, so it wasn't that hard to upload it onto this computer. IJReid (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what modifications would need to be made to File:Camelotia.jpg? It is the only image we have of Camelotia, which is a melanorosaurid. As it is related to Melanorosaurus and not Massospondylus or Plateosaurus, are the hands truly pronated, or it that just based on prosauropod pronation? Also, is anything else wrong with it or not?IJReid (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user[31] has uploaded a lot of images, most are good enough, but some have inaccuracies. For example too large eyes, and some pronated hands.[32] Furthermore, all the text should probably be removed from the images. Images like this[33] would also be better as separate files. I'm not sure about his feathered abelisaurs, in light of Carnotaurus scale impressions... As for Camelotia, it was likely bipedal. And see J Spencer's comment:[34]FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Many have similar problems, even if they do not have the incorrect template. Sometimes there is only a rationale for why they were removed on the English genus pages, in the article history. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with File:Colepiocephale.JPG? I noticed that the dome is a little off and the hands are probably pronated, but other than that, is anything wrong with it?
Also, isn't File:Pamparaptor.jpg only inaccurate on the basis of its eye, because dromaeosaurids did not have protofeathers? IJReid (talk)
As the template says, the eye of Colepiocephale looks too larg and mammalian, it likely wouldn't be "looking forward" like that. And apart from the huge eye of Pamparaptor, it is really not appropriate to show "speculative sexual dimorphism" here. Maybe if it had been a less schematic life restoration, but as is, it is just misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have fixed the eye of File:Leaellynasaura.jpg, but I cannot get the colour corrected in a way that still looks realistic. Is is possible for you to do that for me? I will start work on the Colepiocephale, which is the only image we have of the genus. IJReid (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Leaellynasaura already has an alright image, so again, I'd rather focus on those that are imageless. But it's quite easy to change colours in photoshop, just mark an area and change the colour balance or hue/saturation under image> adjustments. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, the eye is too big, as always, and the hindfeet seem like it's tiptoeing. And for some reason it has long claws on the hands? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Canardia is now good. I think the reason it looked like the hindlimbs were tiptoeing is because one foot os being lifted off the ground. PS: Do hadrosaurs have hallux's? IJReid (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Canardia seems to have too sharp claws on the hindlegs, I don't think hadrosaurs had that. As for hallux, I think they lost that at some point, not sure where in the tree... By the way, if you look around, there are plenty of untagged images with small mistakes, I just found this one, has claws on digit four and five:[35]FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A New version of Alaskaephale has been uploaded, with corrections to the background (I hate off-white backgrounds), and the hands. IJReid (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Machairasaurus has a weird pose, looks like it's tiptoeing as well. And watch out when upscaling small images, it will only make them look pixelated/blurred, unless you go in and touch up/redraw every line afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Most or the weirdly posed illustrations seem to be running, with a foot just being lifted off the ground. The pose is not impossible for dinosaurs, so I don't think it changes their overall accuracy. I have uploaded I newer version of File:Overosaurus life restoration.jpg, with thicker forelimbs, and a more dinosaurian eye. Are there any other corrections to be made to this drawing, or is it good? IJReid (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoeing is alright when it's only one foot at a time, but in some of these it seems to be both, which would never really happen. Furthermore, the right foot of Machairasaurus looks like it reaches lower than the left foot, which doesn't make sens,e as it is farther away. Overosaurus seems ok, but I don't know too much about sauropods... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, most have the eye problem, in adittion, Ajancingenia tiptoes with both feet, Ignavusaurus has too straight legs, and Stenopelix looks like it's tipping over backwards. I'd assume Orkoraptor to have a longer head as well. Also, the Leaellynasaura still seems to have a too big eye, and the palpebral bone should cover the top of it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I have corrected the Ajancingenia, Stenopelix, Orkoraptor, and Marshosaurus. I will update Shenzhousaurus and Ignavusaurus soon. IJReid (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Shenzhousaurus, as well as Nankangia, Pterospondylus and Xinjiangtitan are done. Any comments on one of them. Another which I think I fixed is the Pamparaptor, which I removed one of, as well as the labels and text. I fixed its eye and hand, which had feathers extending from the third finger but not the second. Any comments on the Pamparaptor? IJReid (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another Orkoraptor is now corrected, so that there is a choice for the taxon box image. I'm guessing the leg that had an impossible posture was the one tucked up very. Also, the Zamloxes has been modified, with the eyes corrected and the text changed. Anything on one of these? IJReid (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now also fixed File:Avimimus ( feathers ).JPG and will be fixing others by User:Conty. The head is taller and shorter, the eye is smaller, the nostril is smaller, an ear was added, and the hallux is all but removed. Only fragments of the rear end of the skull are known, so its exact proportions can only be guessed at. Because the skull is fragmentary, one can only guess the size of the orbit, as well as naris. Again, skull incomplete, ear positioning unknown. Based on Headden's skeletal and MMartyniuk's drawing, the hallux of Avimimus is not known or non-existent (except for a small protrusion at the top of the metatarsals) so I removed it with only tiny pieces remaining in Conty's drawing. I know, I know, the article already has an illustration, but if this one is good enough, the article can contain it. IJReid (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Atrociraptor is also that it's feathers look like protofeathers, so regardless of the colour, it is hard to correct. As for Animantarx, the nostril is also too large, but the main problem with it, and some of Conty's other images of quadrupeds, is that the leg posture seems unnatural, as if the animal is floating in the air, with no contact with the ground. As for the Orkoraptor leg, this is what I meant:[36] In any case, it is kind of pointless to correct images that are that rough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you upload that one, if just to help clear the inaccurate category? I am not sure about File:Baby T-rex 0496.JPG being inaccurate any more, although after seeing the discussion on one of the Tyrannosaurus talk page archives, I think it might still be. Would it even be worth correcting it, as the only genus it could represent is Tarbosaurus? Are any juvenile Albertosaurus known, as File:Albertosaurus 01.JPG could be modified to illustrate them? Also, I think it might be time to archive this page, as it is getting quite long and this is the only discussion currently active. IJReid (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've told Dennonychus to post his images here before submitting before, but he either didn't see it or just ignored it. I could try again? Tomopteryx (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's worth it, as anyways, almost all his images have been updated by either me or someone else. Hmm. If it is possible though, could users who have uploaded multiple images (2 +) be "invited" to submit new images here for review, sort of like what the Teahouse does? This might get them to start submitting images here, possibly even images of unillustrated articles. IJReid (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
____
Continuing down here. Well, I don't think we need to fix all images, especially those of genera we have images of already, since there aren't really much room for them in the articles. Also, some images are not really worth correcting, some are stylistically too crude, even if nothing is anatomically wrong. I usually archive the page annually, but let's see... And by the way, the Thecodontosaurus head here seems a few tiems too big[37], and the eye is too big and mammalian. The original version wasn't too bad, just needed to be slightly longer, compared to the Headden skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another image, this one of Monolophosaurus, fixed. I smoothed out the leg muscles to correct how they look, as well as muscled-up the forelimb, and modified the head. I think that before the head was shrink-wrapped, and an inaccurate illustration is no good in a potentially good article. I will try to update this one as time goes on and new theropods that are related to it are discovered, but to do so, it needs to be as accurate as it can right now. Any comments or suggestions for it based on close relatives (the image might need a hard-refresh to see my modifications)? (PS. to FunkMonk: the line break is added with four of these: -) IJReid (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one was better before, and should be reverted back. First off, the legs of modern birds have quite well defined muscles under their feathers, see for example these chicken:[38] Not that smooth at all. The arms also loook too fat now, see skeletal:[39] As for the supposed "shrink wrap", which is a bit of an overused neologism, that is better at describing stuff like this[40], it just looked like darker scales before. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more image, this one of Antetonitrus. I think some more modifications could probably be made but currently, I would just rather it was accurate. I modified the head, hands, claws, upper arm, and knees, which now matches this skeletal more, published in the 2014 article on the osteology of Antetonitrus. The head is presently unknown, but I would still like to know what to change about it, such as matching it to Chixiangasaurus or a related genus. I would like to know if any other changes should be made to this image, or if it is good currently. IJReid (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was anatomically too amorphous to even bother. But nice that it got fixed anyway, the claws look a bit too curved and raised though, like dromaeosaur sickle claws. They are angled a bit more downwards in the skeletal. The hindfeet are way too long. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened the feet considerably now. I also modified the curvature of the back over the hip region, which was too great, and modified the head to be intermediate between derived sauropodomorphs and Chinshakiangosaurus, which is known from considerable head material. Hands are up next. IJReid (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this image of Barapasaurus. I'm not certain what is known, but I did some general corrections to the head, hand and tail (is that a club?). It is of course possible that the eye is too large, as I have not yet seen a skull of a related taxon, but for now I left it. The hind feet look sort of strange, but my expertise on sauropods is limited, so I might request Mike Taylor, Watt Wedel or Darren Naish at their blog to review it. I think the footfall posture could get away, as I think the rear foot is on the verge of being lifted, and the locomotion paper was on a highly derived taxon compared with Barapasaurus. Shrink-wrapping is no longer a problem since I fixed the depression of the skull fenestrae, although the upper leg actually look overly muscled - if that is even possible!? Anyway, any suggestions to improve this? IJReid (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but now it seems the front part of the hand has been chopped off... What is it bracketed by? How do we know it didn't have more than one claw? FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the claws back, turn out, there are in more than one in Vulcanodon, and Tazoudasaurus, not sure about Shunosaurus, and Barapasaurus has been recovered more than once as more primitive than all of them. IJReid (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I decided to give it a revamp, as based on the recent discussion by Scott Hartman, the hand was too short, the foot was much too high and tiptoeing, and by extent, the back was much too even and the neck not inclined enough. I think that I have now solved all these problems, but I think someone more sauropod-inlined, like Heinrich Mallison, Jens Lallensack, or even FunkMonk or Dinoguy2 could look it over and try to find any more inaccuracies. IJReid (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished a new reconstruction of Deinonychus that I've made available on Commons. The Deinonychus article is already full of nice images, but perhaps it's time to replace one (this has some very small anatomical errors, nothing serious) or add it, if it's deemed worthy. Critiques and suggestions welcomed, as always. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, the entire position of the eye needed to be moved forward a bit, so I shrank it slightly and did so. Along with a few other minor tweaks, the new version is here. How does this look? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) (Might have to hard-refresh it)[reply]Deinonychus antirrhopus v2
That occurred to me recently as well - unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but I can try to remember to make an attempt at it in the coming weeks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kulindadromeus lies outside of cerapoda, remember. Basal ornithopods like Zephyrosaurus are still bracketed by scaly taxa (and one scaly taxa with tail "quills"). Kulindadromeus shows us they _could have_ had feathers, not that they need them in all reconstructions ;) Tomopteryx (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though remember, Kulindadromeus shows that just because scales are known from one part of the body of an animal, it doesn't mean it didn't have "fuzz" on other parts... Also, next to nothing seems to be known about the integument of small ornithopods, could be a size based thing? FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far most known stem-birds have a mixture of filamentous integument and scales, so it seems likely that all did to some degree. I don't think simple filaments would have the same insulator properties of complex feathers and would function more like down or fur, so mammalian integument patterns probably apply (i.e. very reduced or fine filaments in larger, fossorial, or semi-aquatic species). I wouldn't say all ornithischians should be covered in feathers, but it would probably be appropriate to at least include a few elephant-like bristles here and there. Also, note that Psittacosaurus is so far the only cerapod known from lagerstatten and preserved in such a way that could possibly preserve simple filaments. Most other cerapod skin impressions are natural casts or molds, a mode of preservation which has never preserved filamentous integument and maybe can't even if present. Kulindadromeus is actually a good example of this. The scales are preserved as casts while the filaments mostly appear to be preserved as Liaoning-style carbonized stains. Has the sediment been slightly different, we'd probably have the casts but not the stains, and people would use this as an example of a fully-scaled specimen. No reason to think this isn't what's going on with hadrosaurids etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented about last year, I think the Hadrosaurus on the right needed a makeover to fix the inaccurate floppy tail. The author has a tendency to shrink-wrap his illustrations, but in a recent modification by me I think I fixed all the issues with the drawing. Along with straightening the tail a fair amount, I muscles up the upper arms and completely changed the skull. I think that the nose hook is a primitive feature among hadrosaurids, for example it is found on Aralosaurus, Gryposaurus, Brachylophosaurus, and probably Lophorothon, so I added into the drawing to replace the old weird deflated nose balloon. I also modified the eye and ear, making them smaller and more reptilian, and fixed the shrink-wrapping of the top, back and preorbit. As this is the only illustration we have of Hadrosaurus that is near to acceptable, I would like is as accurate as possible, so are there any comments (might need a hard-refresh)? IJReid (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. By the way, it might be better to centralise discussion about image modifications above, so the page doesn't grow so fast. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cloaca would not be visible from this angle, would be obscured by the thigh. There is apparently evidence of skin connecting the leg to the abdomen in Edmontosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both hadrosaurs and neornithes have connecting tissue between the thigh and the abdomen, so there is a bracket across all of dinosauria. It doesn't look particularly shirnk wrapped to me, maybe the scapula and rear of the skull shouldn't be so visible, but its not too bad. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem any longer. I just lightened the back of the skull and the scapula's outline, so now the shrink-wrapped problem is greatly lessened. Anything else now? IJReid (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, only one thing. Since Laquintasaura is as primitive as it is, I'm not sure feathering it like Kulindadromeus does it justice. I would expect a primitive ornithischian related to Heterodontosauridae, Lesothosaurus, and Eocursor to have similar feathering to Heterodontosauridae, Lesothosaurus and Eocursor, which means it might be better to base its feathers/quills on Tianyulong. This wouldn't greatly affect the accuracy of the image however, which was really quickly done yet great :) IJReid (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only similarity to Kulindadromeus is the scaly tail. I specifically made the coat entierly single filiments ala. Tianyulong for exactly the reasoning you use. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. That is what happens when you view a feathered image from its thumbnail. Still though, the scales could be smaller, and the head seems a little too short for its height, and the eye seems about 1/4 too big, see this skeletal. Otherwise, awesome reconstruction Tomo. IJReid (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just upload the update over the original. Once that is done, FunkMonk can redirect one of them. It is no use having inaccurate images on commons, so it might be better if they were the same file. Just a suggestion, IJReid (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! However, I'm not sure how well supported the Kulindadromeus like tail would be. The authors note how unusual and unexpected the dorsal scutes are, and they are not known in any other non-thyreophoran ornithischian species despite numerous scale impressions being known. Additionally, we have a bracket on both sides of small ornithischians with feathery tails (Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong), both with very long (>femur length) filaments on the basal part of the tail. The evidence is very thin at the moment but the case could be made that the Kulindadromeus tail is apomorphic. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, a lot to address here. My bad on the multiple uploads, I wasn't aware of editing uploads, still new to this. I'll fix that up. Matt, I'll deal with the rest below. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Scales and Tails'
Matt, you may very well be right about the dorsal scutes. I can change that part at least if it is deemed necessary.
However, on scales on dinosaurian tails in general. Laquintasaura isn't bracketed by 2 feathery tails, it is bracketed by a taxa with a scaly tail with a tuft of filiments on the dorsal surface and another taxa with a tuft of filiments on the dorsal surface and a currently unknown state on the rest of the tail. It is then also bracketed by Kulindadromeus which has a completely scaly tail and Anomoepus which, whatever it is, has the same ventral tail morphology as Kulinda. Then of course all the thyreophorans, hadrosaurids and ceratopsids with completely scaly tails. This is not really enough information to tell us which state the tail of any given small basal ornithischian was in.
Now, onto more speculative areas. Kulindadromeus is the final nail in the coffin from an evo-devo position that the tail in dinosauria was a seperate "area" of integument development from the body, much like the metatarsals and pes is in neornithes. My hypothesis is that it, along with Anomoepus, Juravenator, Compsognathus, Scansoriopteryx, probably Concavenator and potentially multiple tyrannosaurids, are showing us that tails were extremely plastic and variable in what integument they expressed, I'm thinking the exact same amount that the metatarsals are on living examples. ie. it is fairly easy for an animal to express either feathers or scutes/scutella/reticula on all or part of the tail "development area". Delving further into speculative mode: I suggest that the dorsal tail was perhaps equivelent to the row of scutes on the dorsal metatarsal in avetheropods with some (Kulindadromeus) showing a row of scutes while others (Psittacosaurus, Tianyulong?, Juravenator?) replace this tract with feathers (like so: http://owltheory.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2008/08/talon-pict-2.1219966613.jpg).
Okay, I wrote a lot, but the take home point is that the evidence seems to point to tail integument in non-avian dinosaurs being plastic in expression of integument. Possibily as plastic as avian metatarsals. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Tomopteryx on that, some features are so variable in modern animal clades that phylogenetic bracketing is rendered completely useless. Would likely be the same here. Take naked heads in many birds, for example, seem to almost pop up at random. The scutes seem a bit unique though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I think this makes it even more odd to give it the exact same dorsal scute morphology seen in Kulindadromeus. I'm worried this is the start of a meme equivalent to iguana-backed sauropods... Clearly dorsal scutes of some kind are widespread in dinosaurs, but as hadrosaurids show, their morphology or even presence varies widely. Oh, and I definitely agree about the ventral tail morphology. Concavenator and Triceratops (and crocodilians) have he same thing, so this was probably widespread and morphologically conservative. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to notice that accidentally, in the Spanish wiki we have two articles of Laquintasaura... in one of these someone upload the reconstruction of Mark Witton: I guess that it can not be used in Wikipedia, right? --Rextron (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see it has already been tagged for deletion... Funny that Witton would pass such an obvious opportunity to giving it fuzz... FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that it was known since 1989 and since 2008 was confirmed that was possibly a new species... in any case, surely the image was comissioned before the publication of Kulindadromeus.--Rextron (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, though Witton's style has evolved quite a bit in recent years (for the better), and this one looks more like newer stuff than older. But yeah, possibly older than Kulindadromeus anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished a few skull illustrations recently, and they should probably go on review. First off, I will start with my proudest accomplishment of them, the Paranthodon. This article was recently redone by me, and expanded a bit, yet I had only ever seen one illustration of the skull online. The image can be found here. and is by Dino Hunter. However, once I got access to the paper (I can send emails of it to people), I discovered the second, and only ever published illustration, as figure 1 in Galton & Coombs (1981). Based on these two images, as well as some speculative info based upon Headden's realistic Dacentrurus skeletal, I compiled all the info together and created the freehand drawing in use on the article. Is the skull good enough to use, or should I make some slight changes (should be extremely easy)?
The next drawing, this time based upon my previous Aralosaurus skull, is Jaxartosaurus. Again, this dinosaur is based upon scant, yet distinctive material. Paleofile is a good site to find illustrations of skulls and material, which is where I found the only lateral view illustration of the cranial material of J. aralensis. This might have been previously figured in Riabinin (1937), but I doubt it. Even though lateral views are not great, Paleofile, as well as the 2004 redescription of Amurosaurus, and Riabinin (1937), all illustrate the top view of the skull. A surangular is also known from J. aralensis, but as I couldn't find and images of it, I just filled in the surangular of Aralosaurus. Even though according to Godefroit et al. (2004) a dentary is known from J. aralensis, I suspect that they are referring to the dentary later named J. fuyunensis which is why it is not illustrated. Anything about this skull that could or should be changed?
Another recently done lambeosaurine skull is of Canardia. This dinosaur was published in a plos journal, and was found to be closely related to Aralosaurus which is why I based is skull on the latter's. The known material is restored based on what material is known according to the plos paper, and also shows what bone is reconstructed based upon the figures. As is fairly easy to tell, all the unknown material practically matches the Aralosaurus skull. This can easily be modified by request as the image lacks any great detail. How is this skull reconstruction?
Final skull I'm putting up for review here goes to Sahaliyania like the above, this hadrosaur was described in a freely licensed paper, so the known material is based directly from the figures. Although my first take on this one was based after this image on Paleofile, now I have decidedly modified it to better match the anatomy and proportions of File:Amurosaurus skull.png. For this image, as well as al the above images, sclerotic rings are left out, but if requested, I can easily add them in the approximate place they would be if preserved. Any comments on the Sahaliyania? IJReid (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to make more use of contrasting line thickness. For example, thinner lines within the contours, thicker lines for the larger shapes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously all the Spinosaurus reconstructions will need to be replaced, and the article overhauled. I will be doing a reconstruction over the next 3 days, but someone else is welcome to upload one if they get it done quicker. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it will be hard to salvage anything, except for the photos of actual fossils. Haven't read the paper, but it does seem suspicious that Sereno and co use several different specimens, effectively making this a chimaera. Especially because it looks like chimaera! Some of the NatGeo publicity stuff even shows it knuckle walking quadrupedally... "John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist at the Royal Veterinary College of the University of London, is less convinced. He worries about the reliability of cobbling together different specimens to create a single picture of an animal. “We have to be careful about creating a chimera,” he says. “It’s really exciting speculation, but I’d like to see more-conclusive evidence.” Ibrahim says that some of the Spinosaurus parts overlap in different specimens, helping to confirm the unusual anatomy."[44]FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd suggest we perhaps wait a couple of weeks, maybe someone will publish a more formal rebuttal. Hartmann's post is already quite damning. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at Spinosaurus, the debatable part is the propotions of the fore vs. hind limbs, which come from different specimens, and the position of the long spine as a dorsal rather than a caudal as Headden had proposed previously online. The hind limbs really are as small as Hartman's corrected skeletal figure. So whatever the case, all the current mounts and illustrations showing standard theropod legs are wrong. This is based on "Spinosaurus C" which is a single specimen containing verts and hind limbs. So while all the other stuff is being sorted out, I'd suggest we allow wiggle room on bipedal or quadrupedal reckons, and various sail shapes. We should also watch out for legs that are TOO small as demonstrated by Hartman, but also exclude the ones where they're too big as in all our current recons. The tetradactyl feet with flattened claws are demonstrably real, though how to interpret this (primarily aquatic?) is debatable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems someone on commons, whose style is very similar to Dimtry Bogdanov's, has uploaded their own illustration of a Spinosaurus while swimming. This image might need a little change in the head, but it is not restored as on land, so there is no issue over quadrupedalism. Anything to say? IJReid (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is actually him, it is just written in Cyrillic letters... It's the same name he uses on Russian Wikipedia. What do you think should be changed? Also remember, much of the head still isn't known... I've placed the image under "Function of neural spines", as it is the only image we have that clearly shows the new proposed configuration of the spines. Maybe Spinosaurus could be the next FAC target after Deinocheirus... FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just remember somewhere that someone said that if the head doesn't match Steve's, it is probably inaccurate. Maybe not in this case. Heh, the drawing seems to have throat pouch, and some speculative integument, although what I don't get is that the authors of the paper don't hypothesize that the hands might have been webbed either, as they are probably equally powerful when compared to the legs. IJReid (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an image that shows the published elements of the skull (upper right):[45] I think the main difference in the snout is due to perspective, the restoration is almost a three quarter profile. It also seems to have a lot of flesh around the jaws, so certainly not "shrinkwrapped" or what they call it. The crest looks kind of funny, but who knows how the keratin covering would have looked? In any case, probably not the last revision of this animal we'll see... FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone requested I do a new reconstruction for Alectrosaurus seeing as the current one is basically a silhouette. So I whipped up some lineart. I did it as a size chart image as I've been doing recently with personal art. Do we want it on the page as the full size chart, with the human silhouette but not the grid, or with just the animal on a clean background? I've uploaded it as the former, will change if people want another option. Won't upload to the page until decided. Tomopteryx06:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alectrosaurus size chart reconstruction by Tom Parker.
The redescription has just been published, so I'm altering my old Deinocheirus restoration so dramatically that I figured it would be best to post it here. Old versions can be seen in the file history, quite an evolution... FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paper describes it as having a pygostyle and suggests therefore the possibility of display feathers on the tail. While not a necessity, the addition could be a nice show of the research. Tomopteryx (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure thing, don't have the actual paper, but downloaded a tiny version of its skeletal... I should try to get the paper... Anything about the rest? Seems the foot claws should be blunter. Also, it seems all the "official" restorations only give it feathers on the lower arms, tail tip, and head... FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look into it for you now, I have to leave for an exam in 20 minutes, but I wouldn't put much stock in the press illustration. It looks to me like he painted it naked initially and then added tufts of feathers later when someone told him it should have them. All the paper says on the matter is that it has a pygostyle and therefore may have had display feathers on the tail. Tomopteryx (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing, Beipiaosaurus has a pygostyle too, but only long EBFFs stemming from it, so it is possible that was the situation here too. Tomopteryx (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing might need to be changed, based on images on the infomongolia site (scroll down to see photos). The end of the upper beak should probably extend downwards a little farther, and the front tip should curve more gradually. The nostril might also need to be moved back a slight bit, but overall the entire thing is gorgeous! IJReid (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I based the head on the skeletal, not the photo, which is quite different in shape. I guess they "corrected" distortions that happened during fossilisation (the original skull is quite busted up). But if you look at the former version I uploaded, that head was actually based strictly on that skull photo, so it is much flatter, for example... But I sure could use a higher res version of the paper's skeletal! In the official restorations, they do make the upper beak a bit longer, so I'll probably do that soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very nice; but personally, the legs look a little thin for my tastes; the musculature seems somewhat lacking, especially in the lower leg. The hump with the thinner legs makes the animal look back-heavy; I'd personally suggest bulking up the legs to make it look a bit less weird, but that's only my suggestion. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)-[reply]
One thing that needs to be corrected, the third finger should be longer than all other fingers, so about half the difference between digits I and II longer than digit II. IJReid (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I had some other fixes in mind as well (posture, feathers), so will do them all in one edit... And then I'll archive this page! Any other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The illustration is better now. Did Deinocheirus have a hallux though? Also, why do I only see three revisions on the file page? IJReid (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ornithomimosaurs lost the hallux at some point, but I'm not sure if it is known when. There is no hallux shown in the new skeletal of Deinocheirus or the "official" restoration. But for some reason, our restorations of Garudimimus and Beishanlong have halluxes, so perhaps they are incorrect? As for revisions, I just delete similar ones as redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the figure 1b the vertebrae look to be fused even if they aren't in the skeletal, as they are attached, and the neural spines seem to be centered in the middle of the attachment. Could change, but would need to see a larger image of them in the skeletal. I am not certain if in the skeletal they compensated for this giving them a more likely "natural/undistorted" look, but I personally trust photographs of fossils more that drawings of fossils. IJReid (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, first off, I don't think there are any dinosaurs where vertebrae other than the sacral ones are fused (or "pygostyles" for that matter), I rather think the problem here is that the photo is so low res that it is hard to make out exactly what's going on. The skeletal, on the other hand, is vector graphics, so you can zoom in as much as you want without losing resolution, so it is more reliable than a tiny, compressed photo. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a somewhat generic stegosaur[47], mainly based on a skeletal restoration of Lexovisaurus (whatever that is these days), but it could probably represent several kinds of fragmentary genera. What should it be? And anything wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thagomizer, from what I recall of stegosaur anatomy, should be parallel with the tail (unless that's a Stegosaurus-exclusive thing). Other than that, it looks good; very field study-esque. As for Lexovisaurus, the most recent studies seem to show it as a valid genus, so there's that. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me an example of how that should look? Not sure how parallel you mean. Like Kentrosaurus? And I think this is the first "proper" stegosaur I ever drew, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's the possibility of variance between genera, but the following image ([48]) is a good example of what I mean; the upright spikes of traditional recons are, while more dramatic, less useful for defensive measures. Not sure how this applies to more basal stegosaurids, though; but it's a possible way of doing it. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this would be good as more-or-less any primitive stegosaurid (as more primitive taxa are quite different). I think that the best genera would be Lexovisaurus, Monkonosaurus, or Paranthodon, the second and last known from a pelvis[49] and a skull, respectively. I think that Lexovisaurus might be the best, but first it should be determined if we are keeping Loricatosaurus separate on wikipedia, or merging heir articles under Lexovisaurus. IJReid (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hartman may have done it that way to make their shape easier to see. All the evidence suggests they were horizontal and projected posteo-laterally. Apparently they can't articulate properly when placed more vertically. Additionally, at least in Stegosaurus, the first two spikes were almost perpendicular to the tail, while the second two were swept backwards. [52]Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Would also appear that the image we have of the Carnegie mount is more accurate than the one currently in the taxobox? The Carnegie mount seems to have horizontal spike:[54]FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Levi's image,k looks good, byut perhaps the base of the tail is too deep? It seems msot restorations of any dinosaurs show the tails no deeper than just beyond the pubis and ischium. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody. Here is a restoration of Pelecanimimus, the spanish ornithomimosaur. Winged arms are based on the Ornithomimus specimen with feather impressions, and the naked neck is based on the information from the article, although the extension of this kind of integument is not specified. Skull based on this drawing [57]. Any comments?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lower leg seems a bit straight? See for example ostriches, when they stand, their shins are not vertical:[58] I'd also expect the length from the ankle to the toe tips would be longer, see:[59]FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the leg is a little too straightened; no theropod could have truly columnar legs; they all were bent. The lower leg is always bent relative to the upper leg, even in a neutral stance, due to the digitigrade stance of theropods; similar to how the hind legs of cats are (though not to such an extreme; no theropod I recall has quite the leg configuration felids do). And I can't tell if you've put a beak on it or not, but Pelicanimimus didn't have a beak (see: [60]). If the covering is lips, though, thay's alright. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new version, sorry for the delay. I've bent the legs and made a smoother interface between naked skin and lips so it doesn't resemble a beak. The animal is supposed to be in a pond, so some portion of the feet is underwater and not seen. I hope now is accurate, what do you say?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, seems like that guy has a lot of free images. I see you uploaded his images, maybe they should have a review section here for them all (I noticed a few minor issues). Maybe we should start looking for free licenses at Deviantart, is there a way to search for free images? As for the image under review, looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those mostly look fine I think, though I'm concerned about the tail of the Velociraptor being a bit too flexible, but I'm not sure. Here are some images with definite issues, though: Edmontosaurus regalis without fleshy headcrest (sexually dimorphic maybe?):[61] That specimen also seems to show a lack of frillon the neck. Tarbosaurus with too backswept teeth in the lower jaw:[62] Kosmoceratops with what appears to be a very long neck:[63] This Archaeopteryx also seems to have a very small head:[64] By the way, I see he has a few more images with free licenses. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, may be the most accurate depiction we have, then. Looking at the Guanlong, its tooth arrangement seems different from that in the Scott Hartman skeletal, but maybe it is largely speculative anyway. Though I'm also unsure of whether the hallux on the right leg is lifted too far. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, tooth placement is speculative. I personally suspect that the crests are dimorphic, and the paper they are described in does mention the possibility, so it is not OR. IJReid (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at an emu's leg and foot...the hallux on the right foot may be lifted too little if it's standing on that foot. It's also mid-stride, though, so I can't call a total inaccuracy on that...the scaly fingers may be a bit more problematic, since we have tyrannosauroids with feathered fingers (Yutyrannus) that are fairly close in the tree to the more primitive tyrannosaurs. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Two questions: Will you upload his other free images? And is it possible to find other free images on Deviantart through some kind of license search? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might, although I don't think I will upload his primal Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops or Deinonychus, as the middle one has skin inaccuracies, and the first and last have accurate images by the author himself and other images already accurate and on wikipedia. I have now uploaded his Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, and most recent non-primal Tyrannosaurus (shown above). Anything on these? I don't know about a search, but it might be possible. Also, the Spinosaurus is probably to inaccurate to be fixable now. IJReid (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can't use the Primal game images, because they are drawn after artwork for the game. I think those you uploaded look mainly good. Is the Acro head a bit small, or is it just me? Is it possible to find other Deviantart images like that? 14:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)
If any Acro head is small, then it would be than of Nobu Tamura's drawing, where the head looks to small and thin. As for a search, images do come up, but the first many are not relevant to anything non-mammalian. IJReid (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there could be room for both, especially after some expansion. He also seems to have an alright image of Velociraptor[65], Santa could be painted out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was going to upload that full thing on christmas and leave it and a funny message on all of the dinosaur project users talks. :) IJReid (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And two other things, Durbed's Spinosaurus does seem to be based on the new specimens after all[66], and again, what do people think about his Velociraptor with the oviraptor? Is the tail too floppy? I know it wasn't as stiff as is often claimed, but that seems a bit much. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thought his spino was based off Hartman's remake of the skeletal in the paper, as the legs seems a bit bulky and long, maybe not. IJReid (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think an image on commons we have renders this one highly accurate and Arthur's nearly inaccurate. Notice the edges of the plates in File:Stegosaurus plates.jpg and see how they are ridged. This might be the anatomical basis for the keratin spines. IJReid (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything wrong with my illustration of an infant Mussaurus eating a Dicroidium. This is actually my first coloured plant in an illustration of an extinct taxon, and boy, was it different. I added a whole mountain of speculative integument, a gular pouch with some feathers, long whisker-like quills, an inflatable nose pouch, bushy eyebrows, a cheek, and some feathery dewlap. I made sure that the eye was small enough, based on the skull image I found, the orbit extends upwards to the top of the "eyebrow" and out the same distance all around the eye. IJReid (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the difference is very small? Comparing to extant bird chicks and other archosaur jjuveniles, the pupil should probably be much more than half as small... FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, seems a bit too mammalian/manga like now. I'd look at baby birds and turtles and make it the average size they have. Which is less than half of the eyeball's diameter it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed limbs and scales among other things, perhaps not enough.
Changed armour and overall proportions.
Changed head and hands.
Added crest, removed neck frill, added dewlap, change dlimbs.
Removed crest, non-separated fingers.
Added fuzz, altered limbs, proportions.
Changed hands, skulls, and proportions.
Changed head and limb posture, made fatter.
Changed colour, tried to make hands non-pronated.
Made skull and arms shorter.
Added fuzz to body, looks kind of horrible.
Upright posture, may be too skinny.
Changed hands and frill.
Upright posture.
Colour and skull changed.
Limbs changed.
Overall proportions and shape changed.
Entire head changed, still needs thicker jaw.
Crest shape changed.
Eye and hands smaller, perhaps not enough.
Hands and legs changed, would vestigial fingers had been externally visible?
Same as above, any news on whether the crests are genuine?
Added horns at top of frill, changed hands.
Added dewlap, changed limbs.
Changed crest and body proportions.
Changed hands, seems it may have other issues.
Removed horn.
.jpg)
Distribution of Apatosaurus
Distribution of Diplodocus
Distribution of Epanterias
Distribution of One of the new dinosaur Nanuqsaurus
Distribution of Abrosaurus
Distribution of Allosaurus
Distribution of Tyrannosaurus
Distribution of Antarctopelta
Distribution of Cryolophosaurus
Distribution of Glacialisaurus
Distribution of Trinisaura
.png)
I've included the image colors Abrosaurus
upgrade will improve posture and tail, skull and legs. Of a Mussaurus
will update hands Iguanodon, and Camptosaurus
enhance colors on guaibasaurus
update the position and put my shoulder blades. as I said Rextron
enhance colors on glacialisaurus
Mamenchisaurus sketch
Arrhinoceratops head
Abrictosaurus illustration
Alxasaurus illustration
Falcarius illustration
Adasaurus illustration
Jiangxisaurus illustration
Piscivoravis sketch
Colepiocephale illustration
Leaellynasaura illustration
Callovosaurus illustration
Canardia illustration
Machairasaurus illustration
Overosaurus illustration
Dahalokely illustration
Alaskacephale illustration
Stormbergia illustration
Othnielosaurus illustration
Gideonmantellia illustration
Shenzhousaurus illustration
Orkoraptor illustration
Ajancingenia illustration
Stenopelix illustration
Marshosaurus illustration
Pterospondylus illustration
Nankangia illustration
Xinjiangtitan illustration
Pamparaptor illustration
Zalmoxes illustration
Avimimus illustration
.jpg){kind=small}
.JPG)
Pelecanimimus and Concavenator
Hell Creek dinosaurs and pterosaurs
Guanlong
Apatosaurus
Velociraptor and an oviraptorosaur
Delapparentia
Crocodylomorphs and ichthyosaurs
Dromaeosaurids
Tarbosaurus and Saurolophus
Edmontosaurus and Albertosaurus
Stegosaurus
Microraptor
Kosmoceratops and Talos
Iberomesornis
Baryonyx
Archaeopteryx
Daspletosaurus
Acrocanthosaurus
Tyrannosaurus
Giganotosaurus
Achillobator
Olorotitan
![[1]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Palaeo/Megalosaurus_dinosaur_Altered.png){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Megalosaurus_dinosaur_Altered.png~original){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Probactrosaurus_v3.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Palaeo/Saltasaurus_dinosaur_Altered.png~original){kind=link}
![[5]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Palaeo/Saltasaurus_dinosaur_Altered-1.png~original){kind=link}
![[6]](http://oi61.tinypic.com/24yqon4.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://oi62.tinypic.com/2dilo1x.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://oi60.tinypic.com/fve2qv.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://oi58.tinypic.com/2dgrk8j.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://oi58.tinypic.com/syo8yu.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Opisthocoelicaudia_headden_Altered.jpg~original){kind=link}
![[13]](http://oi61.tinypic.com/2j4q34x.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Aralosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://paleopedia.free.fr/image/Aralosaurus123.gif){kind=link}
![[16]](http://dinonews.net/images/dinos/amurosaurus_crane_big.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://dinonews.net/images/dinos/amurosaurus_squelette.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2014/026/6/1/hadrosauridae_skull_comparison__not_to_scale__by_dennonyx-d6qo0sh.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Angulomastacator%20%20skull%20s.JPG){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Saia%20S.JPG){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlamosaurusDB.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://lab.debivort.org/images/301kr9l.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](http://i.imgur.com/e5ATNp7.jpg?1){kind=link}
![[26]](http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Sauropoda/Quaesitosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://oi58.tinypic.com/5oa2q9.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://i.imgur.com/P85Tign.jpg?1){kind=link}
![[30]](https://ad8d0c4b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/dinosauria/deinynochosauria/luanchuanraptor/Luanchuanraptor%20skeleton.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7co6_ohWAyha17hKLhVarEN9CBE5dap9ULPb205-F-PjCq0qoaHBQNcYbKK8ssHPiBfEhfj6FbTiWgAG5JUREmprpjjlSfZWGzxHIvsw06jucJhSvrPl-h2aU0TsuBfXxNITACzkJNuZk9bhGgFo3vEdEHYiQXJdTEBX-tCo8YuNbhvDuyElWO-MmeniQzPbN3G8GSjzpyNCvrMtS3DJFr-v5Zzi1JD0UGkR73DE6RdEZTUwt0XszQ-OL6pHZtH8ONSkgg3Cioso_c5kkhFqw5l-7OKeKqBgWDmnI-vuAGswDO18hJQrqqBv538B2xU-v1aMumo2&attredirects=0){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[32]](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callovosaurus#mediaviewer/Archivo:Callovosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stormbergia_%26_Othnielosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alaskacephale_gangloffi_copia.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](http://i.imgur.com/FTmcyKw.jpg?1){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thecodontosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](http://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/ac/08/000008ac_medium.jpeg){kind=link}
![[39]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UA6y4cnjyRY/T4mNaFE8NVI/AAAAAAAABAk/WyJRXIHmssA/s1600/monolophosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YrzqMXdJX8I/T-h-anKOEoI/AAAAAAAALnY/o_MTDI7Rbak/s1600/Deinonychus+skeletal.png){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deinonychus_%28Raptor_Prey_Restraint%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/243/f/5/spinosaurus_skull_and_cervical_vertebrae_by_miyess-d7x9t6c.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deinocheirus_vertebrae.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](http://oi58.tinypic.com/28uo5yr.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130412141509/planetdinosaur/images/c/cd/Stegosaurus.png){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lexovisaurus2.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stegosaurus_armatus_by_durbed.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stegosaurus_at_the_CMNH_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](http://oi57.tinypic.com/nnwv81.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/wp-content/blogs.dir/471/files/2012/04/i-cf4fef9589bbe1f550c0888bb2a41840-VilleSinkkonenPelecanimimus.jpg){kind=link}
![[58]](http://www.t-rat.com/images/TratDinosaurPg/Ostrich.jpg){kind=link}
![[59]](http://www.madrimasd.org/cienciaysociedad/resenas/exposiciones/images/exposicion76b.jpg){kind=link}
![[60]](http://eofauna.com/wp-content/themes/eofaunatema/images/replicas/replicas-grandes/pelecanimimus2.jpg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmontosaurus_pounding_Albertosaurus_by_durbed.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tarbosaurus_and_Saurolophus_by_Durbed.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kosmoceratops_and_Talos_by_durbed.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_litographica_by_durbed.jpg){kind=link}
![[69]](https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5534/11728808056_abfa64cc52_b.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](https://cdn.backyardchickens.com/4/4e/350x700px-LL-4ec7da05_DSC_0011.jpeg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mussaurus2.jpg){kind=link}