Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2019 - April 2019

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. 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. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). 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. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Abelisaurid Restorations

• 
  Rajasaurus
• 
  Kryptops
• 
  Viavenator
• 
  Viavenator size
• 
  Chenanisaurus
• 
  Chenanisaurus size
• 
  Quilmesaurus
• 
  Quilmesaurus size
• 
  Chenanisaurus sprinting along coastline
• 
  Rahiolisaurus
• 
  Size of Rahiolisaurus gujaratensis compared to human

Hello! An idea I have been mulling over is creating restorations for abelisaurids en-masse using the lines of my Rajasaurus as a base. Proportions and skulls would be changed, along with patterning to keep each unique. I can also change their vertical posture and leg arrangements. What do you think? Would this look too same-y? With a lot of species within the same group they really do look very similar, and redrawing the same body over and over can be exhausting. Some species that come to mind that need restorations are listed below. The two images in the gallery above are examples of what they'd look like. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Chenanisaurus
• Indosuchus
• Vitakridrinda
• Viavenator
• Quilmesaurus
• Pycnonemosaurus
• Majungasaurus
• Rahiolisaurus

Sounds like a great idea! Keep in mind to clarify (when that is the case) that the restoration is speculative, since quite a few of these are known from very poor remains. Also, Indosuchus already has pretty good restoration, but yours could replace the Nobu Tamura one in Majungasaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably good for those without restorations. As for my old Indosuchus, I was thinking of putting it in a more "normal" pose, this resting pose was just for variation, but it doesn't really show the anatomy well. On the other hand, it probably doesn't matter, since it is only known from skull elements. But I should definitely make those fenestrae less visible... FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated Indosuchus

I tweaked the colouring on my old Indosuchus drawing and made the fenestrae less visible (it was goddamn ten years old!). Since there will be so many abelisaurs in the exact same pose now, I will keep the resting pose for variation. Any comments on it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps make the back appear more rough? Right now it seems to be incredibly smooth for an abelisaur. Paul seems to restore it with long arms: [1]. Not sure if that's correct. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Whut, but only skull fragments are known? This seems to be the result of one of Paul's lumpings. That head also seems way too proportionally large for an abelisaur? But yeah, the osteoderms on the side of the back probably got a bit too smoothed over when I gave it a a shine... FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul combined all the indian dinosaur specimens into ont taxon, apparently. The skull is far less complete, and the postcrania is currently undescribed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does look like an oddly scaled chimaera, don't think any other abelisaur had heads and arms as proportionally large as that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The scutes should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a restoration of Viavenator, using a different pose. It is proportioned after Carnotaurus in terms of body, and skull is more of a generic abelisaurid. (The puppet warp tool is fantastic!) Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The crushed eye definitely needs to be fixed (probably an artifact from shortening the skull). Not sure about what proportions should be otherwise. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the eye and created a size diagram. I've also added both to the article. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 05:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added a restoration and size diagram of Chenanisaurus. Proportions were referenced from this reconstruction, but the size estimate was from the article at 7m in length. Any changes needed? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 04:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Added restoration and size chart of Quilmesaurus. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Since Quilmesaurus is very similar to Aucasaurus, there do seem to be a few errors: 1) The skull actually seems too short 2) the arms seem to be too far back 3) The orbit should be rounder (see [2]). Also, the eye was crushed in the transformation again, it seems. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Quilmesaurus is any closer to Aucusaurus than, say, Carnotaurus. Ceratosaurian phylogeny is a mess anyways. I do find it weird that they all have roughly the same leg proportions when in reality there was quite a lot of variety between the slower genera such as Majungasaurus, and the faster ones such as Carnotaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've also added a life restoration of two Chenanisaurus walking along a wide coastline. Any changes needed? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, a new restoration of Thanos simonattoi was added to the article without getting reviewed first. It seems generic enough to be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of abelisaurid images, this monstrosity was uploaded over Paleocolour's size comparison and has appeared on the Rugops page: File:Rugops_primus_scale_diagram.jpg. It's been made by the Hungarian Sockpuppeteer by using Austroposeidon's Rugops, and no permission seems to have been provided. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the Commons sock. By the way, seems a new Thanos image has been posted below, but I think this one is better. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Added size chart for Rahiolisaurus to article. It's a more gracile version of Rajasaurus. Will be doing a life restoration to accompany the article soon. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Rahiolisaurus restoration - Can I have some feedback on this lineart I have drawn of Rahiolisaurus? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/117418079666962436/515901488338436096/Rahiolisaurus.jpg My major questions are 1. Should it have a cranial horn similar to Rajasaurus? 2. Are the back feature scales large enough and reach low enough on the torso? Thanks for your help! Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 18:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The skull is unknown. 2001:569:782B:7A00:4130:E586:5F5A:2839 (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks about right for the material and relationships known. Best to assume it lacks the characteristic horn of Rajasaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Magnosaurus restoration from 2007

I don't think this restoration has been reviewed, but it probably should. The dinosaur seems too skinny, has visible fenestrae, and the limbs look quite strange.Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a rather unsalvageable Hadrosaurus restoration from the same guy from its page. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea, it's just better to upload entirely new images instead of trying to fix these. There is a Magnosaurus reconstruction in Nobu Tamura's blog [3] - what's necessary to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? And are there any problems with it? Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Noncommercial license. Can't be used. 2001:569:782B:7A00:80FC:3832:3545:5CDA (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've updated the Magnosaurus restoration. Let me know if changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, but still quite skinny by megalosauroid standards. What's with the scutes on the hands? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a dramatic change! I wonder if the "drumstick could be made more pronounced. The fingers on the right hand also look slightly longer? As for the scutes, I guess they just reflect the scutes on bird feet (and crocodile limbs), don't think there is any evidence for or against. At least this Australovenator image[4] has them too... FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Request: Xixiasaurus scale diagram

2013 restoration

2018 size chart

I will be expanding the Xixiasaurus for possible nomination as the first troodont GA/FA, and it currently needs a size diagram. The estimated size is given in the article, and though the estimated length of the skull isn't given in the description, it can perhaps be extrapolated from the scale bar (see image here:[5]). Not sure what the body should be based on, as it seems to jump the cladogram around from study to study, so as close to a "generic" troodont as possible. While we're at it, I thought it would be good to post my old, 2013 restoration of it for re-review (it was basically a modified version of my older Zanabazar junior). The feathers were largely based on Jinfengopteryx, which perhaps wasn't a trodoont after all, and now the only definitely known feathered troodont is Jianianhualong. I will definitely shorten the neck and change the tip of the mandible a bit (it seems to have been a bit downturned[6][7], which should also be shown in the diagram), but are there other suggestions? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I love this illustration; the only suggestion I have right now is to make the neck feathers more extensive, giving the neck more volume as feathers do in modern birds. I think the feathers should also make the silhouette have a more gentle curve on the back of the neck. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix that; though there are of course many long necked birds where the feathers don't change the contour of the neck much, such as flamingoes, storks, and swans, it seems to have been the case in deinonychosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll take this one, especially since I don't do size charts too often now! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, your Thalassodromeus diagram also got a compliment from a reviewer! FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Along with the poofy neck feather thing, I think that the nostril might be a little too high up. As far as I know, the current thinking for theropod nostrils is that they wet moreso at the bottom of the nares PaleoEquii (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The front of the bony nares, yeah, as far as I can see it is? I think maybe that black splotch behind what I meant to be the nostril is what threw you off, I'll paint it out... FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have now made a bunch of anatomical fixes~to the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! Should help figure things out with the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait! Personal affairs and all. I'll get started on this soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fine (I'm still writing anyway), I've made some space ready for it at the upper left of the description section... FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the body of this Byronosaurus[8] coupled with the head here[9] could maybe guide the proportions. The first skeletal looks like it was done by Jaime Headden, but I can't really find it on any proper website. Do you think we can upload it to Commons, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes I think we can, i know it is made by Headden we just don't really have a "source". But they are his and that means we can upload them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how many images of his scattered on the web we still need to upload? I recall there was a lot on the now defunct Dinosauricon, maybe they can be found through the Wayback Machine... And PaleoGeekSquared, if you choose to include feathers in the size diagram, remember to not make the tail feathers part of the length! FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Finally I finished this! Sorry for the long wait. I took your advice on Headden's skeletal, and matched the silhouette up to the restoration's proportions as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Worth the wait! There is something about the frontmost leg, I think the fact that the two legs have the exact same pose. This would make it seem like the front leg is attached further forwards on the body, and doesn't attach to the body at the same level as the hindmost leg... They could be more offset, like here:[10] The hand claws also seem to have been more strongly curved:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Saw my comment here, PaleoGeekSquared? I'll send the article to FAC soon (Irritator is just about promoted, and it seems good to maybe only have one dinosaur at FAC at a time with so few reviewers around). FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have been stalling with a lot of these fixes (including your comments on the Alectrosaurus head and Suchomimus paleoecology image down below) since I've been so busy this past month. I practically just make an image and leave it now, hehe. I'll open up inkscape and correct this one right now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed both issues, hopefully. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus

Hello, I’ve spent some time making this reconstruction of a father Psittacosaurus mongoliensis sitting down, and I was wondering if it could be used in the article. Any critique? I can also bring in a version with a neat and background, if that would be more suitable. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears you have drawn a claw on the fourth finger; there should only ever be claws on the first three. An issue which is perhaps too late to fix, but which you should consider in the future, is perspective in the scales; if a round scale is seen foreshortened, it should be oval. In this restoration, all the scales at the margins of the animals silhouette should become gradually more oval, and almost flat at the contours. Now they are all round, which wouldn't make sense. You can see what I mean in for example these lizard photos[12][13] (also check the front view[14] of the Bob Nicholls Psittacosaurus mdel), note how the scales appear flattened as the topography of the head curves. It might not seem like a big deal, but I think it is important to be accurate if individual scales absolutely have to be shown. Another thing, it looks a bit jarring that the quills stop short of connecting with the body. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused where the quills on the left side of the image are coming from? From what I can tell they're limited to the tail like is preserved on the specimen, but if they are they shouldn't be sprouting over there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The midline of the back in that specimen is obscured, though, so in theory there could be quills... But yeah, here they seem to be coming from the level of the legs, though. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the evidence for the little postorbital horns on the upper side of the skull? And shouldn't the skull table (behind those horns, where the upper temporal fenestrae would have been) be flat instead of strongly rounded? Looks like the neck starts right after the eye openings. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Further edits to spinosaur images

• 
  Corrected skull shape
• 
  Corrected skull shape
• 
  Added background, hid wonky hind limbs underwater, fixed skull proportions, smoother sail
• 
  Less exaggerated projection on the rear of nasal crest
• 
  Fixed skull proportions on left Suchomimus, obscured right individual behind additional ferns
• 
  Did some minor edits, such as removing the signature and adding an ear hole
• 
  Adjustments to skull and sail shape of the animals

I fixed up the Baryonyx's skull in these two images according to this[15] skull reconstruction, they should now be in tip-top shape for article use. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good warping! I'll send the Baryonyx off to the WikiJournal soon then... FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's three more images I tried to salvage, let me know if the changes are acceptable. I was thinking that the new Nobu Tamura Sucho could go in Cristatusaurus under the Paleoecology section, since we already have a large amount of good Suchomimus restorations. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The NT image still has a pretty weirdly rotated hand... Maybe it could just be rotated down? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rotated it somewhat, does this fix the issue? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say so (the snout seems to dip deeper than the legs, but maybe not so obviously). Id advise against changing the name of the file though, the image is used on many other Wikipedia pages where it is identified as Suchomimus. You should rather state in an image caption that it was similar/possibly identical to that animal or something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot it was used on other wiki pages. I took your suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

One issue that makes the image look a bit weird is that you have scaled up the restoration, which makes it very blurry, contrasting wit the background. Maybe the whole image should be scaled back down so the dinosaur is of its original size. Looking again, I also wonder if you could make the legs less deep in the water, because it does seem like the snout should be submerged as well from this perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I lifted up the neck and reduced the resolution of the image so it is much closer to the original. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the source to the background photo? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a Spinosaurus by Nobu Tamura that I uploaded, the only one of his restorations of it based on the new reconstruction. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand the final spinosaurid image for the day: a Suchomimus and four of her juveniles traversing a floodplain, put together using some lower quality spinosaurid restorations by Nobu and Abelov. And now we officially have more than enough Suchomimus restorations (7 exactly). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

More than we'll ever need, probably! The perspective is a bit off in the newest image; you have a horizon line through the largest animal, but the animals below it are shown directly from the side, whereas the viewer would have to look slightly down upon following in that perspective. It is most obvious in the frontmost animal, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Carnotaurinae size diagrams

• 
  Old Carnotaurini size diagram
• 
  New Carnotaurini size diagram
• 
  Carnotaurinae size diagram

I've created some size comparison diagrams. One is to replace the difficult to read old Carnotaurini size diagram, and one is a size diagram of all of Carnotaurinae. Let me know if any changes are needed. I attempted to make it so the entire silhouette of each dinosaur was visible and readable, let me know if that worked as well as I hoped. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 14:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The new Carnotaurini diagram isn't displaying right for me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I like it, but the only issue is it will be hard to simply distinguish them by colour, since multiple taxa are similar colours than could all be considered "green" or "blue" or "orange". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Another issue is how unstable abelisaur taxonomy is, "Carnotaurini" and "Carnotaurinae" have few consistent members. I would recommend focusing on Abelisauridae in general. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "Carnotaurini" size diagram, even if it was unstable it would at least be a good replacement for the greyscale, unlabeled version that is used in nearly a dozen articles. I think for both size charts, even if classifications change in the future, it would be easy enough to relabel it as "Size comparisons of selected abelisaurs". A more useful size diagram might be comparisons of species that lived in the same environment during the same time, but there is still usefulness in visualizing the sizes of species within Abelisauridae as a whole. I think the colours of the Carnotaurini size diagram are visually different enough, however I can see the larger Carnotaurinae diagram being problematic. I tried to layer it light on dark but most dark colours have ended up looking the same, so I'll fix that. Thanks. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 12:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the colours on the Carnotaurinae digram. When referring to them, it should be clear enough to use (from left to right): Orange, Purple, Blue, Yellow, Grey, Green, Dark Green, Red, Cyan, Brown. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 10:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Anurognathid

I’ve made a reconstruction of Jeholopterus according to the Yang et al 2018 study on Anurognathid “pycnofeathers”. The study showed that the unidentified Anurognathid (judging by Locality and physical appearance, likely Jeholopterus or a related animal) had red “pycnofeathers”. As of now, both the Anurognathus restoration and Jeholopterus restoration are extremely outdated. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a shame not to show more of the body, since the distribution of integument types is what's interesting about the specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s too late for that; plus, I wouldn’t be able to show the filament variation. Drawing the individual strands on each individual pycnofeather would be a Herculean and pointless task. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not definitely Jeholopterus and could very well be Dendrorhynchoides. If this is meant to be a reconstruction of the (immature) specimen and not an actual Jeholopterus then it probably should not be associated with the Jeholopterus page. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing allows the integument to be put on both taxa either way. Alternatively, we could write a section about the specimens on the anurognathid page and merely use this there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Where does the red color come from? Jonathunder (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This study.

Also, I’ve changed it to an unnamed Anurognathid. The skull most closely matches Anurognathus, which also needs a new illustration. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Paleocolour could fix the old DBogdanov illustration[16] according to the new study (isn't too far off to begin with, incredibly, similar thing happened when I drew Sinornithosaurus). What a time to be alive, that it is now a recurring thing to go back and add the actual colouration to old restorations of extinct animals... FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t think it’s worth trying to fix. The study showed that the feathers densely covered the entire body, ans the arms and feet, and tiny bit of the mouth, as seen in my reconstruction. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think even I would be able to do the fixes, so I'm sure she can do it even better (with newer version of Photoshop and all). Adding fur takes time, but it's easy to do. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Lucas Attwell Emausaurus

A very nice illustration but I don't think it was ever reviewed. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely needs clearer proof of permission. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it now has a CC BY-SA 3.0 License on its DA page: [17]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the uploader finally got it sorted out. So now I guess we can evaluate this and the other of his images. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Revised Alectrosaurus

January 2018

December 2018

Since I recently started digital art[18] I thought it'd be a good idea to explore and try out this new art medium with some Wikipedia restorations, seeing as I have a while without making any. So which better one to remake than my old Alectrosaurus? The previous one was admittedly an ugly, unrealistic mess, so hopefully you'll find this one more acceptable. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The nostril should be placed nearer the bottom of the nares, rather than the top. This is based on a study which showed Tyrannosaurus likely had a fleshier nostril, pushing it down towards the jaw and the tip of the snout. I’d asssume it would be roughly the same in Alectrosaurus. PaleoEquii (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the nostril placement paper, and did put it at the bottom of the external nares (see this skull diagram[19]). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a good new direction! The curcular patches look a bit too neat (compared to living animals), though, could their outlines maybe be a bit more irregular? As for nostril placement, the take home message of the Witmer paper was they were placed at the front of the bony naris (as seems to be shown here), not necessarily at the bottom (though the front of the naris is often lower than the rest, and therefore often "the bottom"). FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave the face patches a more textured outline, similar to that which can be seen on the dark to light colour transition on the side of the neck. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, exactly what I had in mind! FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! Added to the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

At a closer look, the eye is completely circular, but most bird eyes (or their visible outlines) are at least a bit oval and have little indentations at the front and the back, showing where the eyelids meet. Not sure what it's called, but should probably be added. FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Megalosaurid skulls

• 
  Dubreuillosaurus
• 
  Magnosaurus
• 
  Afrovenator
• 
  Leshansaurus
• 
  Eustreptospondylus
• 
  Torvosaurus
• 
  Megalosaurus
• 
  Wiehenvenator
• 
  Duriavenator
• 
  Composite to replace Conty's

A long-awaited project I'm finally beginning now, the skulls of all megalosaurids. Starting with the most complete, Dubreuillosaurus. All megalosaurids with cranial (non-braincase) material will get a skull reconstruction, all to the same scale of 10px/cm and all following the same colour palette, hoping to replace Conty's old collage. Comments? Unknown bones are based on other megalosaurids that have them, quadrate from Eustreptospondylus and posterior mandible from Megalosaurus (all other bones are known in Dubreuillosaurus). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough Dubreuillosaurus' closest relative, Magnosaurus, has a dentary of the same size, and thus the only difference here is the dentary known. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't say much for accuracy, but it would probably be good to track down what the diagram you based it on was published in. It seems Torvosaurus is known from as much material, just not form a single specimen... FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I currently have all the descriptive papers of the cranial material open as separate tabs right now. Torvosaurus preserves essentially the same material, but in several specimens, and lacking the skull roof, squamosal, and almost the entire dentary. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Afrovenator is now finished, onto the next taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does the Headden skeletal show what looks like part of the mandible? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the Headden skeletal. The bone was also in Sereno's original skeletal diagram. The theropod database lists it as a prearticular. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a prearticular which means its on the internal side of the mandible, and thus not visible in lateral view if the angular and surrangular are shown. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Another megalosaurid added, Leshansaurus. The white bones are figured, light grey bones are described (very poorly) so as much as I can tell to be preserved is shown. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Now 100% more Eustreptospondylus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And now Torvosaurus is done. I plan to make Megalosaurus next to so I can finally replicate Conty's diagram and replace it, it's not very representative of the megalosaur cranial anatomy and diversity. I'm probably going to make all the skulls to the same length, instead of all to scale, since Torvosaurus absolutely dwarfs the others so far. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Torvosaurus apparently has a fourth premaxillary tooth according to Hendrickx, Mateus, & Araujo (2015)[20], contra earlier studies but more in line with the cranial anatomy of other megalosaurids. Other than that everything looks good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

An additional premaxillar tooth has been added, along with Megalosaurus, now finished (and with 4 premax teeth). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well another is done, and the composite image as well. Only Duriavenator left unless I decide to do T. gurneyi in addition to T. tanneri. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered labeling the composite within the image itself? Or at least putting in a key (like A), B), etc.) Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point, done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Duriavenator is finished, and I think this project is along with it. Unless there are concerns, I will archive this section at the end of the month and add images to articles if there is room. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What about Piveteausaurus, or is it too fragmentary? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's only a braincase, no external skull bones, so I didn't include it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Saltriovenator

• 
  Saltriovenator restoration
• 
  Skeletal diagram
• 
  Size diagram

Made this one using the official skeletal in the paper. I think it is okay, don't mislead the boot with the perineal muscolar area

The legs feel very lacking in muscles. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The frontmost leg seems very straight. It would never reach that position during a walk. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've rearranged and lengthened the legs as according to the skeletal diagram. I've also added a size diagram based on the estimated length from the paper. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 03:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean the ischiadic boot? What reasons are there to assume that the cloaca was located so far to behind?--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh my bad yes of course I mean the ischiadic boot... anyway, the drawing was made using the skeletal as a reference but with a different leg position so that the more cranially placed leg gives the optical illusion of a more caudally placed booty. If you still have doubts try measuring the drawing proportions and comparing them with the skeletal. Thank you Lusotitan for the new leg arrangement! Sorry I'm not that practical with wikipedia still I forgot to sign Dennonychus

What's the ruling on modifications to images from the paper? 'Cause I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to try and beef up that skeletal a little more... --TKWTH (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. It's no lankier than many Scott Hartman skeletals. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is inherent in the license "to remix – to adapt the work", but I don't see why it is necessary to modify it either. Some animals are fat, some are skinny, but there is a current trend in palaeoart to add maximum bulk, which is just that, a trend. If we want to draw an image like that, fine, but no need to add something speculative to someone else's art. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the calves and back need a tad more beef, and I'm using Hartman's skeletals as a standard. --TKWTH (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the back? Hartman's skeletals, and those of most others, don't show much space between the neural spines and the margin of the silhouette. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Should Saltriovenator have osteoderms? It is outside of the Ceratosaurus+Carnotaurus group, but it is still a ceratosaur. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The nasal horn is probably even less likely then, both Ceratosaurus and abelisaurs had osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"A single median crest on the nasals and a distinct lacrimal crest are variably developed in basalmost averostrans known from cranial elements and belonging to both Ceratosauria and Tetanurae. These features are optimized as averostran and ceratosaurian symplesiomorphies in our phylogenetic analysis. Accordingly, these ornamentations are depicted in our reconstruction of the Italian ceratosaurian, pending more complete material." 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the crest is accurate, due to its presence in coelophysoids, dilophosaurids, Ceratosaurus, and Monolophosaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "accurate", as we have no way of knowing, but it is a speculative possibility, just like the osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The crest is more than just speculation, in a sense. It's no less accurate than the other traits constrained by phylogenetic bracketing, as is the case here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, only one other theropod has a single nasal horn, and that is Ceratosaurus. The others have longitudinal crests, running the length of the nasals, and coelophysoids did not have crests at all, if those of Syntarsus kayentakatae are just displaced nasals, as has been suspected for some time (same goes for Zupaysaurus). But in any case, I'm not arguing for removing the horn or anything, just saying osteoderms could be inferred through bracketing just as well (both abelisaurs and Ceratosaurus had them, so it could be primitive to the group). FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Saltriovenator does not fall under any bracket for osteoderms - the Ceratosaurus + Abelisauridae node is further up the tree and so it falls out of the bracket. Now, this bracket is still pretty close, so it can be inferred it may have had them, but it's just as reasonable not to have them. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus is the only ceratosaur with osteoderms. Abelisaurs didn't have them. Saltriovenator shouldn't be depicted with them. Agree Saltriovenator probably had a crest, but I recommend not giving it the exact same crest shape as the skeletal (because it's speculative and I don't want the skeletal to become a meme).Ornithopsis (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that still isn't grounds for rejecting the image. So this isn't the place for the discussion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Carnotaurus had "keeled protuberances"[21] on its skin, whatever that means, and it has certainly been depicted as something akin to osteoderms (so whatever we call it, it isn't far form what is shown in the restoration here). But then again, it might just be spot, isn't clearly rendered here. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Large scales aren't osteoderms, and the arrangement of the large scales of Carnotaurus (spread over much of the body) aren't anything like the arrangement of the osteoderms in Ceratosaurus (single row along midline of back). We can't rule out large scales like Carnotaurus, but a row of osteoderms like Ceratosaurus seems unlikely. So I don't think osteoderms should be added.Ornithopsis (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a moot point to begin with, because I thought this image showed osteoderms (which is why I argued for them being kept), but it didn't when I looked closer. Then of course, you could argue whether feathers are more or less likely than osteoderms, as are shown both here and in some of the press release artwork... FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I had initially misinterpreted this as a suggestion to add osteoderms, which I disagreed with. My mistake. FWIW, I think feathers are much more likely than osteoderms (as osteoderms seem to be an autapomorphy of Ceratosaurus within theropods, whereas feathers are now known from all over Ornithodira despite their low preservation potential).Ornithopsis (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fosterovenator

Fosterovenator skeletal restoration

The outline of this restoration ought to be revised to make it more like Elaphrosaurus and Limusaurus because Dalman (2014) considers Fosterovenator closer to Elaphrosaurus than to Ceratosaurus, which means he erred in assigning Fosterovenator to Ceratosauridae and Carnosauria more broadly, and should have clarified that he was assigning it to Ceratosauria given that Fosterovenator is a small-bodied theropod.Extrapolaris (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I would say that either one is too speculative to be of much use. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rahiolisaurus

Life restoration of Rahiolisaurus gujaratensis

I ended up scrapping that lineart I sketched earlier and did a painting of Rahiolisaurus instead. Let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 13:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks very accurate and aesthetically glaring. I appreciate the fact that the mouth is closed and has "lips". The only thing I'm not totally sure is the maybe excessively squinted eye, it looks like the animal is using some sort of mammalian, complexity-wise, palpebral muscles. Dennonychus

It seems the ankle of the back leg is a bit too flexed for the position the lower leg is placed in; it should probably be tilted a bit back, like the similar pose in Hartman's skeletals, the weight seems a bit unsupported now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the eye, I was inspired by bird eyes and the tissue found around their eyes. The rest was meant to represent wrinkles on the face over the fenestra. I think it's relatively minor, so I'm going to leave it as-is but take it into account for my next restoration. The leg was positioned to make it look as though it's leaning forward, and I made sure to keep the thigh and ankle parallel to each other, but I think my shading obscured the shapes a little. I do think this is also very minor, and doesn't put the leg in an especially unnatural pose. Again, I will keep that in mind in the future. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus

Sarcosaurus known material

Sarcosaurus diagram of known material: reconstruction based on basal Ceratosaurs (such as Berberosaurus and particularly Saltriovenator). The Skull was made to look more generic and less like more derived Ceratosaurs such as Ceratosaurus. "Liassaurus", referred to "cf. Sarcosaurus woodi" is smaller than the holotype: material in light grey is preserved, but to what extent is uncertain as it is not figured. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there could be a bigger difference between the greys used. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

For the silhouette? Eotyrannu5 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It says "material in light grey is preserved", but it is very hard to distinguish between the greys used, they all look light (including the grey that denotes missing parts). FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally would recommend the use ~20% gray for unfigured and ~50% gray for unknown (that's what I've done for Puertasaurus, Argentinosaurus, and Volgatitan). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I use hex 808080 for a darker grey and hex a6a6a6 for a lighter grey (see Leshansaurus skull above). I think the light grey here is fine maybe the darker could be darker though. I see no anatomical issues with the skeletals anyhow. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Hopefully it is darker now. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Since Sarcosaurus appears to be a dilophosaurid, or at least in that general part of the phylogenetic tree, shouldn't its head look more dilophosaur-like and be crested?Ornithopsis (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus is in a similar boat to Saltriovenator (I even found the former to be basalmost ceratosaur in an extension of the Carrano matrix) so any cranial decoration is hit or miss. A lack of any is the most objective route to take. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree with that philosophy. In the absence of hard data, soft data gleaned from phylogenetic bracketing is much more preferable than defaulting to nothing. And phylogenetic bracketing would support at least some kind of crest in this area.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Lacrimal crests at least, they are very widespread. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is with the phylogeny I got, crestless Limusaurus was between Sarcosaurus and Ceratosaurus. I don't remember if Masiakasaurus was also basal or not, but from that result it appeared more likely that crests evolved multiple times. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is some debate over Limusaurus's phylogenetic placement; it may be a noasaurid, in which case a loss of cranial ornamentation is a derived feature of Noasauridae, which are (generally) considered to be deeper within Ceratosauria than Ceratosaurus. Cranial ornamentation (in a general sense) is common to abelisaurids, basal tetanurans (Monolophosaurus), dilophosaurids, and plenty of incertae sedis early Jurassic theropods like Cryolophosaurus and Sinosaurus. Even Masiakasaurus has some strange texturing on its facial bones which imply that its ancestors had ornamentation. Even if Limusaurus did have a basal position within Ceratosauria, the evidence is still strongly in support of cranial ornamentation being the default for early Jurassic theropods.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Like with Saltriovenator above, our best bet it to accept what the artist has done, because anything goes. Depending on the phylogeny, ceratosaurs could be closer to tetanurans than crested theropods (= no crest), Sinosaurus could be basalmost ceratosaur (= large crest), crested theropods could lie on either side of Ceratosauria but not within in (= small crest) or even something more radical. I know all of these results have been found using various phylogenies, and the state of uncertainty around everything at this point in the tree cannot be understated. Megalosaurs (all lacking any crests save Afrovenator and spinosaurs) might be their own clade, or they could be carnosaurs. "Dilophosaurs" (all having prominent crests) could be a clade and therefore not provide support for basal crests; or a continuous grade and therefor support large crests as basal to Averostra; or could be a clade broken up by ceratosaurs and therefore support crests as basal to ceratosaurs, megalosaurs and carnosaurs. We just don't know, so deeming one thing inaccurate wouldn't make sense (I think Saltriovenator should be crestless as well, but as an unknown I think anything goes). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree that paleoart for Wikipedia should be as conservative as possible, but I would like to point out that in the Saltriovenator paper’s phylogeny, Sarcosaurus is a dilophosaurid. As far as I know it is also found close to Dilophosaurus in most other phylogenies. Under such circumstances, I think depicting it without crests becomes a situation where it’s probably violating the phylogenetic bracket. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus is basal to dilophosaurs in the Wang Limusaurus phylogeny [22] which I didn't even consider, but makes it too basal for crests. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn’t Sarcosaurus be reconstructed as much more coelophysoid-like? I can see it being reconstructed like Coelophysis or Dilophosaurus, but I don’t see why it would look like it does in this image.Ornithopsis (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been recovered as a basal ceratosaur before so that is one valid approach to take. I see no issue with the silhouette, it'd be accurate as a dilophosaur-like animal but it's also fine like this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

In what recent published study has it been found to be a ceratosaur? Ornithopsis (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Genyodectes

• 
  Genyodectes restoration
• 
  Size diagram
• 
  Known remains diagram

I have created a restoration, size chart, and known material diagram of Genyodectes. Let me know if any changes are needed.

• The restoration includes a row of osteoderms along the back, a la Ceratosaurus. They are considered to be closely related, so I thought this was reasonable but I can remove them if needed. The head crests are also based on Ceratosaurus.
• The size chart was scaled to the known jaw material and fitted to a Ceratosaur silhouette. There was no size estimate listed anywhere I could find, so I'm not sure if this could be considered Original Research.
• The known remains diagram was scaled from the jaw material and filled with the silhouette. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems the ear is drawn behind the head (effectively in the neck), rather than within the back margin? It should instead be somewhere within the gap between the back of the skull and the mandible depressor muscle.[23] FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 01:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Much better. This, and taking sclerotic ring size into account when drawing eyes, are some of the most overlooked issues in dinosaur palaeoart for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

La Huérguina Formation

Europejara and Pelecanimimus restored in a speculative scenario of ecological competition

Made this to illustrate the Paleoenvironment section of La Huerguina Formation page. Is it accurate enough? Danny Cicchetti

I don't know anything about these particular creatures, but the contrast between the blurry environment and sharper-looking animals seems very jarring to me, and makes the image a little unpleasant to look at. Is there any way that you could clear up the background? Or perhaps just the water in the foreground? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you I didn't notice that. It's been fixed :) Danny Cicchetti 16:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is the Europejara perhaps too big? It supposedly had a wing span of 2 metres, while Pelecanimimus was up to 2.5 metres long. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I may fix that but I used skull dimensions as for relative proportions between the two animals. Also a big part of Pelecanimimus tail is not seen here. Danny Cicchetti 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Megaraptor mount

This photo of a mount was added by an IP several days ago. It seems suspect. 2001:569:782B:7A00:D3:A8CA:4C6E:41DD (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It is outdated (based on carcharodontosaurs), but it could used in the history or classification sections one day when those are expanded, to illustrate earlier interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia (coloured)

• 
  Digital restoration
• 
  Colour map
• 
  Lineart sketch

Now that I have the proper tools, I got around to colouring the Oxalaia lineart that I made a while back (pinging Paleocolour to notify her that she doesn't need to do it). It should be alright to use in the article in place of the swimming one, since the WP:OR issue of bipedalism that raised Jens Lallensack's concern before is no longer a problem, due to the Henderson (2018) paper.[24] Aside from the colourisation and more detailed lineart, I also made these changes:

• Flatter, more sausage-like torso as suggested for Spinosaurus.
• Moved eye closer to the top of the head and shifted ear hole to proper position.
• Pedal unguals are now flat-bottomed and the hallux now touches the ground.
• Reduced apparent constriction at the base of the neck, which was due to improper shading.
• Fixed overly long dentary (in Spinosaurus the jaws likely had a bit of an overbite, with the frontmost premaxillary teeth going over and in front of the mandible tip.)

I also took FunkMonk's tip on more oval, bird-like eyes (using falcon eyes as a reference), I'll be fixing that in my Alectrosaurus soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Anatomy looks good in general, thoguh something weird is happening with the backgroudn arm, as if it becomes a lot thicker upwards than the front one. I would also expect the arms to be thinner around the wrist, instead of just continuing in a straight line to the hand. I wonder f the scalation of the face is too large, but we of course don't know. Lastly, I think the pattern on the crest and sail look a bit too designed, compared to most patterns found in modern tetrapods. Looks like symbols. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk on the scale pattern. Furthermore, the foot looks a bit human-like due to the extensive heel, especially in the left one. Note that theropods were digitigrade. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

These should be relatively quick and easy fixes, I'll do them all soon. Digital art certainly makes things a lot easier! The head scalation you are referring to, btw, was inspired by the large scales often present on the jaws of lizards like iguanas, as well as the texture on the mandibles of crocodiles, so it seemed plausible to me that this might have been true for some dinosaurs as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I made the wrists more defined, corrected the thickness of the right arm, and removed a good amount of flesh from the feet behind the toes. The sail pattern should look more natural now, as it did in the original pencil drawing (didn't realise how much I had changed it when making the new lineart!). And as for the nasal crest display, I went for something closer to peacock feathers[25], some moth display patterns[26], jaguar spots[27], and silvereyes[28]. Hopefully it looks better now. Are the changes acceptable, FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ledumahadi size chart

Ledumahadi size chart with human

I know this taxon already has a size comparison up on the page, but I guess I'll give this one a shot. I'm not sure what human silhouette I should be using (having always used Andrew Farke's myself), so any suggestions?

Proportions were reconstructed using other lessemsaurids, with several areas modified to match the known bones (which made for a surprising appearance, especially if you were to compare it with Antetonitrus). Megalotitan (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Farke's silhouette is available under a CC BY license over at Phylopic: [29]. He's been used before in size comparisons (see Haplocanthosaurus, Aquilops, and Protoceratops), so using him here should be fine. Even with a restoration with a human in it, it's still preferred to have one with gridlines and a scale bar (see Giganotosaurus), so I see no problem with also including this image. I'll let someone else who has access to the paper comment on accuracy. Also, you may want to try out SVG format for size comparisons, using a program such as Inkscape (Commons generally favors SVG format over PNG format for these kinds of things, however, we do frequently use several PNG size comparisons, too, so it is entirely optional). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha about the human silhouette. Not sure if I want to download a separate program just to export it in a different file format, although it is something I could try in the future. Think I'll stick to PNG for now. Megalotitan (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Now with human. Still a little unsure about its positioning, but I think it works? Megalotitan (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe flipping the human so that it walks in the same direction as the dinosaur would look better? The forward facing arm has its elbow joint too low. You have the manus reconstructed to face outwards, not forwards, contrary to the official paleoart. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Will change the human silhouette. Since the humerus was cross-scaled from Antetonitrus (which is massive compared to the ulna), that probably makes the elbow low. The manus orientation is based off Hartman's Melanorosaurus. Megalotitan (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• On a more technical note, instead of uploading each version as a new file, it is preferred to upload the newer version over the original. To do this, scroll down to the bottom of the Commons page, where you will see a table. Underneath that table is a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". Using the link prevents categories overflowing with versions of the same artwork, in addition to inaccurate versions piling up. Also, remember to add categories to your uplaods. I added the categories of Ledumahadi and Sauropoda size comparisons to your latest version. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know about this. Thank you! Megalotitan (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Guess I took too long with this. Likely due to my lack of experience on Wikipedia, the actual updated image won't show in the previews, but if you open the image itself the updated version should show up. Megalotitan (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Brachiosaurus Skeletal

I have finally finished drawing and scaling all the material I could find of this guy and have compiled it all here: [30].

• White=Holotype
• Red="Ultrasauros"
• Orange=BYU cervicals
• Yellow=Potter Creek
• Lime=Felch Quarry skull
• Green=Holotype material collected from SV-POW
• Cyan=OK Metacarpal
• Blue=Holtype material gathered from Taylor's skeletal
• Navy=Jensen/Jensen Quarry
• Violet=Bigfoot
• Gray=Unknown

I plan to follow Taylor's cross-scaling for the holotype specimen and cross-scale the silhouette size for the Potter Creek Specimens, "Ultrasauros", Jensen/Jensen rib, and OK metacarpal. I'm at a loss as to how to scale the Felch Quarry skull, BYU cervicals, and Bigfoot. Any comments or suggestions as to scaling the material or on general accuracy? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the holotype on its silhouette: [31] Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the penultimate version: [32], with all material that can be confidently or semi-confidently scaled. Any comments before I upload it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Would it, for the Brachiosaurus article, be more practical to combine them all in one diagram (including the three specimen not included yet), only making a distinction by color between the holotype and associated material? Your skull diagram looks good; would it be possible to have that as a separate file, with individual bones labeled? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that I'll upload the image above, a composite diagram, and the skull diagram. Since the skull material was crushed, I used Carpenter's skull restoration for creating the diagram. It's ironic how "Ultrasauros," the "biggest dino ever" is actually smaller than the holotype... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would keep the two Potter Creek specimens separate though, as there is no evidence that the two are from the same individual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Jurassic parking ramp

Composite skeletal diagram

Skull diagram

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

On a more paleontology-related note, I have uploaded the two of the diagrams, one of which can be seen above at large magnification. I will upload the skull diagram momentarily. I will update the above diagram to show six skeletals instead of five, also. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's the skull diagram. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs)00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Things look good but there are few points that need correcting. The neck posture is unlikely seems that the neck actually is bending down at the base whereas the habitual pose would be upright. The humeri are articulated incorrectly, they fit into the area of the scapula-coracoid joint, you have them articulating below that at the sternum articulation. Ribs should be underneath the scapula, not above.

I would reduce complexity and not mark "inadequately figured specimens" in light grey. It seems to be a bit too much, and for example, all the dorsal vertebrae of the holotype are actually figured (Riggs, 1904). What do you mean with "Some elements are reversed", did you not always show a right or left element at the correct side of the body? I wouldn't do that as it is misleading; always place the elements at the correct side, or have a more schematic diagram not distinguishing between left and right. Could you maybe make an annotated version of the skull, labeling bones and openings? That would be very handy to have for the B. article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have implemented some of the changes on the composite:

• No elements are mirrored anymore.
• Humerus should articulate correctly now.
• Neck posture should (hopefully) be better
• Uniform colors implemented
• Ribs under scapula (however, that is a right scapula, so from the former left lateral view the ribs would have appeared to be above it)

I couldn't find the figures for D11 and D9, they're not in our linked version of 1904, and 1903's behind a paywall (what the heck?). Could you send them to me (via link or email)? I will annotate the skull as soon as I figure out which bone is which. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Updates done on the scaled skeletals and skull. The skull now has a border between the premaxilla and nasal. I hope that I got all the labels right. Comments? Pinging the Brachiosaurus nominators: FunkMonk, LittleJerry, Jens Lallensack, and MWAK. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The very long vertical image is a bit unwieldy to use, could the dinosaurs be split in two rows of three instead of one row? I think the composite would be best to use in the article anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It'd fit fine in the place where the Brontosaurus skeletal is now, at the top of the assigned material section. Since that image is only relevant due to the skull it seems fine to take it out for this. The composite can fit before the third paragraph of general build on the left and the skull diagram before the second paragraph of the skull section, on the right. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The skull diagram obviously fits in the skull section, but as for the whole diagram, I wouldn't replace something as historically significant as the Brontosaurus skeletal, there would be plenty of room for the composite diagram at the left beginning of the assigned specimens section if the brontosaurus image is just moved a paragraph or two down (to where it is discussed anyway). Another thing, the skull diagram should be more tightly cropped, the extra white space around it only makes the image smaller at thumb size. I also wonder if the composite skeletal would look more balanced if the text is moved to the upper left, which has a huge empty space. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll make the changes. I also realized that the teeth didn't copy over onto the multi-dino image. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Implemented. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, how do you feel about moving the text in the composite up in the huge white space at the upper left? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. It really helps fix the imbalance of the previous image. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the thumbnail just didn't update. I'll add them (skull and composite) to the article if no one else has more to say. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, User:Slate Weasel, I just sent you the paper, let me know if you need anything else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• The skull diagram looks amazing. Thank you so much. Only two minor suggestions. 1) I would use black lines only to indicate sutures. I would remove them in all instances where they separate known from unknown parts within the same bone (e.g., in the premaxilla). Otherwise it can be misleading. 2) I would shift the "n" for nasal a bit more to the front, as in its current location it would almost be on the frontal (which is not shown, probably because the suture is not readily visible). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• The plate with the six silhouettes looks very good now, but we are still missing two specimens, including the big foot. As the figure comes across as a complete account on the known finds, it would be misleading not to show them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Skull diagram altered and vertebrae improved. I didn't originally include the other specimens (three, actually: Bigfoot, BYU cervicals, and Felch Quarry skull) because there's nothing to cross-scale them by. I think that I will be able to scale them, they just won't be as reliable in size. Comments so far? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the skull update; there is still the line in the quadratojugal, but its a very minor point! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You could either scale them based on Giraffatitan, or not scale any specimen at all. Scalings like this come with very large error margins anyways: Especially for this single rib, a scaling is a good guess at best. Another problem (if used in the Brachiosaurus article) is that these size comparisons between individual specimens will be original research. I see the benefits of this specimen plate, and its certainly great to have that, but I'm still wondering if it would be more prudent to use only the composite diagram in the article (which looks great and is highly useful, by the way). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Slate Weasel, one thing that could improve the composite image further is if you stated in the image itself which colour represents each specimen. For example in parenthesis after each specimen number. But the best would be if you had a table where teach number was next to the colour, like for example here:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'M ALIVE! And back with a color key. I have an idea as to how to fix the multi-specimen plate, which will involve removing the parking ramp and the humans and adding a scale bar for each specimen, with all the silhouettes being the same size. But that'll have to wait until tomorrow when I actually feel like doing it. Any comments on these things? Also, I'm thinking of doing Maraapunisaurus next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the scaling's not turning out very well. Since it's not being used in the article right now, I think that I'll just leave it as is for now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Coming back to this again, Slate Weasel, I just noticed that none of the abbreviations in the skull diagram are explained in the Commons description. I think either it should be there, or in the image itself. Currently, most people won't understand any of it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! And you'll (hopefully) be seeing my Xenoposeidon skeletal here tomorrow! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, funny timing, as someone just made a derivative of the skeletal! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Paleoart Fixes

• 
  Fixed
• 
• 
  Fixed
• 
  Size chart for Jianianhualong
• 
  Fixed
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Fixed

I've noticed there's a great deal of decent paleoart that is considered inaccurate and therefore unusable in articles, and I'd like to go ahead and update these. The gallery above has a few candidates I've found that are of high enough quality and would be great to be accurate. I've already fixed the first image, and I think it'd go well in the Cristatusaurus article as a representation of that genus. What do you think? Are there any other images that should be considered? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 20:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Dinosauria-Freak images are extremely wonky, with the proportions all over the place, and the pencil style used doesn't exactly make them easier to fix. But Pavel Riha's and Debivort's images generally only have minor issues. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of this, don't know if you got my ping here[34]? FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense! I can fix even the most wonky pictures. I've done a few small fixes for Jianianhualong and Hongshanornis. Let me know if any changes are needed. I also made a size chart for the former. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I do think we should focus on images of animals that have few or no images over Ceratosaurus and Skorpiovenator, which are over-illustrated already (and it would probably take as long to list their inaccuracies as it would take for you to fix them!). For example the Anurognathus image that should reflect the new colouration paper, and the Hipposaurus which shouldn't show huge scales (if at all). These bird images[35][36] are also much needed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it me or does the Hongshanornis image look no different than it did before? Regardless, it should be clear that the beak is only on the tip of the snout, the rest should be skin. As for Pavel-Riha's other bird images, they are basically wrong everywhere. His Sinornis has a freaky toothed beak and his Enantiornis looks more like Avimimus than any known enantiornithean. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Sinornis. The Hongshanornis image has only changed around the face. Try doing a Ctrl + F5 on the page to clear your browser's image cache for it.Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 07:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was starting to suspect my image cache was responsible for the issue. The Sinornis still looks very strange. Personally I don't consider it a priority since we already have a nice Sinornis restoration. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Sinornis we have has really lumpy feet, though. Don't think that reflects the fossils well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be a better usage of our time to edit the small amount of issues with that image, rather than the large amount of issues with this one? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, hard to say which is easier to fix. One had a better head, the other has better feet... FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The other illustration is better in many regards, such as the tail, the wing, and the overall coloration and artistic quality. In addition, it doesn't look like it's singing like a songbird. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think Cristatusaurus can handle any more images, haha. Plus, it already has a life restoration. But now we have another useable Suchomimus image at least! It's nice to see that even some of the most hopeless looking images can be rescued. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree somewhat, as the life restoration at the bottom of the article is somewhat lacking in details and this new image would be a good replacement. However, I admit it should at least have a background if it were to replace the Suchomimus image. I can get that done at some point. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 06:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it missing its crest? FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You make a fair point then, I almost forgot how blurry the NT one was. Looking closer at this one, however, the tip of the lower jaw should be upturned (as seen here [37]), whereas currently it is a straight line. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Attwell Saltriovenator

Yewtharaptor has been repeatedly adding this image (along with garbled text) onto the page Saltriovenator, which again looks artistically competent but has not undergone accuracy review yet (and it does not seem to reflect the ceratosaurian interpretation). The license on Commons is also wrong: PD instead of CC. LuigiPortaro29 has recently added the image back in apparent ignorance of project policy. 2001:569:782B:7A00:E188:927F:E03B:21A4 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this same image was made before the current classification? I have seen it uploaded to Commons long before, deleted for the usual copyright vagueness. It could have been modified since, and as mentioned earlier, I don't think a nasal horn is necessary, since it is only found in a single genus of ceratosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Image remade for new classification. Licence solved: free Creative 3.0 commons use, also free use on DevintArt.

• Morphology: No nasal horn, but Skull based on C. nasicornis. Morphology based on skelletal diagram. Even the hands, thougth are very small to compare. The theropod is represented in that way due to not made all the ceratosaurs look like C. nasicornis. Also, is an early branch, and Andrea Cau cited it can be a big derivative member inside a branch of ceratosaurids on the way to become Tetanurans. Depict it like an advanced ceratosaurian ceratosaur should be a bit innacurate. LIPS, based on Mark Witton recomendation. No osteoderms, the same, very basal Ceratosaur.
• Environment: seashore, due to the nature of the Saltrio Formation.
• Other fauna: Crocodrylomorpha spp, pausible due to same age Footprints from Rumania, Protosuchus micmac fron Nova Scotia, and Protosuchus sp. from Poland. Nautiloid: Cenoceras.
• Flora: Based on the Osteno Formation finds.

Yewtharaptor (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Lohuecotitan sculpture

Another image added without review. 2001:569:782B:7A00:E188:927F:E03B:21A4 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad. If we follow one interpretation, the nostrils should be placed even further forwards on the snout, but I don't think that very speculative idea would be enough to remove the image. The nostrils aren't shown on top of the head after all. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool CC dinosaur vids

I've found a guy with some cool self made CC videos on YouTube.

Here's one of his vid (likely a preproduction of a Discovery Channel documentary)  Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting. I suppose some of these might be useful as still images for articles. Perhaps we could trim out parts of the video that correspond to each animal? Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 19:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The animals aren't very accurate, and the models are not his own (from what I can tell they are from Planet Dinosaur). Best to be cautious and perhaps not even use them, since they aren't accurate and could very well be copyrighted. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of his stuff has been uploaded already (at least I think it's his), but yeah, there are usually inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus Update

I've started some updates to this image, it's not drastically off but I'm trying to make it look more like recent titanosaur reconstructions and improve a few bits. I'm not sure which is the best titansaur skull to use? Work in progress can be seen here: [38] Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Tapuiasaurus would be best. It's pretty basal, and pretty complete. Better than Sarmientosaurus (questionable phylogeny), Malawisaurus (questionable material and reconstruction) and anything more derived. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many cervicals did you restore it with? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I confess, not massive amounts of thought have gone into into cervical count due to there is zero published neck material. It's not out of the realm of possibility based on other titanosaurs. I can shorten it if you guys would prefer, maybe make it closer to restorations of Patagotitan? There is some uncertainty with dorsal count as well, some prefer 11, some prefer 10. This is more in line with 11, but with all the unknowns regarding ribs and shoulder possition etc it's hard to be exacting. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm..doing a quick search, titanosaurs with complete dorsal columns show 10. I'll see if the restoration needs adjusting. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My skeletal's dorsals actually number 11, which explains why they're so far forwards (to the point where D1's probably where CV14 should be). I'll have to fix that, too. Futalognkosaurus should be our guide since it's the only lognkosaur to preserve a complete cervical and dorsal series (numbering 14 & 10 verts). The Patagotitan paper extends its length by adding in an extra cervical (and a lot of exra caudals, if Mendozasaurus and Dreadnoughtus are anything to go by). Also, Argentinosaurus seems to preserve a rib. Does anyone have any resources for that? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say go with 10. The reality is that there aren't many titanosaurs with complete dorsal columns to know when the transition from 12 dorsals to 10 happened. I think some older titanosaur analysis placed Argentinosaurus in a more basal position which, if true, could maybe be used to justify 11 but until more complete fossils show up it's speculation. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, going by Mendozasaurus (and assuming lognkosaurian affinities), the reconstruction should have osteoderms. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A new WIP can be seen here:[39] I've reduced the length of the torso and neck slightly, it's now proportionally closer to restorations of Patagotitan. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks much improved from the original. I support the changes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinacosaurus grangeri reconstruction

I've been a little confused about how to place the nostrils; I did my best but I know they're not completely accurate. Also I am aware that there are more osteoderms on this drawing than are presented in the most complete armor reconstruction of MPC 100/1305. I figured that not all pieces would have been preserved/were too small to be placed on the reconstruction. If it's problematic I can easily remove them, but it seems to me that it would make sense to have smaller osteoderms between the larger ones. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The neck appears almost nonexistent. There should be a noticable narrowing of the underside in front of the chest, and a more prominent shoulder hump on the back. The feet are incorrectly digitigrade, they should be more semidigitigrade where the metatarsals are roughly 50º to the horizontal instead of vertical. The tail should not be arched upwards, probably arching downwards is better. The neck also looks too short. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I colored the image and made the changes mentioned above:

• lengthened neck
• narrowed chest
• adjusted feet
• reversed tail curvature

Also: would it be helpful to also create a size chart based on this image?

Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The osteoderms look a bit strange to me, I'll ping MWAK, who has the best overview of ankylosaur anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Reconstructing ankylosaurians is always a challenge; in general, this a quite a good image. The osteoderms are best reconstructed with a single lateral line of triangular elements. The back was covered by rows of smaller and lower oval keeled plates. The front edge of the triangular plates was convex, the trailing edge concave. Their bases were thus pretty long. The way you show the nostrils is defensible; the soft tissue structures are after all unknown.

The main problem with this reconstruction is that the torso is too short. Rump, neck and skull combined should not be shorter than the tail. Do not compensate by lengthening the limbs; the animal was really so low-slung. When you increase the torso length, you could by shadowing indicate that the belly strongly protruded sideways between the limbs.--MWAK (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I lengthened the torso, shortened the legs, and edited the osteoderms. I just want to make sure all of that looks good before I recolor the drawing. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better now! A tiny detail: the eye should be shown as more circular.--MWAK (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: recolored, created a size chart. Is there anything else that needs to be changed before these are included in the Pinacosaurus article? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Look good to me. Since others seem to have no other issues I suppose it's ok to add your pictures to the articles. Alamotitan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Antarctosaurus wichmannianus skull diagram

I'm working on a skull diagram for this species. Considering it's the type species there are currently no images for it in the article. A work in progress can be seen here: [40]. It's currently based on the skull diagram in Gallina & Apesteguia 2011. There are a few issues; the original diagram is filled in and doesn't show known material, I'd prefer to show it not filled in because of how incomplete it is and I feel it's less misleading for the viewer. I don't yet have a copy of Huene 1929 but I do have his simple line drawing reconstruction to go off for what's known of the lower jaw. There is a multiview 3d scan of the braincase in Carabajal 2012 but a lot of the detail is obscured by the endocast making it hard to interpret. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe the full 1929 paper is available online by googling the title, with two separate pdfs coming up as top results, one being text the other figures. It looks good and follows what I recall, but considering the uncertain phylogeny basing it so wholly off Bonitasaura may be the wrong move (Bonita occasionally pops into Lognkosauria). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally got it, thanks! So, I've been using Ecosia as my primary web browser for a while now but I have also been searching with google which is better for technical papers, books etc, but writing 'pdf' made the difference! *facepalm* The current diagram is a blind copy of Fig. 7 in Gallina & Apesteguia 2011, I'm not a fan of the reconstruction but one advantage is it's published. That said, now that I have the illustrations of the material I am tempted to redraw the whole thing to make it more generic, maybe edging towards Nemegtosaurus? Also, does anyone know if those illustrations will be out of copyright? It would be great to add some of them to the article. Ideally, I think we should have A. wichmannianus in the taxobox. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Friedrich von Huene died in 1969, not quite long enough for PD, if he was the one who drew the image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

So, I've been trying to put the bones together, using the illustrations, and here is a work in progress: [41] It's turning out disgustingly similar, I might as well not bothered lol. I'm not sure there is much room to make drastic changes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the image due to not having a flickr account, but I'll assume that your viewpoint is good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How bazar, most of my recent WIP's are hosted on Flickr, with the same permissions...hmm. I wonder if there is a flickr server issue? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Try the link now? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you. Might as well go with what you've already got, with changes to what material is known or not, and leave it at that. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with my version just to see how it turns out, which can be seen here: [42] There are a few subtle differences in the known areas between mine and the other reconstruction. I'm not sure how to account for those differences but mine followed the published illustrations closely where I could. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it looks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been attempting to expand the Antarctosaurus article in my sandbox and the lower jaw is one of the most talked about parts in the literature. Here is a link to an illustration of the lower jaw, based on the illustrations in Huene 1929. [43] Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also created a femur size chart...maybe a bit pointless but it might interest some... Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've been working on a size comparison for this guy. Scaling after Bonitasaura and Steve's skull, I got ~7 meters total length. I realized that I had screwed up femoral proportions, but it still doesn't come out at more than 10 meters, when Paul estimates 17. Any advice? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I had super quick look at doing a chart a few days back. I was able to get 17m just by drawing a generic silhouette (not really based on anything particular) and using scale bars to represent the limb bones. What was odd was how small the skull seemed to come out. I haven't spent enough time to look into that further but the association of the elements is questioned. I suspect Paul has scaled some of his titanosaur reconstructions to the limb bone measurements to get that figure. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What's also not clear is whether Paul's estimate of 17m is for the type specimen, which has a femur 1.39m or the referred femur at 1.85m? I scaled his Saltsaurus to both femur lengths and got about ~13m for the type and just over ~17m for the referred femur. The referred femur has been questioned by other researchers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay... with these incredibly weird Bonitasaura silhouettes, I get ~13m for the holotype when using the 1.39m femur measurement, ~17m for the referred femur, and, for the fun of it, about ~22-23m for "A." giganteus. I'll try to post a link to a thumbnail sometime soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be wary of using the skeletal you linked to, I'm skeptical of that strong curve in the spine, bearing in mind how incomplete the dorsal column is. Without checking it, this restoration looks like it fits the published material better. [44] Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here are some of the WIP images: [45][46][47]. I think this proportioning is strange enough to warrant a little written summary somewhere. Comments? And that femur chart sure did come in handy for scaling! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's the size comparison: [48]. Any comments before I upload it, Steveoc 86? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, but very odd with such a small head, I was getting similar results. I suspect that either; the mandible doesn't belong to the braincase. (If you ignore the lower jaw the braincase isn't that small and the rest skull could be restored bigger. Although, the mandible already seems wider than the braincase which suggests you can't make the mandible bigger.); or the whole skull doesn't belong to the rest of the skeleton. (Maybe the mandible or skull belongs to a short-necked saltasaurid, like Neuquensaurus?) I'm not sure what's best to do with a dino this problematic? If we do go with this, I would write a note in the description stating that it's not certain all the described elements belong together, which is what a few researchers have suggested.

What I would advise is to not put A.giganteus in the same diagram. Even Huene only tentatively referred it and others have considered it dubious or deserving of a separate genus. I think having them in the same diagram, looking the same, just perpetuates the myth they have anything in common. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, here the size comparison is. Any new information on this guy? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm 'ok' with it, maybe the curve of the top of the torso could be straightened off slightly more. I'd add the 'hypothetical warning' to it, citing the association of the material is uncertain. I'm just going to ping sauropod savvy IJReid, I'd be interested to hear if he has any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh a ping. I was going to avoid this topic if I could but doesn't seem like I can. As based on Bonitasaura, the taxon looks alright. The back is a bit too curved, should be straighter, and the forelimb is too long. An okay Antarcto skeletal is here [49] but doesn't note unknown proportions and also has a bit too much material (the caudal is referred to a different taxon by Huene). I also think the GAT skeletal linked by Steve is far superior to the paper skeletal (grey material is known in the papers, and the entire vertebral column is weirdly kinked and curved and warped). I'm not even going to touch on the possibility Bonitasaura is more lognkosaur-line than saltasaur-line, which wouldn't even make it a close relative of Antarctosaurus. Titanosaur phylogeny is absolutely abyssmal.

So, in summary, the forelimb is too long, making the back too angled. The tail looks to be too thick (or too short). And the back is too arched, should be lower overall. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I recently obtained a copy of Powell 2003. In it, he notes that both of the ankle bones that Huene described might be from juvenile specimens. He also notes that the width of the cranium, when compared to the dimensions of the limb bones, was proportionally small compared to Saltasaurus which could imply it belongs to another taxon or smaller individual. This is in line with what we were getting (Just speculating, but it might also explain the superficial appearance of the skull, which is described as having a large orbit; an often juvenile feature). Would it be 'pushing it', original research-wise, to do what Slate Weasel did in one of the earlier WIPs by illustrated a smaller individual next to one scaled to the limb material? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No I think it would be alright, since it's been a published suggestion. As long as both individuals have question marks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Alamosaurus sanjuanensis restoration

My friend told me to put image through review here so here comes my first digital drawing. Here's my half finished Alamosaurus restoration based on Scott Hartman's skeletal found here [50]. Are there any changes needed?

I'm not much of a sauropod buff, but I can see that the eye is twice too big (unless the orange stuff around it is skin), and the nostril should probably be placed more forwards on the snout. The spikes on the tail look unnatural in the extend they curve forwards before they turn backwards. Otherwise looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, regarding the osteoderms; the type you have drawn are referred too as 'bulb and root' osteoderms. In this hypothesised arrangement they are usually shown getting more spaced apart as the spines get longer, this is because the root inside the skin is getting longer. See Hartman's take on the idea here: [51] In your illustration, the longer spines are bunched quite close together which implies either a short root or they have some overlap. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There also seems to be a muscle shading line running down the lower part of the tail. The tail anatomy of modern reptiles shows that shouldn't be there. It's worth reading this paper here: [52] Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's because of the color making it confusing, but that paper is nice regardless.

I fixed the eye, nostril, skin and osteoderms a bit. Are there any other changes needed?

I think this is already more accurate than the current restoration in the Alamosaurus article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I asked my paleontologist friends and apparently the legs are a bit too large, so I have reduced their size a bit.

This is one of my earliest drawing and it's kinda horrible to look back, so I think it would need a proper overhaul: [53]. Thoughts? Alamotitan (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, but again, most people now doubt that the fenestrae of the skull would be visible in life. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! By the way why haven't the new version shown? I uploaded it hours ago and it's still shown as the old version. Alamotitan (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Usually it helps to just refresh/purge the page. It's a cache issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur skeleton montage

I uploaded this picture in December but I'm not sure whether all skeletons are accurate or not, and I also want to know if this can actually be useful in some way.

Dinosaurs featured:

• Line 1: Heterodontosaurus tucki, Scolosaurus thronus, Tyrannosaurus rex, Mamenchisaurus sp.
• Line 2: Aptenodytes patagonicus (king penguin), Diplodocus sp., Apteryx sp. (kiwi), Struthio camelus (common ostrich), Dinornis giganteus

Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

They are accurate enough, but seems like a bit random assortment of images with animals not really in their most typical poses? I would imagine should images should prioritise photos of animals in typical poses, that show them well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the Tyrannosaurus is the main oddity here so I changed that picture for one depicting Allosaurus and Stegosaurus so I could show one extra type of dinosaur without changing the image size. The rearing mamenchisaur is probably excusable due to the fact there already is a sauropod in a more typical pose but I could change it too if you think it's a better option than keeping it.Kiwi Rex (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why two sauropods are even needed? And three birds? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed Mamenchisaurus to put Edmontosaurus, and the penguin to put Titanoceratops.Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Mapusaurus Skeletal Mounts

This is currently in the taxobox of Mapusaurus. Is it just me or does the juvenile have pronated hands? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it does in the mount, but from this angle, it isn't entirely apparent, it could theoretically also make the palms face the ground by rotating the arms upwards. So as long as we use an ambiguous image, it should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio

Turbo-Dino Rex has added these to the listed articles. The first four appear to be photographs of book pages. I don't recognize the first image but the second image is the DinoRaul model, which I do not believe is free. Not sure about the fifth one. The sixth one looks like the BBC's fake Liopleurodon. The last three appear to be commercial toy models, which are protected by copyright. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, should all be DRed... FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

All are awful anyways... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty impressive how those Argentinosaurus can keep themselves up with those stilt-legs... FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about those web-footed ceratopsids, or that "juvenile Centrosaurus", either. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the ceratopsians are themselves rip offs of John Sibbick's 80s illustrations:[54] FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Galeamopus Size Comparison

Needs a helmet

(Not very) Heavy

Deceptive

This is my first size comparison of year? I need to be more active... Anyways, here's the Galeamopus size comparison I said that I would make. Anyone know of a Kaatedocus skeletal? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Barosaurus is updated! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Apatosaurus silhouette updated --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Barosaurus's forelimb looks a bit too thin, otherwise look good to me. Alamotitan (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I redrew the forelimbs (although they came out pretty close to the previous version, since Barosaurus has pretty thin forelimbs) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask you create a new Kaatedocus size comparison with this [[55]]? Alamotitan (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you make the silhouette (I need to know for copyright reasons)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but maybe there's something you may modify to look better. Alamotitan (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Alamotitan, but I have one more question to ask: what license would you like me to publish this under? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, by the way I just came across a few better source material and it seems my Kaatedocus' proportion is a bit off and I'm working on fixing it. Better wait until tomorrow then. Alamotitan (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Galeamopus hayi restoration

Life restoration of Galeamopus hayi

So I try using the more upright neck posture for this restoration. Any mistake needs fixing for this sketch? Alamotitan (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the gross anatomy is good. Being closest to Kaateodocus, there's the possibility of dermal spines of some form. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Like in this drawing too[56], the nostrils should probably be located closer to the upper edge of the snout (rather than lower on the sides as here), as they would be at the ends of the nasal fossae running from the nostrils. The antorbital fenestra is probably still too visible, we don't know for certain, but the trend now is to completely hide the fenestrae in restorations of the living animals. There are also some weird lines in the air above and below the neck. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I just finished the general colorization. How does he look now? Alamotitan (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the skin looks a bit smooth (lacks texture), but that's of course not an inaccuracy as such... FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Dont worry, I am about to add them.

Done! By the way can anyone give a review on my redrawn Alamosaurus? Alamotitan (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Added a comment, but the same applies here, the fenestrae probably shouldn't be visibly distinct. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Alamotitan (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Datousaurus Size Comparison

I finally found the GSP skeletal for this guy online, so I couldn't resist doing a size comparison. Comments? Also, this is probably going to be my style of size comparisons for the time to come. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it. Doesn't look like a mamenchisaurid but knowing the state of eusauropod phylogeny I can't expect any different. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Polacanthus Size Comparison

Polacanthus size, based on the holotype specimen. Reconstruction based on Gastonia and Peloroplites Eotyrannu5 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Not very knowledgable but it looks about right for what I'd expect. Might want a second opinion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would expect the tail spikes to be a bit wider (going by the ancient skeletal in the article), although that may just be perspective. Some reconstructions show the spikes upright on the back, but what you've done is totally fine (it's poorly understood even in good taxa like Gastonia). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Dicraeosauridae Size Comparison (again)

Just when you archive a section, a new taxon gets published. Anyways, I'm wondering if I should add Bajadasaurus to the chart. I scaled it after my Amargasaurus (in turn based on Hartman's), and it comes out at ~11 meters. Any thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

11m is about right, as long as you are accounting for the cervical centra being much shorter in Bajadasaurus making it with a proportionally too large neck. So 11m is on the small end of the possible spectrum. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

One inverse Amargasaurus added. It's odd how a lot of other dicraeosaurid size estimates are pretty low, considering that they had whip tails. I see that the Bajadasaurus article is coming along nicely, if I have the time and energy I might consider writing the paleoecology section. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Could the two sides be made two layers? As is the diagram is extremely short and long making it hard to incorporate articles well at a usable size. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll see if I can update this when I get the chance. Also, I probably should add Pilmatueia to the chart too. I'll ping IJReid to see if he knows of any references for it, since I think that he was the one who brought it up in the first place. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Done

• On the subject of Bajadasaurus, I've started making a life restoration in GIMP. Here's the current WIP: [57]. Any comments so far? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as the neck spines go, don't follow the paper exactly. Beyond the 5th cervical (one with the preserved forward spine) it seems to be likely that the spines to not increase much in length and also straighten out to more vertical, just based on usefulness and what close relatives have. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not following the only published paper would be original research, though... But yeah, I also think the reconstruction is overly sensational, based on scant evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Counterpoint, the paper's skeletal doesn't even follow what the paper's text suggests, 50% sheath extension of bony cores. So length of the spines is unknown. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have created two more detailed versions: [58][59]. Any comments on which one is better? I will make adjustments to the spike lengths and anything else that needs adjustment once the preferred version is chosen. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the darker shaded one. I think spikes are okay, just shorten the 6th? one so its not a gigantic leap from a shorter spike. Other than that everything seems fine. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image. Pinging Jens Lallensack for additional critique. I will remove Bajadasaurus from the size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for doing this drawing, that will fit nicely within the article! Some points:

• Note that the pes would have been rotated outwards to some degree. Currently it looks like it is pointing directly forward, which is rare in sauropods.
• The pes lacks some detail. I only see the claws (which you show in extended position; in normal posture, they would have been flexed, lying flat against each other and directed outwards. But an extended orientation is possible, so this is fine). The issue is that you do not show the (clawless) fourth and fifth digits, which are much shorter than the other digits. Do you assume that they are completely hidden within soft tissue?
• Note that also the manus would have been rotated outwards to some degree. I would expect to see some demarcation of the separate metacarpalia rather than a completely smooth surface.
• In the manus, you show a thick amount of skin behind the first digit. This seems unlikely, as it would be unsupported by bone.
• Hind limb looks very thin to me.
• Are the tiny little dots on the snout the nostrils? These need to be located much more backwards, in front of the eyes. They also need to be much larger, filling out the external naris almost entirely (you need to scale them in relation to the whole body, not to the tiny head).
• The neural spines are paired, but you only show one per position. Are you assuming that the left one is precisely hidden behind the right one?
• Not sure about having the spine ends in green (are there green horns in artiodactyls?).
• I suggest to keep a bit of border, especially in front of the head. You cropped it extremely tight. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we follow Witmer on the nostril placement and size (which seems to be the de facto accepted interpretation)? Not saying it's true, it's just the only published interpretation in recent years. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on fixing the issues listed above. The spike tips are actually yellow, although I'm not sure if that makes anything better. I see that I forgot to add space again... and, I just noticed, NT's Amargasaurus has an extra toe claw, which needs fixing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @FunkMonk:, I forgot about the Witmer papers. Nostrils are fine then, though I still would make them larger. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, added it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Concavenator

• 
  Concavenator
• 
  Acrocanthosaurus
• 
  Therizinosaurus
• 
  Ostromia

Mariolanzas has just created and uploaded this onto the Concavenator article. Any critiques?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

He has uploaded a few more dinosaur images which need review. There is a weird perspective problem with some of his other images where the frontmost foot is on a higher level than the one behind, which would be impossible. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall the images look good in quality and anatomy, besides the perspective issue you mention (present in Therizinosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus). I suspect the Acro needs a bit more bulk on it as well. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the Acro seems to have almost no thigh muscle at all. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like he has just drawn the thigh connected to the body lower than than usually depicted, nothing should make that impossible I guess. It just obscures the contour of the thigh (hadrosaurs were like this, at least). FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Andesaurus and Argyrosaurus Scale Charts

Here is a link to a work in progress Andesaurus scale chart [60] It's primarily based on this diagram by Sassani [61], which to my eye seems reasonable. I'm a little skeptical about the high angle of the tail, considering the tops of the anterior caudals are missing (also, I don't think that all the caudals have been illustrated?). That said, even if it is angled too high I imagine it's within a realistic range of movement. I will also be doing an Argyrosaurus chart based on Sassani's diagram, seen here, [62]. The reconstruction assumes a lot of referred elements and it turns out that the smaller individual illustrated has now been given its own genus Elaltitan, so the reconstruction is a composite. That said, considering the only unquestionable specimen seems to be just a forelimb and the overall shape of the reconstruction looks like a titanosaur I'll probably just go with it for the time being. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally would make the torso less long (shrink the dorsal count to 10), but basal titanosaurs (and most titanosaurs in general) don't seem to be very well understood... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah the torso of Andesaurus seems a bit too long. I think the rest of the anatomy is fine, theres not too much known to make the silhouette inaccurate. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly the difference in pose and foot posture seems to make the torso feel longer but it's exactly the same as the reference image. Anyway, here is a 10 dorsal version of Andesaurus. [63] and here is Argyrosaurus [64] Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Both are fine as far as I can tell. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to a new Argyrosaurus: [65] Basically the same but because the only unquestionable specimen is the type forelimb and I felt a complete silhouette would be potentially misleading, I've decided to illustrate the known elements. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could change the bone outlines to be the color of the titanosaur? Also, do you think that you could make a Paralatitan scale diagram with this silhouette? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the colour of the bone outlines to match the silhouette, I can certainly look into Paralititan. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lourinhanosaurus restoration

I've started working on a Lourinhanosaurus restoration, are there any major issues I should fix before coloring? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What is it based on? The teeth and foot pads seem a bit random in size and distribution, probably best to make them more "defined". The nostril also seems to take up the entire bony nares, but should be confined to the front. The leg muscles seem a bit wonky; the "drumstick is too far down the shin, and should be rounder/more bulbous. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There aren't really any good skeletals for Lourinhanosaurus, and the only pictures I can find of the skeleton or casts have weird perspectives or are distorted... I did my best based on other coelurosaurs but I know there's a few weird things (also: should the neck just behind the head be so thick? I wasn't sure, but it doesn't look like the Lourinhanosaurus skeleton has the same dorsal spines as the theropods that do have that neck shape. I'll change that unless you think otherwise). The skull is based off of this diagram. I'm confused what you mean by the foot pads... I fixed the teeth and legs though. The nostril fits into the front of the bony nare of the skull diagram I've been using. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I just assumed the neck curve was enlarged by feathers. As for the toe pads, birds (and extinct theropod footprints) have very distinct toe pads that correspond to each joint, so they have very specific anatomy, but that is often glossed over in palaeoart. Have a look at this emu foot diagram, for example:[66] FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

fixed toe pads! Thanks for the diagram! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've colored the drawing, is there anything else I should change before I create the size diagram and add it to the article? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The eye looks to be too far back, should be roughly on the border of the feathers directly in front of where it is now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I overlaid the skull on the drawing while I was adjusting it, and the eye fits into the sclerotic ring... I could adjust the feathers to make it look less strange, though. Also should I create a new size comparison chart with this silhouette or is the one that's already there good? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The current size comparison is fine enough. There's not much known to say it is inaccurate or needs an update. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lusotitan restoration

Based on Scott Hartman's Giraffatitan and Nima Sassani's Lusotitan. The beach is based on a photo I found online, so if it needs changing please let me know Alamotitan (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The skin around the bony nasal opening seems a bit tight, most recent speculation goes it would have been a bit more bulbous... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! By the way can anyone review my Dinheirosaurus? Alamotitan (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sadly there's a small issue that might affect the entire drawing. Nima inaccurately skeletal's the feet of sauropods to have almost vertical metacarpals, where it is known that sauropod peds were semi-digitigrade and had the metacarpals about 45-50º from horizontal. So the foot should be longer and the ankle should be lower, shifting the entire hindlimb down, and potentially the angle of the back as well. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Alamotitan (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My final comment would be to round out the snout shape, giving a nice almost straight line from the top of the skull dome to the tip of the snout (accounting for soft tissue + nasal passages). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! Alamotitan (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Moros intrepidus

Life reconstruction of Moros intrepidus by Tom Parker (2019)

I continue to find it impossible not to reconstruct new coelurosaurs as they happen, even if they are known only from a leg.Tomopteryx (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good that someone is doing it at least, hehe... Since so little is known of this guy, not much to add. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll add it in then.Tomopteryx (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Scaled reconstruction" is pretty ambiguous wording, though (readers would assume it is shown with scales), how about "restoration and size comparison" or something like that? FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, "restoration" can be linked to paleoart (picked that trick up from PaleoGeek). I also think that "reconstruction" is a more formal term for skeletal (but I don't remember where I picked that up. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoration and reconstruction are thrown around randomly, but I have seen at least one book (by Dougal Dixon) that specifies that restoration refers to depiction of the live animal, while reconstruction is for the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah nobody uses this "rule". I have quite literally never heard anyone use "restoration", whereas I see reconstruction used ubiquitously.Tomopteryx (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoration is often used in older scientific literature it seems. As for how it is used by web-artists, well, anything goes... But the issue was more with the term "scaled", it could imply it shows the animals with scales. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon Skeletal Diagram

Here it is: Xenoposeidon as a rebbachisaurid. File description should say most of the information on its creation. Any comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The proportion and general anatomy look good but the position of the legs make it look quite strange. Alamotitan (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, though I personally would make it simpler by removing most of the text (but depends on you). I would also make the scale bar numbers larger and add some space to the scale bar. I would also make the species text smaller; the differences in font sizes you use are huge. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the soft tissue above the neural spine much too thick for this position in the trunk? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How should I change the leg position? I moved the vertebra up a bit, but I've kept the neural spine height a bit ambiguous. I changed the text size. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I created a Nopcsaspondylus skeletal because it was relatively easy to pull off in one afternoon ;) And since we love single-dorsal vertebra rebbachisaurids, I'll try to get Maraapunisaurus in over the weekend, if I'm not led astray by Rayosaurus or if I don't figure out my Limaysaurus problem! Comments so far? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Before I haphazardly jump into a figurative deep hole that'll take awhile to get out of if it's the wrong one, should I use D9 of Haplocanthosaurus to reconstruct Maraapunisaurus (which means "huge lizard" but sounds unfortunately like "very puny-saurus") with the neck, head, tail, and limbs of Lavocatisaurus? (User:Sauropodomorph mentioned doing that here: [67]) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The skeletal diagram at the link you listed has multiple significant issues. But using the main body of Haplocanthosaurus with the neck, tail and head of Lavocatisaurus should be alright as long as you keep proportions consistent. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have started a rough reconstruction of Maraapunisaurus: [68] but I forgot a scale bar >_< - will have to go back and add it sometime (although is the whole element ~1.5 m tall?). Any thoughts on this WIP of Limaysaurus: [69] (yeah, I know some of the stuff wasn't scaled well...)? I have also added some more details about my project at my blog. Is the Maraapunisaurus ready for "skeletalization"? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The postzygapophyses of Maraanpunisaurus are preserved, so you should raise them and the prezygs up to the same level in the diagramatic lateral view. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 07:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this: [70] look better, IJReid? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes and now you just need to mark the diapophysis as unknown and it's accurate as can be. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Done: [71]. Skeletal will come soon! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Err... I made it, and it came out at ~40 meters long!!! Was that supposed to happen?! I even shortened the tail a fair amount! If this is acceptable, I'll upload it... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you scaling by? It would be best to use the height of the postzygs above the centrum, since that is essentially the most known part, and doesn't much vary in proportions among rebbachisaurids. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I did restored centrum length because of Lavocatisaurus. What should I scale postzyg height to, perhaps Nopcsaspondylus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nopcsaspondylus has a rather low arch. A rebbachisaurine like Rebbachisaurus or Demandasaurus would be better. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Done! I shortened the tail quite a bit (I think that I may have made the tails of the above two too long). Any comments? Also, should I make of size comparison of it with the old 60 meter Diplodocus-clone (I think that someone once suggested its creation)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yixianosaurus restoration

I started on a restoration of Yixianosaurus. This is difficult because of its disputed classification and limited fossils but I based this on the anchiornithid classification. I'm sure there are a few anatomical inaccuracies, what should I fix? (this depiction is similar to the restoration in the Serikornis article, which is closely related based on the cladogram in there) Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, I wonder whether the individual fingers would be free like that (there are indications the second and third fingers of very bird-like maniraptorans were fused by flesh), and not feathered too? Will ping our resident expert Ferahgo the Assassin for comments. I wonder if the wing feathers are too even in length, they should be shorter near the body, Csotonyi's might show it well: [72]. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! I'll fix those feathers and see what Ferahgo says about the fingers. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I fused the second and third fingers and adjusted the first, and shortened the feathers closest to the body. Ferahgo the Assassin is there anything else that stands out to you that I should fix? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks great! I would personally indicate the fingers are at least sparsely feathered, since that seems to be the case in other anchiornithids. Especially the second digit—there should probably be some fuzz or hints of coverts that obscure the direct attachment of primary feathers to the finger. Perhaps a nitpick, but it also looks like the very first primary feather does not attach to the second finger on both hands, but rather to the wrist or to the first finger. It might be best to just snip out that primary on both hands if others agree. Otherwise, it's gorgeous. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've colored the drawing. The fingers are more feathered and I removed those first primaries. It's colored like a winter ptarmigan, but if it's too striking I can change the coloring. Otherwise, is there anything else I should change before this is added to the article? Also I've created a size diagram. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks cool, but would it have needed winter plumage? FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. I'll change it. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Recolored with a more likely coloration! Anything else before it's added? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The nostril looks very long, but not really anything else good job! FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like the layering of the wing feathers on the left wing have been reversed from how they're supposed to be. Given that we're seeing the underside of the wing, the primaries should be overlapping the secondaries. Albertonykus (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

fixed both of those things. adding it to the article now! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Elaphrosaurus and the Tendaguru

Here's Jaime Headden's skeletal of Elaphrosaurus, which is older and possesses teeth. Should we replace its head with the head of his Limusaurus? Also, how come no Elaphrosaurus skeletals seem to have the same combination of material in them?

Also, for a personal project, I've created a few images of the dinsaurian fauna of the Tendaguru: [73][74][75]. Should I upload any of them? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

More images can't hurt! As for the skeletal, if we go the Limusaurus way, we need to modify the head shape and hands too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So I've done more research, and it seems that the above skeletal is missing some bones, most obviously the shoulder girdle: [76]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)