Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 12

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology | Paleoart review

Edits to Dmitry Bogdanov's Lisowicia

edit
 

Any thoughts & criticisms of my edits to Dmitry's old Lisowicia restoration? I've tried to update it match the current view of the taxon, I've also gave it a wax & removed much of the hair, though I have left some "elephantine" patches of hair. Monsieur X (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, though there's weird dark patch over the shoulders now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That dark patch was an accident, but I left it on because it kinda looked aesthetically pleasing to me. Now on closer inspection, I have noticed a lot of artefacts where that patch is. I'll remove it & some other small artefacts & blemishes later. Monsieur X (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, yeah, there also seems to be some compression artifacts around the feet. And by the way, seems like you got your computer to work again? FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of feet, they could use some padding underneath them[1] if you can manage that. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hindlimb on the far side looks kind of shriveled - it could use some more musculature as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the critiques, I'll hopefully be able to upload an updated version by Wednesday. I'm now rather busy at the moment with work & other projects, but thanks to this new laptop I'll be able to edit & update images once again! Monsieur X (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back & re-edited it with all your criticisms in mind, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking pretty good, I'd say. The only thing left that might look a bit off is that bulge behind the knee, maybe? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made the bump on the thigh smaller & connected it to the rest of leg (Removing it entirety looked rather off). This also gave me a chance to fix some minor blemishes here & there. Monsieur X (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haptodus garnettensis

edit
 
 
 

As you're all aware, one specimen referred to Haptodus garnettensis (given the nomen ex dissertationae Eohaptodus by Spindler 2015), ROM 43608, has been described as a genus, Kenomagnathus, by Spindler (2020). The dissertation by Spindler (2015) also coins the nomen ex dissertationae Tenuacaptor for ROM 43601, which has also been previously referred to garnettensis. Any have an idea if the images of Haptodus garnettensis are based on the H. garnettensis type material or the Kenomagnathus holotype? If the latter a new image should be created for Kenomagnathus.

Spindler, F. 2015. The basal Sphenacodontia - systematic revision and evolutionary implications. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:105-qucosa-171748

Spindler, Frederik. 2020. A faunivorous early sphenacodontian synapsid with a diastema. Palaeontologia Electronica, 23(1):a01. https://doi.org/10.26879/1023 palaeo-electronica.org/content/2020/2905-early-sphenacodontian-diastema70.175.133.224 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

If we go by the diagnosis and skull reconstructions by Spindler, Kenomagnathus has a taller skull than "H." garnettensis, and the precanine region is convex in the former and concave in the latter. #1 from DiBgd is a good match for "H." garnettensis. #2 from NT doesn't really match either of them - the skull is way too tall and probably needs editing - but the precanine region suggests that it's closer to Kenomagnathus. #3, also from DiBgd, is also closer to Kenomagnathus in that regard, but the snout is way too thin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we need a new image, I'd be in favour of modifying one of the images that look most like it to match the new genus. We don't really need three restorations of the same species anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, three conflicting ones at that... If we were to modify one for Kenomagnathus, I think #3 would be best. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, if someone can point me to a figure? Also on a similar note, I just recreated Bohemiclavulus (which was wrongly deleted), which has a restoration I extracted from this image:[2] My question is, what is I. credneri? Seems to be what was once Naosaurus? I could extract that image too if we know where to put it... FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Ianthasaurus credneri is a disused combination for the edaphosaurid species Naosaurus credneri from Dresden, Germany, which was declared a nomen dubium by Spindler et al. (2019). You could include a photo or illustration of N. credneri at the Edaphosaurus page for historical purposes because Ianthasaurus is now strictly a North American genus.70.175.133.224 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Here is a very nice figure of skull reconstructions for Kenomagnathus and "H." garnettensis: [3] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the head on the second DB imageDB.jpg to match that of Kenomagnathus, any thoughts (and who will create the new article?)? FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll create it (but probably won't get around to expanding it for a while). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell - is the journal NC or not? If not, it might be nice to have all of those images on Commons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF says "Copyright: January 2020 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/" which means non-commercial, therefore sadly not allowed on Commons.. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought... it's a bit weird that it links to the BY-NC-SA license but doesn't actually say it in the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their about page is also a bit confusing in listing various different licenses for different journals:[4] By the way, maybe the NT image can be modified into Tenuacaptor once that name is validly published... If it doesn't match "H." garnettensis properly anyway, and we already have a nice DB image for that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the original description[5] of Haptodus by the way. There is a probably PD image of the holotype here[6] from a 1888 publication, but I can't find the original online. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luskhan Size Comparison

edit
 

It's been quite some time since my last size chart, so here's another one: Luskhan, a pliosaur that inadvertently ended up looking like a needlenosed lemon with wings. This appears to be our first image of this taxon. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Not much to comment on anyway since the paper has a good skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nut cracking Ardipithecus.png

edit
 

It shows Ardipithecus using a stone hammer and anvil to crack open a nut, but there is no evidence of tool use in hominins before 3.4 mya. Of course, no one is saying that they didn't use stone tools (we tried saying that about Australopithecus and were dead wrong so everyone's cautious of saying that something did not happen). I think the idea came from here who juxtaposed chimps and Ardipithecus behaved similarly and chimps are the most technologically advanced non-humans, and this documenting a chimp using a stone hammer and anvil to crack open a palm nut. Is this, then, a reasonable reconstruction? Also, if it is reasonable, could someone reduce the whitespace?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one. The reasoning feels a bit too All Yesterdays-ish (and SYNTH) for Wikipedia. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could someone just erase the rocks and anvils and stuff, because we don't have any free use Ardipithecus restorations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds here. In general, I think unwarranted, unsourced speculation is to be avoided, and this would seem to be an example of it. On the other hand, the behavior is phylogenetically bracketed by Pan and Homo—but since that seems like a case of SYNTH beyond what's necessary to adequately illustrate the article, I agree that it's probably best not to depict the behavior. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, closest thing I found is this guy "There are no reasons to think that these hands [of Ardipithecus] could not efficiently handle basic forms of tools"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be pretty widespread among primates? Even small, tailed monkeys do it:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, it's more unreasonable to say Ardipithecus did not use tools   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know how to reduce whitespace? Every time I try, the image just gets squashed after I upload it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try purging the cache... this is yet another one of those inexplicable things that occur with images... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you purge the cache?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either just refresh the page (your browser should have a refresh button at the upper left), or hover your mouse over the "more" tab at the upper right on any Wikipedia page, then you can see "purge". FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Borchgrevinkium size diagram

edit
 

Hello, it's been a while since I last wrote here. For some reason I decided to get back to paleontology and I expanded Borchgrevinkium. Everything it needs is a size diagram. The only known species, B. taimyrensis, measured approximately 3 centimetres. There's a restoration of it which can be used for the silhouette. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus, I have made the silhouette, but I'm not quite sure what to use for a reference object. A hand would be too big, a thumb wouldn't be recognizable in silhouette form. I'm wondering if some sort of coin would be ideal, but I'm not sure what kind to use. Any ideas? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can put it next to a profile of someone's face (like their nose or eyelashes)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slate Weasel, yeah I think the coins are a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to use a dollar coin and an euro coin since both are very known. The smallest coin could be superimposed in the largest. The face is not a bad idea either, but would a nose or an eyelash be seen in a silhouette? Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the head was in side view, they would be visible, front view not so much. Also, this has me wondering if the British penny I used for scale in the Siamosaurus and Ostafrikasaurus tooth illustrations was the best or most recognizable choice of coin. Then again, it's of little consequence, mostly went with that just because it's exactly 2 cm in diameter and thus more convenient to scale. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately US quarters and euros don't have measurements that are quite as nice. I probably will go with one of these, although I'm not sure which to pick. Also, what would be the preferable method of illustrating the coin: flat bluish silhouette, colored silhouette, clip art? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, quarters are in the public domain while the €1 is not. I might just go with the quarter then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By colored silhouette, do you mean like a colored version of the coin? Yes, I think that would be appropriate. I think it could be something like the British penny used by PaleoGeekSquared. Super Ψ Dro 21:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus - here's the size comparison, sorry for the delay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I also delayed in replying. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanerpeton restoration, and issues with primitve amphibian and tetrapod(omorph) restoration in general

edit

As some might be familiar, albanerpetonids are covered in small fish like scales, which are preserved as a cloud surrounding the skeleton in some exceptionally preserved fossils. This is true with many other primitive tetrapods and tetrapodomorphs, and doesn't seem to be represented well in many images. Obviously for some species the scale size is small and blurs together at a distance, but even where they should be visible often this is ignored. For more information on temnospondyl scales see this paper. As early tetrapods are essentially fish with limbs the fact that they retain fish like scales isn't exactly suprising or pushing phylogenetic bracketing very far. As a further note, it's pretty much concensus view now that Lissamphibians are indeed derived dissorophoid temnospondyls, not leptospondyls or anything else, and the articles should be updated accordingly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them look a bit too salamander-like (mainly due to the shine, which makes them look slimy). But yeah, some of it can be explained by distance and level of detail in a given drawing. Most restorations of extinct reptiles don't really show individual scales either. The Prionosuchus looks like it has hints of scales? It could be fixed in some images by just drawing a few scales in strategic places (in shadowy areas, for example, where they would be more accentuated). FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the presence of fossilized scales makes a problem out of the smooth, slick skin as depicted in these illustrations. A 2002 histological study on Australerpeton scales indicates that they were present within (rather than on top of) the skin, unlike reptiles or fish. Comparisons in scale structure were also made with Greererpeton, so it is potentially widespread among early tetrapods. Caecilians also retain tiny scales and they are just as slimy as other amphibians. Lastly, amphibian scales are thin, overlapping structures very different from rigid, thick, and roughly-textured fish scales (Witzmann, 2011), so they likely had functional differences and were probably set in the skin differently. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So should we conclude these are fine? Or are there other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They look fine to me. The first Ichthyostega may be a bit too generic in its proportions, but since it's depicted as swimming, I don't think it's as problematic as it would be if it was a land-based model. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blapsium egertoni figurine

edit

This image was added to both Ommatidae and Blapsium by Tatelumps (talk · contribs). This figurine apparently originates from the 2015 Pixar film The Good Dinosaur? If true I am genuinely suprised they would choose to depict such an obscure Jurassic beetle. I know we have FoP issues with models of dinosaurs in parks, so I would like to know if similar issues apply to miniature models. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a problem being the copyrighted likeness of a movie design/copyrighted toy, so should be DRed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is a toy from a children's film I don't think it's likely to be up to WP:PALAEO standards regardless, so no huge loss. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if it were non-copyrighted, I don't think it could be used to represent Blapsium either. I'm pretty sure the author of some Wiki out there just looked up a list of extinct beetles and picked one. The beetle is not identified in any official sources, which is not surprising given how little scientific rigour the film has (not that it needs it anyway). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just assumed that Pixar pulled a random name out of a hat rather than a wiki user, my bad. I've nominated the image for deletion regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: whiten background for an Irish elk

edit
 
Strange beige

Can anyone make the background color white instead of off-white for this Irish elk skeleton?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork depicting Pleistocene mammals of South America

edit

It looks like these works depicting various South American mammals of the Pleistocene haven't been reviewed yet, any thoughts on them? BTW, I took the liberty of editing the nose of the Macrauchenia from the first image, as well as sharpening the overall image just a tad. Monsieur X (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we usually review images from journal articles, since they're supposedly already peer-reviewed, but the fix looks good! But those horses look a bit scrawny... FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counillonia and Repelinosaurus (and co.)

edit
  •  
    Counillonia
  •  
    Repelinosaurus
  •  
    Ufudocyclops
 
Ufudocyclops scale

The other day I finished illustrating the two Laotian dicynodonts described last year, Counillonia and Repelinosaurus, and figured the articles could maybe use the images since it's otherwise pretty bare bones for them. They were each based on the holotypes where possible, with the referred Repelinosaurus specimen used to fill in the gaps where needed, and related taxa as basis for the mandibles. Baring in mind previous comments on the extent of dicynodont beaks, I've tried to 'blend' the texture of the upper beak into the rest of the face in the manner of a tortoise, rather than clearly demarcating beak from skin. This goes more so for Repelinosaurus, which was based on the more robust and undistorted LPB 1993-2 specimen that was explicitly described with rugose maxillae and postorbital bars. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another dicynodont from 2019, Ufudocyclops! Like the Laotian dicynodonts, I figure the article could use some actual images of Ufudocyclops instead of just referring to images of Stahleckeria. Once again, it's based on the holotype skull and the two referred specimens, particularly a fragment of mandible to roughly get the shape of the anterior jaw right. Assuming the lack of critiques means the other two are good to go I may go ahead and add them to their articles, but any comments for fixing them are appreciated. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...And I went ahead and whipped up a scale diagram for Ufudocyclops too, why not? This is my first attempt at a scale diagram like this, and it's mostly modified from the scale diagram of Stahlackeria (File:Stahleckeria_potens_scale.svg), pioneer dork and all, due to their close relation (and I figured it would be easier than starting entirely from scratch). I modified the head to match the skull of Ufudocyclops (based on my life restoration above) and scaled the whole thing down to match the skull measurements for the holotype given in Kammerer et al. (2019), with other appropriate alterations to the diagram made as needed. Hopefully it looks organic and not something frankensteined together, and I'm fairly pleased with the result, but it's still all a new medium to me. Any thoughts? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing inaccurate with any of these. The eye of Counillonia looks a bit peculiar to me, but otherwise, they look good, the Ufudocyclops portrait in particular; I'm not sure how visible the ear would actually be but that's definitely not clearly inaccurate. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, with hindsight I can see what you mean about the eyes and the ears, especially with how the latter changes in appearance between the Laotian dicynodonts and Ufudocyclops. I've gone in and fixed both Counillonia and Repelinosaurus up a bit, including changes to the eyes and ears, as well as the general rendering, particularly on the Repelinosaurus, so they should hopefully look better now. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus & Mojcaj's Titanophoneus

edit

Here's something a wanted to do for a couple of years now! Any thoughts on my edits to Bogdanov's Anteosaurus restorations? I hid the teeth under lips, removed the ear holes, made the skin around the skull less tight looking & cropped & sharpened the first image. Monsieur X (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, the lower "lip" looks pretty smooth compared to the upper one, perhaps also give it some shading so it looks like it protrudes more along its length? If what I'm saying is even understandable... FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do get what you mean. Funny enough, I did actually think of putting some more "texture" or something to the chin, but didn't think anyone would noticed due to how compressed & pixely the originals were. Anyway, I'll fix it up tomorrow. Monsieur X (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, another thing I noticed with DB's images is that they often don't have an entirely white background, but is would probably be best if they did, since many of them are used in cladograms, for example, which looks odd with these sometimes bluish or greyish whites. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get where Bogdanov got those proportions from at all. The anteosaur with the most complete skeleton, Titanophoneus, looks nothing like that and very little of the postcranial anatomy of Anteosaurus is known. Compare with my Anteosaurus [8]. I never got around to finishing getting my image reviewed, and looking back at it I'm dissatisfied with it so I might revise it. In particular, I gave it too much of a sprawling stance and I wouldn't give it visible ears if I redid it. As for your edits, the lips don't look great to me, but I don't have any other significant issues aside from my fundamental concern about the proportions Bogdanov gave it. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he based the proportions of the animal on more distantly related Dinocephalians? Anyway, I've tried to change the length of the body & tail to better match Titanophoneus, though I was being a bit conservative. Also, I won't edit the second image until the first is critiqued. I would also like to apologise for taking so long to respond. Monsieur X (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, where does the claim that Titanophoneus has 60 caudals come from? Kammerer's review of the Anteosauria indicates that a complete caudal series is not known. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you might be able to guess, I still think the tail and body look rather short. I also think the hind legs look a bit short, but that might be a product of it being in a crouched pose (it's worth noting here that dinocephalians walked with their hind legs nearly erect). Orlov (1958) reports that there are 38 caudals preserved in Titanophoneus specimen PIN 157/1 and estimates the complete sequence of caudals as having contained at least 60: "Общее число предкрестцовых позвонков у титанофонеуса не менее 33; хвостовых сохранилось 38, но, по-видимому, было более 60." When I did my own Anteosaurus reconstruction, I took that into account; I don't think I could make the tail significantly shorter while remaining consistent with the fact that there are 38 preserved caudals and Orlov's interpretation that numerous caudals are missing. Remarkably, Orlov's Titanophoneus skeletal (the classic one that everyone copies) actually has too short of a body compared to the number of vertebrae he reported; his skeletal has only 26 presacrals of which 5–6 are cervicals, contrasting with his statement that it had 33 presacrals of which 7–8 are cervicals. Again, I took this into account when making my own. It's also worth mentioning that anteosaur trackways have tail drag marks, indicating a tail long enough to reach the ground in an upright-limbed walking pose. I am, incidentally, working on revising my Anteosaurus reconstruction right now, and will post it here at some point if it's desired. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd missed the sentence "Lectotype [...] complete skeleton" in Kammerer's review. Fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be all for your updated Anteosaurus reconstruction Ornithopsis, so do upload it when you're ready. Monsieur X (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the tail, body & even the neck longer on Dmitry's restoration. Any more critiques & criticisms that I should take into account? I have a sneaking suspicion that I should've made the tail even longer.... Anyway, all this talk of Titanophoneus has made me think that some of images for the genus may need to be reviewed/re-reviewed. Monsieur X (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better now. The tail could probably be longer, but it now looks long enough to be at least consistent with what's known (after all, according to Orlov, less than two-thirds of the tail is preserved so there's probably some room for interpretation in the exact length). The limbs now look a little short to me, particularly the hind limbs, but that might just be the crouched stance. My one significant remaining critique is that I think it would look better with the teeth fully covered by lips. I'll post my revised Anteosaurus for review when I complete it, which might not be for a few weeks—I'm juggling a couple of projects at the moment. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I also updated Anteosaurus landscape some time ago. For the sake of simplicity, I've also placed my edited version of Mojcaj's Titanophoneus here. Any thoughts & critiques? Ornithopsis, I'm a bit cautious to fully close the mouth of the Bogdanov's Anteosaurus due to a previous mishap with Dmitry Bogdanov's Titanophoneus. But I might do it if I get the OK from other users as well. Monsieur X (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thin it looks fine, we can archive if no one else comments. As you say, if the animal hasn't fully closed the mouth, the lips wouldn't hide the teeth completely, so we shouldn't be overzealous, it'll make the animals look weird. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanticopristis in need of updating

edit
 
Atlanticopristis

PaleoGeekSquared's Atlanticopristis illustration is in dire need of updating. It's basically just a copy of the extant Pristis, which is very inaccurate. Sclerorhynchoids like Atlanticopristis are not sawfishes (pristids), but are actually most closely related to skates (rajiforms). Inaccuracies I can see include the rostral denticles all being the same size and the fin arrangement, which are characteristic of pristids and not sclerorhynchoids. I've written a summary of sclerorhynchoid paleobiology with a reference list here: https://incertaesedisblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/onchopristis-is-a-sawskate-not-a-sawfish/

Carnoferox (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments on life appearance. Given that we have soft tissue outlines of sclerorhynchoids (whether they form grade or otherwise) it's not very parsimonious to reconstruct them as sawfish clones.
That being said, I disagree with your comments on phylogenetics. Sclerorhynchoids have been unstable historically and they have come out close to Pristis at times. I am wary of pushing the Villalobos-Segura et al. topology too strongly at the expense of NPOV. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The phylogenetic analyses of Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) are the first to include sclerorhynchoids as far as I know. Previous papers placing sclerorhynchoids with pristids were not based on any analysis, so they should be disregarded. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Granted, it appears to just be Sclerorhynchus, but the analyses of these two papers both include sclerorhynchoids: [9] [10] There is probably an argument to be made for taxon and/or character sampling but I'm not sure it's grounds to totally reject this work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They include a single sclerorhynchoid (Sclerorhynchus), not multiple sclerorhynchoids. Taxon exclusion is of course a problem with these analyses; Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) not only include more sclerorhynchoids but also other batoids. Additionally, the dataset of Claeson et al. (2013) (which was re-used by Underwood & Cleason [2019]) is missing important characters like rostral denticle replacement, wood-like rostral cartilage, etc. that distinguish sclerorhynchoids from pristids. It is also missing the 8 synapomorphies that sclerorynchoids share with other rajiforms. I don't think these analyses are anywhere near good enough to challenge the findings of Villalobos-Segura et al. and can be safely ignored. Carnoferox (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. The lack of those taxonomically significant characters in Claeson et al.'s work is definitely cause for concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some images of Onchopristis with this skate-like anatomy circulating on the internet and was wondering what it was based on, so nice to see an explanation! Wasn't even aware that we had such substantially-preserved sclerorynchoid fossils. I'll get to work on making a new restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could even include dermal denticles like those seen in Onchopristis and Ischyrhiza, since I think Atlanticopristis is more closely related to them than to Sclerorhynchus. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for Carnoferox to reply but I guess I'll sign off on it myself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. Btw, he didn't comment here but suggested to me on Discord that the colour pattern is probably not the most plausible given the animal's niche, ecology and relationships. I'll be re-colouring this with a more skate-like pattern when I have time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Scanisaurus size comparison and maybe other stuff

edit
 
Speculative life restoration of Scanisaurus cf. nazarowi, based on related taxa
 
Size comparison

Been a long time since I was here. I'm currently working on Scanisaurus, an obscure and dubious plesiosaur from Late Cretaceous Scandinavia and though I recently ensured that it wouldn't be an imageless article by getting some of images of Scanisaurus fossils up on commons, it's still somewhat lacking in imagery. I realize asking someone to do paleoart for it is a bit far (though if someone wants to that's fine 👀) but perhaps someone wants to do a size comparison for it? Help would be greatly appreciated :)

The material referred to Scanisaurus is very limited, everything we have on its appearance (about 4 to 5 meters long, relatively short neck for an elasmosaurid) can be found in my current draft. The only decent modern restoration of this genus in particular can be found on the page labelled as page 155 of this open-access paper, maybe that could be useful for making a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick restoration myself, should be fine since I followed what was in the 2018 paper for everything, but some of you might want to have a look at it anyway. All that's needed now is a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a size chart modified from my Aristonectes. Do things need changing or is this satisfactory? It doesn't seem like the remains are very substantial. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looks good! No accuracy concerns here since the fossils, as you say, don't tell us a whole lot about its appearence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent paper out arguing for horizontal tail flukes I think, is there anything to this? FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Askeptosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 

Here's another random Triassic reptile size comparison, this one depicting Askeptosaurus. I made the human silhouette pale gray to put more focus on the reptile. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more visually clear if the silhouettes do not overlap. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effigia Size Comparison

edit
 
 
Don't bite the hand that feeds you

Here's an Effigia size comparison. Effigia looks really weird, although that's probably due to it being a pseudosuchian trying really hard to be an ornithomimid. My main questions are - 1: that's a really prominent Mt V in the Nesbitt & Norell skeletal. Is that probable or would it have been swept forwards and level with the other metatarsals? 2: Despite the scale bar clearly indicating a ~3m animal, Nesbitt (2007) estimates a length of only 2m. Which estimate should I follow? Or is this due to multiple specimens? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nesbitt remarks that "Metatarsal V could articulate to the anterolateral surface or the posterolateral surface of tarsal 4." That, combined with the morphology of the metatarsal, might be why it's reconstructed like that.
The larger and more complete of the skulls is 17 cm long. I'm inclined to believe that there is a mistake in the scale bar; if you scale the skull to 17 cm, what is the full length? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 m (6.6 ft). Revised accordingly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it needs osteoderms? Also note that Sereno and Wild produced a (proportionally) very different reconstruction of Terrestrisuchus to Headden, see Fig. 5 here: [11] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to follow the Sereno & Wild skeletal for proportions? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crush 1984 has a skeletal and a range of size estimates (p. 151) which might be helpful... I suppose the discrepancy comes from scaling multiple specimens. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Crush skeletal looks intermediate between the two others that we've discussed, so I think that I'll use it as a reference when I get around to updating the chart later on this week/month. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes, I've completed the update and added a second silhouette to show the range provided by Crush. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hauffiosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 

So... pliosaurids have returned - and they're now vivid purple. I've scaled H. longirostris, but I didn't include it since I couldn't find length estimates for it. Hopefully I've reinflated the torsos sufficiently. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White seems to have reported a skull length of 680 mm for H. longirostris here: [12] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't extrapolating a TL estimate from skull length be an WP:OR issue? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here we go. Benton reports 5 m TL with 70 cm skull (which is consistent with White): [13] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! It's not quite at the 5m mark, but it's pretty close (anyways, I'd guess that 5m is an approximation). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Lemurosaurus reconstruction

edit
 
Lemurosaurus

The current life restoration on the Lemurosaurus page is perhaps a bit zoologically improbable and/or terrifying to small children, so I decided to make a new one. What do you all think? I'm aware that this is not the Dryptosaurus reconstruction I said I'd do on the dinosaur page a few weeks back; I hit a roadblock on that one but hope to finish it soon. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks better. Based on for example this[14] diagram, the back of the mandible should be deeper? Your shading makes it look like its depth is the same for its entire length. It also seems to be much narrower right behind the "chin" which isn't visible in the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the lower jaw (and tweaked some of the bosses). How does it look now? Ornithopsis (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If there's anything else I need to change, let me know, but I'm going to add it to the Lemurosaurus page now. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, but just noticed this image, the Lemurosaurus looks even odder here:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They all look really odd   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to do more therapsid reconstructions over the coming weeks, so I'll keep those in mind. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old pterosaur image

edit
 

This 19th century illustration is commonly seen in textbooks. Because of this, I think it is useful to evaluate its accuracy. The pterosaur doesn't seem to be a real species - or is it an inaccurate Scaphognathus?. Are the shapes of the brachiopatagium and uropatagium correct? I thought the wing was slightly more 'rounded' and the (cr)uropatagium didn't touch the tail. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also needs a bigger propatagium, I reckon. It does look like early reconstructions of Scaphognathus [16]: remember, the holotype does not preserve a tail [17] so it would have been restored based on other Pterodactylus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty similar to File:Pterodactylus antiquus soemmerring.png from 1817. The Pteradactylus article says it's inaccurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind the new policy on historical images we have. We shouldn't edit this image whether or not it's inaccurate; if somebody wants to make a new version of this image that's fine, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it has always been an unwritten rule that historical images remain historical. But yeah, those teeth, the pose, and the robustness of the skull and neck vertebrae makes it pretty clear it's Scaphognathus (which was of course also considered Pterodactylus back in the days). FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris reconstruction inaccuracies

edit
 

I noticed this reconstruction of Anomalocaris has a few inaccuracies. The big one is that the Burgess Shale species A. canadensis did not have the tail "streamers" (they're only known for the Chengjiang species, A. saron). Additionally, though the low level of detail makes it hard to tell, it appears to lack setal blades on the back and a head shield. Something about the proportions also seems off, but that might just be foreshortening. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not going to be fixed, should we just tag and archive? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scleromochlus reconstruction

edit
 
NT's Scleromochlus

Bennett has produced a new reconstruction of Scleromochlus as a sprawling basal archosauriform. Could someone modify this existing reconstruction or produce a new one? Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What particular modifications do you think are necessary? I assume that Bennett's assessment that Scleromochlus had a sprawling stance and a nearly plantigrade foot are the main ones, but are there any others? I feel like it's worth mentioning that Bennett's assessment that it is not an avemetatarsalian has been met with some skepticism among researchers online (e.g. [18]) so it might be wise to not assume that Bennett's reidentification of it as a stem-archosaur is definitive. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Bennett also identified osteoderms, so those would have to be added as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The osteoderms have been known since Benton's 1999 redescription of the taxon (and were observed in the original description but interpreted as gastralia). I'm not sure why Tamura's reconstruction lacks them, but it might just be the low detail of the image. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all these modifications, it would probably be easier to draw it from scratch... The original is almost too rough to spend time saving. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American lion (Panthera atrox)

edit

Hello, I find these images of the American lion to be far too pale, paler even than the African lion. These are otherwise nice images but not easy to recolour. What do people think of this attempt by User:PawellMM at the Graphics Lab? ~ R.T.G 09:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The retouching of the second image by Sergiodlarosa introduced far too much blue where the previous image was only slightly saturated. As well, I think the discussion of their colour shouldn't be divided between here and the talk page it was on already, so I'm declining to comment on that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion should be kept here, as this is more widely watched by the relevant people. But as I said on the article's talk page, if we want to follow that paper, which only presents a minority view, we should follow it more precisely. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euparkeria

edit
 

This image differs a lot from Gregory Paul's skeletal reconstruction[19], having a more robust body (and tail), an excessively rectangular head, strange legs and a seemingly digitigrade stance. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too fond of this illustration. The jaw seems detached from the cranium, the ear hole is missing, the back has an unusual arched shape, and there are too many osteoderm rows. I'm much more fond of Taenadoman's interpretation. Nobu Tamura's newer CGI version is also decent. I'd be fine with slapping an inaccurate label on this one, we've got better equivalents so touch-ups would not be necessary. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of NT's newer version[20] before I archive this section, am I the only one annoyed by the odd perspective where the plant in front of it somehow covers its head? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible anachronism

edit
 
What is that bird?

The Commons description doesn't mention the species, but it's used on Argentavis (which went extinct 7 mya), Megatherium (which appeared 5 mya), and Glyptodon (which appeared 2.5 mya)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image description clearly states that the image represents the Pleistocene, which renders the argentavis identification the most unlikely. I would suspect that the bird represents either a smaller teratorn or a condor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I don't think any of them were identified in the original upload, but we can be sure it's Megatherium at least, since the same drawing of it was uploaded separately. But it lived alongside Glyptodon, didn't it? We can just remove the reference to the bird, might be a condor, who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptoclidid Size Comparisons

edit
 
Tatenectes
 
Ophthalmothule

Here are a couple more marine reptiles, two cryptoclidids with really weird body shapes. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rear paddle and tail fluke of Tatenectes appear to differ from the reconstruction of O'Keefe et al. Any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hind paddles I think are just a result of perspective, I can try and make this more obvious. I honestly forgot why I changed the caudal fin... I'll make it more cryptoclidid- and less non-polycotylid-xenopsarian-like soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 
Hydrotherosaurus
 
Kawanectes
 
Elasmosaurus
  • Here are a couple of elasmosaurids (not quite cryptoclidids, but cryptoclidoids), consisting of an update (Hydrotherosaurus) and a new one (Kawanectes). Caudal fins assumed to be present based on Brancasaurus, Styxosaurus, and Albertonectes. Size estimates based on the handy table in the Kawanectes description paper. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, admittedly a little belatedly, I have also updated my Elasmosaurus so that it is based on other elasmosaurines instead of Hydrotherosaurus. Comments? Also, HFoxii, you may have to re-upload the translated version. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks plausible. Just in time for a few hours on TFA! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Cartorhynchus size comparison

edit
 

I've done quite a bit of work in expanding Cartorhynchus and I think it could use a size comparison. A (somewhat low-res) skeletal is available in Fig. 2 of this paper: [21] Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the silhouette. Would you prefer the animal in the water or on land? I probably won't finish the size chart until Friday (I've been really busy lately). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In water, I think. Shows the anatomy better (even if it's just a silhouette). No worries, thanks for the help. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is! Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, thanks! Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images for Tatenectes

edit
  •  
    Reconstructed pelvis
  •  
    Bogdanov's Megalneusaurus
  •  
    Life restoration

I've recently been expanding Tatenectes, and it's currently on the verge of GAN. I have three images that I'd like to add to the article, but they have yet to be reviewed.

  • [22] Here is a work in progress for the life restoration. Coloration, more detail, and some refinements will be done eventually. This is based on the O'Keefe et. al. (2011) skeletal. How does this look? Comments on style as well as accuracy are welcome.
  • I've drawn a restored Tatenectes pelvis based on Fig. 6C in O'Keefe et. al. (2011). I've inserted a color key into the file description. Comments?
  • Dmitry Bogdanov's Megalneusaurus has yet to pass through review. I notice that it's missing a caudal fin (or at least has a very strange one), but Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and Seeleysaurus should be sufficient to demonstrate that a fin should be present. Is anything else amiss with this image? Does anyone wish to try editing it (I'm not super-good with editing Bogdanov's images)?

Also, does anyone have any recommendations about an image for Paleobiology? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too knowledgeable about plesiosaur anatomy unfortunately, but I think the restoration looks good! There was a recent paper claiming plesiosaur tail fins were horizontal[23], I wonder whether that is controversial? I can try to edit the pliosaur fin, any references for how it should look? As for the pelvis, I wonder if it would be clearer on a white background? The outlines of the individual bones are kind of obscured (I know they are implied, but it make sit a bit hard to make out the shapes I think). As for paleoenvironment, any maps showing how the ocean it lived in looked at the time or something? That was nice in the Elasmosaurus article, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for some reason I always thought that the caudal fin had three lobes, one on each side and one on top (not sure why). I'm not really sure what to do here, perhaps Lythronaxargestes might know? It doesn't seem like we have any maps of the Sundance Sea, unfortunately. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vertical and horizontal arrangements would be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what to think about Sennikov'S argument. It is based to a large extent on an analogy with manatees, and he seems to think that the tail had an active role in locomotion. He also makes conclusions about the Seeleysaurus haplotype but it is not clear whether he has examined it first hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 
 
Restored cross-sections of the torsos of Tatenectes (left) and Muraenosaurus (right). Note the much flatter shape of the former, and its thickened midline gastralium
For the paleobiology, a diagram showing the cross-section of the body, ideally compared with a "normal" plesiosaur, would be perfect I think, since this is the most distinctive feature of the genus. I guess this would be an easy one to make for you? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a diagram showing a pachyostoic bone? A bit hard to imagine how it looks. And I misread, that's why I suggested an image for paleoenvironment instead, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, perhaps? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, looks great and will be a very helpful illustration I think! Though I agree with FunkMonk that a white background looks cleaner and would fit better into the article, but decision is yours of course. I maybe would place the scale bar to the lower right corner, respectively, so that it is clearly separated from the drawing (right now, at first sight of the thumbnail, it looks a bit as if the scale bar would be part of the cross-section, which is slightly distracting). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the scale bars to the top right corner, since they fit better there (I put them in the torso initially since there was a big cavity there). I do prefer the black backgrounds since I personally find that they make the bones stand out more (and help remove some of the ambiguity introduced by outlines), although I can change them if anyone is really, really opposed to it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge deal, but you do lose some variation in line thickness that otherwise look nice within the outline. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks nice! FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doswellia Size Comparsion

edit
 

I've never done a size comparison of a non-ornithodiran archosaurian (that I remember) until now. How does this one look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The scale looks fine if you're using the standard Doswellia lateral view skeletal first published by Weems (1980). I would personally make the legs more robust, though that's more personal preference than anything. I would also specify that it's based on Doswellia kaltenbachi, rather than Doswellia sixmilensis. The dorsal view in Weems (1980) may be an interesting opportunity for top-down size comparison, and would also be good for depicting the unusual width of the animal. Lastly, Doswellia is a non-archosaurian archosauriform like Vancleavea, just to let you know. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Half of me's still thinking that Doswellia is an abberant carnivorous aetosaur instead of a proterochampsian. I've strengthened the limbs a bit. I may eventually add in a dorsal view. Here are three new size charts for the time being, and a REAL aetosaur (Aetosauroides), which is actually my first pseudosuchian size comparison. It's quite a bit smaller than the specimen's estimated length in the paper, but it is still within the size range provided, so I hope that's okay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All three look good to me, tho I'm not an aetosaur expert. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would maybe add another foot of Ixalerpeton on the ground. I'm not sure it was saltatory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's fine to show the animal jumping, although I was unaware that there was some doubt about lagerpetids being saltatorial. I can add another leg if you really want. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe there is a larger specimen of Aetosauroides - the specimen PVL 2052/1 (skull) had an estimated length of 25 cm, along with a body length estimate of 2 m, in Casamiquela 1967. It is reported to be "1 1/4 times larger than" what I take to be the holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me on both counts. There is no formal discussion of Ixalerpeton's saltatorial abilities in the literature so this is not a deal-breaker for me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 10:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing of a cave painting of Megaloceros giganteus at Cougnac

edit
 

Another unusual one at WP/Paleoart today, a drawing from a photograph (which can be found here). I'm not sure if cave paintings have ever featured here before. I tried to authentically portray the line thickness for the charcoal, which is why the line thickness varies so much, the left edge of the drawing isn't actually drawn, but is part of the cave morphology. The image is a bit warped as it isn't drawn on a flat surface. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine, I had a similar image in the Columbian mammoth article (Relationship with humans section), I had uploaded a trace someone else did, but I ended up retracing it myself to be safe (see discussion under image review here:[24]). FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with the copyright status of File:Lascaux, Megaloceros.jpg and File:Élan aux bois 2.jpg?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a selfmade photo of a user who seems to have photographed a replica on flat surface, so that should be fine, and the photo should also get a PD old tag along with the CC tag. The second one is also usermade, so that should be fine, and it illustrates the point of cave paintings on non-flat surfaces. If that photo had just been found on a Google search and uploaded as PD, it probably wouldn't fly because the cave walls (if it is not just a cave replica) are obviously not flat. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I have questions regarding the copyright of images taken of Paleolithic artwork, (which I suppose can be considered to be paleoart in some sense, given many of the depicted animals are extinct). My question is whether they would be considered public domain as images of art (as the artists of the work are long since deceased), or the respective copyright of the image taker. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, the answer is no as the Canvas is 3d, per commons discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the rock surface is flat, it is as 2D as a painting. I think we would mainly have problems if a painting was painted across a bulging rock area where the photographer would actually have to be able to take a choice of angle. But we shouldn't show for example rock formations in the same photo, and only crop to the painting itself. Likewise, if the frame of a public domain painting is showing in a random image we find on Google, the frame should be cropped out, because the photographer holds the copyright to that 3D part of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Longisquama

edit
 

This image has not been reviewed yet. Tamura's more recent Longisquama reconstruction[25] seems slightly different anatomically (though it's too small to properly compare). If there are no problems, this is the only good Longisquama image that is not a fossil photograph (the only skeletal reconstruction posted here was declared inaccurate by its own author[26]. I wonder if the dinosauromorph-like legs in this life restoration were based on that skeletal?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility, although we don't know any leg material for Longisquama so we can't really say for sure. I also see what looks to be some shrinkwrapping of an antorbital fenestra, which is unlikely to have been present. We aren't fully sure about its relations (it could be a basal drepanosaur), though I would bet that it had a much more sprawling posture than currently depicted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could cut the new one[27] out if we think it's better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paranthropus robustus pelvis

edit
 

This is an illustration of the ventral partial pelvis and sacrum of DNH 43 assigned to P. robustus based on the image from this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think for most readers, it would be very hard to make anything out. Labels? Scale bars? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added labels, but it says the dimensions for the sacrum are 35.1 mm (1.38 in) in length, 87.2 mm (3.43 in) in width, and 78.8 mm (3.10 in) in height and I'm not entirely certain what each measure refers to exactly (is height anteroposterior or superoinferior?).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if the published figure doesn't have a scale bar, it's probably best not to guess. But the labels are an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They say the sale is "1x" (twice the size). Assuming they didn't change their print format recently, the page size is ISO 216 Size 4. According to their Guide for authors [28], 2-column figure width is 18 cm. So the scale for the Figure width would be 9 cm. Figure width cannot clearly be seen since the figures have no border, but it is the same as the width of the text columns and horizontal bars elsewhere in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a scan though, so I'm not sure if the digital version of the article is accurate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the pdf version?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was referring to the pdf version; I think it should be correct if they didn't change their page format in the last 20 years. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacoleo restoration by SERGIO GAUCI

edit
 

Added to the article by SERGIO GAUCI without review. While it doesn't look too bad in thumb view, close up it looks terrible as it is composed of copies of the same hair image that look like they've been stretched in MS paint. The hind legs also look unaturally thin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The teeth also look way too protruding, and to have been taken directly from a photo? FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moa size comparison

edit
File:Moa(Dinornithiformes) Size Chart.png

Added by @Joe's Ventures: without review. Quite a nice image imo, with correct foward neck posture, though some of the outlines do look a little rough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the head of the coastal Moa is missing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slate Weasel: do you think you can whip up a cleaner version of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: the image I used for the sillouete has its head facing forward, making the head not as odvious, you guys are free to tidy it up if you like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe's Ventures (talk • contribs)

what images did you get the silhouettes from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Dinornis is derived from this Nature paper, Coastal Moa from an image of a lifelike restoration from Te Papa Crested Moa from a restoration by Paul Martinson Upland Moa from another Paul Martinson restoration Little Bush Moa from yet another Paul Martinson restoration Eastern Moa is derived from this image of unknown origin by Scott Reid of drawingwithdinosaurs, Mantell's Moa from yet another Paul Martinson restoration. Heavy footed Moa from Cenozoic life blogspot. As far as I can tell, none of these images are under a derivative license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Can you confirm that silhouhettes made using copyrighted images aren't allowed on commons? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.deviantart.com/zoobuilder21/art/Moa-Dinornithiformes-Size-Chart-838159761 here is a lit of all the refrences i used, i know Paul himself has seen it and has not tired to issue any copyright issues onto me

Looking at the Nature paper, the Dinornis with the raised foot here has a silhouette which exactly matches that of the one in the paper. Silhouettes are copyrightable, and the Dinornis image in question has a license that does not allow it to be modified or published under CC BY-SA 4.0. We cannot use such images without explicit permission from the author (in this case, all of the authors). While the proportions of an animal must match up with those of the known material, the silhouette needs to be original. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coastal moa image is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, I shall start a deletion request now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is certainly a copyright issue. A silhouette directly based on a copyrighted image probably won't fly, so they would have to be redrawn. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well that sucks, i apologise for any issues with copyright, i can send the orgninal imagine if you guys wat to edit it or make your own

Canid size chart request

edit

Hi, I was told by FunkMonk that requests regarding extant fauna are also accepted here.

Would it be possible to make a size chart (with human silhouette) of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? Wolf, Jackal and Fox.

Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.

Anyway, the shoulder heights are:
Grey wolf = 80 cm
Golden jackal = 45 cm
Red fox = 35 cm.

Thank you in advance! Mariomassone (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, since it is unlikely there will ever be a similar request page for extant animals, and since we have already had size comparisons that incorporated extant animals here before[29], I thought it would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eosimops restoration

edit

I found this image of Eosimops a while back. Looks a bit emaciated compared to other Pylaecephalid restorations. On that note, are there any images of Eosimops fossils to see if it's anatomically accurate? Monsieur X (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, the neck is almost certainly too long and the overall shape of the head seems incorrect, and it's artistically rather lackluster overall. Definitely needs improvement, and there's a 2013 paper that redescribes Eosimops that would doubtlessly be useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a try if someone can list all that needs to be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toxoprion Life Restoration

edit

Here is the link to the work in progress (WIP): [30]. The lower jaw is based on a CT restoration [31] (Fig. 6). Upper jaw curvature has been based on Edestus, which may not have been a good thing (perhaps Sarcoprion would be better?). Postcranium is a cross between Caseodus and Fadenia [32] (Fig 12 & 30). Any input? Do we have any Pal(a)eozoic fish experts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason to think it had an Edestus-like arrangement with upper and lower whorls instead of a Helicoprion-like arrangement with only a lower whorl? Ornithopsis (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. I will change it. Should I include a short row of teeth as seen in Parahelicoprion and Sarcoprion? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ornithopsis, is this version ([33]) better? Also, I'm wondering if the lower jaw might have been a lot deeper than I currently have restored it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fish expert, so I'm not really sure. I do think the updated appearance looks better—as far as I can tell, Edestus is unusual in having similar tooth whorls on the upper and lower jaws (compare to e.g. Ornithoprion and Helicoprion), hence my asking if there was a good reason for the original Edestus-like appearance. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries

edit
 
Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries until 2007

The timeline should be updated thanks to new discoveries of Archaeopteryx specimens since 2007. It also should take into account the renaming of "Pterodactylus" crassipes as Ostromia and the erection of Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi for the Maxberg Archaeopteryx specimen.68.4.252.105 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Bruktererpeton, Mystriosuchus, and Ctenacanthus

edit

It's pretty unusual for me to do so many life restorations, but here are three more. I may eventually color some of them. Any comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an additional creature: Bandringa. I will eventually give it a more creative color scheme (and probably a big green eye, as seen in many modern lineages of deep-sea cartilaginous fish) and perhaps a background. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to find a good source of information on Bruketerpeton. I see you have a source but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is considering its age and how it is a popular science textbook rather than a peer-reviewed study. The illustration doesn't look like it has glaring errors relative to Gephyrostegus, though I am unsure of whether the eardrum would be visible. Most animals with eardrums evolved them independently and have specific adaptations of the stapes and temporal region coinciding with such adaptations. Gephyrostegus doesn't have any real evidence for such features, due to stapes not being preserved and the temporal region having an unspecialized and broadly concave rear edge. As a close relative, I doubt Bruktererpeton would be any different. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will remove the eardrum (it looks like our current Gephyrostegus life restoration also has an eardrum, so I'm guessing that it needs to be removed too). I'm pretty sure that the skeletal in the book is taken/redrawn from a scientific publication (many of the skeletals are credited as being from The Osteology of Reptiles, for example) although they don't cite their source beyond stating that the author is Boy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Mystriosuchus supposed to have had a tail fin?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No,see the 2017 archive for more details. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably remove the tailfin mention on the article then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, claws didn't really evolve until amniotes. Casineria has been claimed to possess claws based on the tapering and curved unguals, but Marjanovic & Laurin (2019) showed that the tips of the unguals were not pointed, unlike the case with true claws. They also placed Casineria within a gephyrostegid grade of tetrapods, along with Bruktererpeton. So I think that tapering and curved (but not keratinous) finger tips would make sense for Bruktererpeton. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I realized that the head of my Mystriosuchus doesn't match the perspective of the body, so I'll have to fix that (probably by changing the angle of the neck). I also have to upload my colored Cobelodus (see above). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Marine Reptile Size Comparisons

edit
 
Bye-bye, 25m pliosaurid!
 
A very nosy ichthyosaur

Sorry for my long periods of inactivity, I'll try to be more productive (although I may not succeed, as I'll be pretty busy for quite awhile). Anyways, here's another Liopleurodon update. I replace the old flat skull with the Noè et. al., 2003-style head, in addition to giving it a Rhomaleosaurus-style caudal fin. How does it look? (As a little side-project, I did a very rough scaling of the Monster of Arramberri using Liopleurodon and got a pliosaurid that was a little over 9m.) Additionally, I plan to upload some more marine reptile size comparisons once this one's approved (these include Muraenosaurus, Pliosauridae, and Sachicasaurus, not to mention updates coming for Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus). I'm also open to requests. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallardosaurus Skeletal

edit
 

One more weekend in October means one more skeletal. Here's my first non-archosaurian skeletal - Gallardosaurus. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that can't already be found in the file description. However, there appears to be what looks like part of Cv5 preserved in the specimen, but nothing about this is said in the paper, so I've left it in light gray. Was this the right choice? I'll ping Eotyrannu5, who's done a much more complex pliosaur skeletal, for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked someone else to comment on this one, since I'm not a marine reptiles guy, and he said it looked fine, so I will echo that sentiment. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megatherium

edit
 
Concerns are probably best addressed on DeviantArt to the user Sphenaphinae. I have reason to suspect that the IP and Commons user Sphenaphinae are not who they claim to be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I requested him to put up the images he put up. You can message him on Deviantart about it.
Yeah, the foot claws should be there, the shortish hair seems nice, though, alluding to Mark Witton's recent blog post.[34] Can't say much about the identity issue, but contacting the Deviantart user seems the only way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New distribution map for Zygolophodon

edit
 
The inferred range of Zygolophodon and Miomastodon

Wang et al. (2020) revalidate Miomastodon as a distinct genus from Zygolophodon based on comparisons of Zygolophodon gobiensis (Osborn & Granger, 1932) and Zygolophodon tongxinensis (Chen, 1978) with the type species of Miomastodon, M. merriami but also the Zygolophodon type species and gomphotheres, placing both species in Miomastodon. Therefore, the current map showing the range of Zygolophodon (taken from [35]) may have to be revised whereby the purple patches for North America and parts of East Asia are changed to pink to reflect the distribution of Miomastodon following Wang et al. (2020).

Shi-Qi Wang; Xiao-Xiao Zhang; Chun-Xiao Li (2020). Reappraisal of Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn & Granger and Miomastodon tongxinensis Chen: the validity of Miomastodon. Vertebrata PalAsiatica in press. doi:10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.20031070.175.133.224 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Images by Concavenator

edit

The user Concavenator[36] has uploaded some nice paleoart, which should still be reviewed here to be safe. I'll add dinosaurs here too, just to keep it in one place. Mostly looks good as far as I can see, but the Camarasaurus perhaps has too many hand claws, and the Concavenator has too sunken skull fenestrae? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the ones I can comment on go, Deinotherium and Australopithecus look alright, the Camarasaurus is good beyond the hands, and the Concavenator looks good to me, fenestrae as they are, except the for seemingly identical fingers and possibly the feathers. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the toes are too short in the Entelodon? The hind feet look a bit too stumpy, compared to for example this skeletal of a relative:[37] FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They kinda remind of Disney cartoons (especially Australopithecus which sort of looks like Baloo when he was dressed up like King Louis in the Jungle Book), which isn't something wrong, I just thought it's kinda funny. I don't really understand your comment about the Entelodon hooves. I will say for Australopithecus that that is a very muscular child with a very wide range of facial movement and expressions for such an early hominin (though that may just be the Disneyfication)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean with the "Disney" style, but that shouldn't be a problem for most of them, as long as the anatomy is correct. But yeah, the apes probably shouldn't be smiling as much... As for Entelodon, it's not so much the hooves, more the distance between them and the toe-foot joint (compare with the same distance in the front feet), there should be "more toe" before the hoof begins. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is the Australopithecus mom be swinging at the very end of a small tree branch with a baby precariously perched on her back? They had a pretty humanlike physique, they wouldn't have been so adept at swinging around in the trees as orangutans, and do even chimps hold their babies on their backs when climbing or do they hold them on their bellies? Also, what's in the background for the ground sloth one?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say about the primate, but it seems to be fossil dung and skin next to the sloth. We have other such photos. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these restorations look good, though I do agree that the Entelodon looks off. Not sure what's going on with the Concavenator, but it looks like it has a sail on its on arms, rather than quills, spines, feathers or whatever it had. I think the Camarasaurus tail looks a bit short, but that could just be me. The visible fenestrae, the identical fingers & visible front toes are easy fixes though. I also feel like it's for the best to spilt the images of Decennatherium, Tetralophodon & Machairodus.
Yeah, I agree the last image should split out, we can do that soon if they're all accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoart of Szymon Górnicki

edit

Szymon Górnicki uploaded his art to various articles without having them reviewed, any thoughts & criticisms of his work? They look pretty decent in my eyes, though the Dinosaurian version of Smok appears to have a pronated hand & overall looks a bit off in my opinion. Monsieur X (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting the arms of Smok could also put the hands in that position I think. In any case, it seems to have claws on the fourht and fifth fingers, which it probably wouldn't, and the perspective of the toes seem weird. Also, seems like the Lisowicia has skin covering its, err, tooth beak? I now see many of our other dicynodont restorations also show this, but is that likely? Also, Lisowicia has three very similar restorations, is that warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The croc-line reconstruction of Smok probably shouldn't be digitigrade. It also should only have three manual unguals, not five. It also looks a bit long-legged and short-bodied to me but I haven't checked the measurements. Lisowicia should not have a visible external ear, and even if it did have one it wouldn't be in that position. In at least Sangusaurus the caniniform process of the maxilla appears to have been covered by a beak, but I don't know if that can be applied to other dicynodonts. I see no value in having all three illustrations of Lisowicia on the page as is; only one—preferably the scale image—is needed. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there's so many Dicynodont restorations that cover the beaks with skin. I thought it was just a paleoart meme that caught on somehow, or perhaps it was based on the platypus' skin-covered beak? Anyway, I definitely think that there's too many similar looking restorations on the Lisowicia article, The two prior were enough. The location of the nostrils looks a bit strange compared to the other restorations. Monsieur X (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of finding any better sources, I found a Twitter discussion in which Christian Kammerer provides evidence for a keratinous sheath covering the caniniform process in Placerias [38], explicitly in the context of the beak covering the processes. The position of the nostrils doesn't look too problematic to me personally. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, seems we'll have quite some work ahead of us if that conclusion ever sees print.. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did Paleorhinus really have that short of a tail? I must admit that I know little about phytosaurs. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a strictly lateral view the tail is definitely too short, having compared it to Hartman's reconstruction[39] which it appears to be based on. I think the intention was for the end of the tail to be foreshortened away from the viewer, though it doesn't quite come across that well. A few other anatomical bits and pieces to mention; Silesaurus and Stagonolepis have the same manual ungual problem as Smok, and the ear on Metoposaurus is in a funny position, and should correspond to where the otic notch would be.DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as published sources go on the dicynodont beak issue, the redescription of Sangusaurus [40] explicitly indicates that the beak probably extended onto the caniniform process (describing the position of the posterior margin of the beak correlates as being on the posterior margin of the caniniform process), and gives no indication that this is an unusual extent for the beak correlates. Diictodon is also described as having keratin on the caniniform process [41]. Lystrosaurus has also been figured with a beak covering the caniniorm process [42]. Crompton and Hotten (1967) describe the beak extending to the Mundplatt, a membrane they suggest extended to the posterior margin of the caniniform process. All in all, it seems clear to me that dicynodont beaks did include the caniniform process, and I can't find any indication it was otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, anyone for rounding up our dicynodont restorations that show the skin covered part of the beaks so they can be corrected? We could just do a section with a gallery where anyone can add images as they find them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macrauchenia trunkless

edit

It appears that macraucheniids had more conventional looking nostrils, something similar to a moose if this relatively recent study comparing the skulls of various extinct & extant herbivorous mammals is anything to go by.
(LINK) Perhaps these two images should be edited. Other Macrauchenia restoration on
Wikimedia should probably be labelled inaccurate, as they depict the genus with odd elephantine trunks. Monsieur X (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The study I read (see talk page) also proposed a saiga-like snout, which isn't that far off from what's shown. Could be a bit shorter, though, but I think it's kind of too early for us to do anything, it seems to be very preliminary ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the talk page and I think we should split the difference. Perhaps someone should edit shorter saiga antelope-like trunks on the mother & calf Macrauchenia, but edit Nobu Tamura's restoration to show moose-like nostrils. Either way, I do believe that the other Macrauchenia restorations on the site are rather inaccurate by modern standards. Monsieur X (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NT's restoration is pretty much saiga-like already, so I don't see why it would need to be modified, though. If anything, it should be a bit shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was thinking since it was rather simple looking in comparison to Olllga's, it would be more easier to edit. Should I put out a request for a new image instead? Monsieur X (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of a moose-like snout? Well, no one will stop you, hehe. Personally, I'd like to see some more studies on the issues first, and it seems some are underway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking more in the lines of a image comparing the two ideas, but I might sit on that idea for moment. I could be wrong, but I think the traditional view of Palorchestes might also be going through similar scrutiny. But I'll leave that discussion for the Palorchestes talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 
Diplodocid heads have historically been restored in various ways: a) skull, b) classic rendering of the head with nostrils on top, c) with speculative trunk, d) modern depiction with nostrils low on the snout and a possible resonating chamber
Maybe something like this old Diplodocus (now Galeamopus) diagram, showing all versions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the perfect example of how to go about! Now the hardest part is finding an artist to do such a thing. Monsieur X (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rextron does South American mammals, maybe it could be interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping @Rextron to see if they're interested (I hope this works, never pinged before). Much easier than explaining it all on their talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I've been busy. Hmm, looks like a interesting idea, to show the skull and the trunked and trunkless versions. I guess that the trunkless version should be the moose model recently proposed, although in Darin Croft's book "Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys" appears a version with normal lips and narials located very high in the head, the reasoning behind it model is not explained there, just why it probably lack of a trunk. Well, I can make some sketches, by the way there is a diagram that would be very useful: [43] --Rextron (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering! An interesting article, it does highlight the need for more peer reviewed studies on age old ideas that go unquestioned or unchallenged. I have seen other artists with similar ideas for Macrauchenia, though I have no idea if there are more studies on this subject at the moment. As for the comparison image, I think it should be similar to the "diplodocus" chart, with the skull and the three different interpretations. Like the the old flexible elephantine trunk depiction, the small saiga antelope-like trunk and the more recent moose-like suggestion. Monsieur X (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I finally can start this. Here is my idea for the "moose" version of Macrauchenia [44], any thoughts?--Rextron (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly content with this interpretation. Now it looks like a camel with moose-like characteristics. Which seems to line up with our understanding of Macrauchenia. With the taxa appearing to be generalists, like the two mentioned. Calling FunkMonk, do you have any opinions or criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I wonder if that "slope" of the head should begin further anterior, though? Seems like it begins even before the bony nostrils, comparing to this interpretation:[45] FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I forget to delete some fur in that part, now it looks like this: [46] Here is a version with the skull that I used [47]. --Rextron (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, still quite some bulge, but who knows how big it would have been... FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have the same doubt, what if was a inflatable structure? ;) Anyways, later I'll modify it to make the trunked version.--Rextron (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back & edit the images myself, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edit of the first image mostly looks reasonable. However, the edited version of NT's image makes Macrauchenia look like a bog-standard mammal without an expanded snout. I think both should be revised so that they look closer to Rextron's interpretation posted above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was being a bit conservative, I'll fix it up tonight & remove those artefacts near the head.Monsieur X (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Nobu's illustration, definitely looks much better. I don't know why I hadn't paid more closer attention to Rextron's diagram & artwork when I was editing Nobu's art, compared to when I was editing Olga's artwork..... Any more criticisms & critiques? Monsieur X (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. That's it from me for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 

Here's one that was just posted without review. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. I wasn't initially sure about the placement of the nostrils, though I think the artist has restored the animal yawning or perhaps braying like a horse or donkey, which would explain the nostrils. It's definitely a lot more stockier than some other restorations, but I have seen other artists also restore them this way. My only complaint would be somewhat wonky looking feet (Not sure if its missing a toe on each foot or if its just a perspective thing). The image itself also needs to be cleaned up a bit. Monsieur X (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megaceroides algericus skull

edit
 
 

An extremely obscure one today, a bizarre Megaloceros relative with the most extreme cranial thickening of any known mammal, and one of only two deer species ever to have inhabited Africa , and suprisingly recently with latest known dates of 4500-4000 BC. The image is directly redrawn from this image, so I don't think there should be any serious accuracy concerns. The skull is of a really old individual which is why there are no visible sutures. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get the whole horn in there? It's visually a bit confusing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is how the photograph itself is so it's not that easy to work around. Only the proximal cylindrical part of the antler is preserved, so I'm not sure there would be much to show regardless. A partial proximal antler ia shown on fig 15 of the paper, but I'm not sure how how it would be orientated relative to this specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stenorhynchosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 

One more pliosaurid for April. I think that I may also have size charts for Sachicasaurus, Peloneustes, and Attenborosaurus buried somewhere - I'll see if I can dig them up in May. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakalipithecus

edit
 

This skeletal reconstruction was drawn in 2015 and doesn't cite any sources, and because only a mandible and teeth are known, extrapolating other anatomical details such as posture or a sagittal crest of a Miocene ape is, in my opinion, unsafe because post-cranial anatomy is poorly known for Miocene apes, and I'm unaware of one with a sagittal crest. Also, the front view of the skull is far too narrow. This is the actual mandible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 
Yeah, I think the OR is extreme enough for that complete skeletal that it might be grounds for deletion. Nice drawing of the jaw. Looks like it was done freehand? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I traced it on my iPad using a note-taking app   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parocnus serus skull

edit
 

An extinct ground sloth from Hispaniola. Drawn from a rather spectacular photo, missing the jugal (apparently a common taphonomic issue with Caribbean sloth skulls). I think the teeth are also loose from the sockets (at least in the upper jaw) as they look overly long and I saw another caribbean sloth skull in a paper which was noted to have this issue, which looked very similar.Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diprotodon skeletal mounts and skulls

edit

It has come to my attention that most museum display mounts of the skull of Diprotodon are inaccurate, and are based on skulls that have been distorted by crushing, due to the heavy pneumatisation of the cranial portion of the skull. Accurate models and drawings based on uncrushed skulls are displayed on the right.

 
Drawing of uncrushed specimen
 
3d model of uncrushed diprotodon skull, showing penumatised endocranial sinuses in blue.

The paper the 3d model and drawing are from states that the nasal turbinates were not restored, but I don't think this is a huge issue for external morphology. EDIT: fully rotatable 3d model of uncrushed skull is here Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the projection of the nasal bones?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the external nasal bones are among the most likely parts to be broken off, so they are debatable. I think one of the main issues is the ventral-anterior dorsal-posterior bar on the cranium that connects to the Zygomatic bar and the orbit in the museum specimens, which simply doesn't exist on the uncrushed specimens and is an artifact of dorsal-ventral crushing of the endocranial sinuses, this also causes issues with the overall profile of the top of the cranium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here's a fully 3d rotatable model of the uncrushed skull from the paper, which should make what I am saying clearer, having looked at the 3d, what is a bar structure on the museum models is actually a relatively sharp edge transitioning to the depressed front of the cranium behind the vomer, which is somewhat reminiscent but different to the museum specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best we can do is probably use a photo in the taxobox where the error is less apparent. I doubt we'll get an up to date mount any time soon, if one even exists. We can add a tag like the one here[48] on Commons photos where it is obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squalicorax restoration

edit
 
my Squalicorax
 
current Squalicorax

Made another prehistoric shark, this time Squalicorax falcatus. It is based on the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), with features like the fins' shapes being derived from modern lamnids (due to their comparatively close affiliations compared to other extant sharks with anacoracids) and requiem sharks (as many species likely filled ecological niches and behaviors akin to S. falcatus). And yes, the upper caudal fin is suppose to curve in the angle it is shown in. The coloration also echoes the latter group, with species like the silvertip shark and oceanic whitetip shark serving as prime inspirations. As with my ginsu shark reconstruction, I aim at replacing the older Squalicorax art currently present on the wiki page, as it is rather inaccurate and aesthetically unpleasing, at least in my opinion. I hope this shark will get get better representation in paleoart than it has in the past, so I appreciate the potential for this to make it into the article. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Macrophyseter should have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damouraptor First I would like to ask if you actually have access to Shimada and Circumurri (2005), as last time I checked I think it was paywalled and in order to get that skeletal reconstruction someone ought to have posted it elsewhere. (If you don't have access to the paper, just let me know and I'll see what I can do (I'm not a scientist, I'm simply an ordinary person who managed to get access to a lot of papers)) But you are certainly correct on the assumption that Squalicorax is essentially a lamnoid that was carcharhinoid-like, and I really like how you tried to reflect this. However, I would like to note that Squalicorax is still a pelagic shark and that it must have features that any pelagic shark has including fins and bodies designed for long distance and at times fast swimming.
So one major thing that could use some tweaking is the angle of the caudal fin; it's too bent down and designed for shallow life. If you can raise the angle of the upper lobe of the caudal fin (keep the lower lobe as it is), it'll make the art a lot more pelagic-like. I recommend taking inspiration of this change from lamnids and confirmed pelagic requiem sharks like the blue shark. Another thing is that appears that the head kind of deviates from the original Shimada and Circimurri (2005) reconstruction (such as a less flat dorsal). I would caution this as the head reconstruction is the most accurate based on actual well-preserved head fossils and recommend something like vertically shrinking the head region a bit. Here's an image with some of the possible tweaks in place: https://i.imgur.com/UQ27fEx.png
Still, don't let this artwork down! It's so much better than that unpleasantly creepy current one and just simply needs a few easy tweaks that can be done without going back to the drawing board. I absolutely love the texture inspired from whitetip sharks and your willingness to make art to represent extinct sharks. With some easy changes, this one probably could make it into the article. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Damouraptor: Just a reminder after almost a year and a half, are you still planning on making the tweaks or has this been abandoned?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have made much activity in any of his relevant plantforms since late 2019, it's possible that he may have stopped doing paleoart for at least some time. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone else could do the final fixes? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes as the image made by Macrophyseter suggested. What are your thoughts? ESonho (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions were rough eyeballs with the intention of the assumption that Damouraptor would know what I would mean and go from there using the research he would be making. As a result, it was never supposed to be the most accurate tweak and at this point I have noticed some details that might be a bit contrary to what we know about the shark's anatomy (including some anatomical contriadictions that I overlooked such as the width of the pectoral fin and the size of the caudal vertebrae). If you can, see if you can get a copy of Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), which is the paper that details the anatomy of Squalicorax and has a nice skeletal reconstruction. Here's a pasteboard of the skeletal reconstruction [49]. Macrophyseter | talk 06:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. Thanks for the response, I'll do it based on Shimada and Cicimurri this time. ESonho (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made new edits on the original image after reading about some of the anatomy and following the silhouette of the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005). I didn't touch the top of the image very much at this point, but what are your thoughts? ESonho (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peloneustes Skull Diagram (And Some Other Things)

edit
 

I've recently been preparing an expansion for the Peloneustes article (you can see it here), so I thought that this would be a good time to upload this diagram. I've had this image for a while (ever since I worked on Gallardosaurus). I followed the reconstructed skull diagram in Ketchum & Benson (2011) pretty closely, since Peloneustes actually has a pretty decently preserved skull (pliosaurid crania apparently cave in quite frequently postmortem). I scaled it to this specimen (NHMUK R4058), although I could scale it to a different one. Comments? Feedback on the article draft would also be welcome, I worry that it's too extensive. It also appears that one of my main sources, Andrews (1910-13), is in the public domain. Is there any special procedure for uploading stuff from BHL?

Here are two other semi/vaguely-related things on the subject of British fossil reptiles from the days of old: Here's a restored Megalosaurus skull for a skeletal I'm working on (restored with Torvosaurus (gray & purple), Dubreillosaurus (yellow), Afrovenator (red), and generic elements (orange), and I just realized that I forgot about Wiehenvenator somehow). I don't think that I'll be ready to post anything else on this subject for quite a while, so that's why it's here and not at WP:DINOART. Additionally, I've been working on updates for my Ichthyosaurus size chart. I scaled a silhouette based on Hartman's skeletal to a skull length of ~55cm, which should have produced a preflexural (snout to tail bend) length of 2.8m according to this paper, but instead gave me one less than 2m. Any recommendations about what to do? (Sorry for this massive post). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peloneustes skull looks good. The length of the description is not unheard of, but I think it's a bit too jargony right now. Focusing on autamorphies and comparative anatomy will probably help you cut it down.
I did a Ctrl + F for 2.8 m in the Massare paper... this figure seems to be based on their assumption that skull (or "jaw") length is 20% of preflexural length in Ichthyosaurus. What this would mean is that the preflexural vertebral column is four times the length of the skull. From eyeballing Hartman's skeletal this doesn't seem to be the case. One possibility is that Hartman's skeletal is not I. communis — there is, after all, more than one species. This plaster cast of what should be a complete I. communis specimen matches the 20% ratio: [50] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On BDL or archive.org uploads, I zoom is as much as possible before downloading the images there, and then I crop and colour correct them. Here is an example from the same paper I think, at archive.org:[51] FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pliosaur skull looks fine, I don't know enough to comment on the Ichthyosaurus, but I am aware that the Megalosaurus has a jugal preserved. From that through cross-scaling via Torvosaurus you get a lower skull roof and consequently a more Torvosaurus-like long and deep snout. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Megalosaurus: The jugal (it's green instead of blue, this was mainly to distinguish which institution the specimen came from, something that won't be present on the finished skeletal diagram) seems to cross-scaled correctly with Torvo. I do notice that it articulates with the maxilla more posteriorly than in Hartman's skeletal, so that may be part of the weirdness. I'll look into it. Here's the version with Wiehenvenator parts: [52]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobu Tamura's Titanophoneus & Anteosaurus

edit

I recently remembered a discussion about how short the tail was on Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus for something that was supposedly "croc-like". I had a look at various other Anteosaur restorations & found that Nobu's artwork to be lacking said long tail. His Anteosaurus also appears to be missing the various "bumps" or "warts" found on the skull. Speaking of the skull, it does seem a bit long. Monsieur X (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Panoply of Parvipelvians

edit
 
Grendelius
 
Keilhauia
 
Ichthyosaurus
 
Hauffiopteryx
 
Arthropterygius

Here are a bunch of parvipelvian size comparisons. I scaled G. mordax, but I didn't include it since I could find no length estimates/skeletal diagrams with scale bars. The scale bars in the Keilhauia figure were off by a considerable margin. Ichthyosaurus was quite complicated to update. Hauffiopteryx was pretty straightforward. I'm also throwing in Arthropterygius, since it got no feedback when I first sent it through here. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say much about accuracy, but I wonder if we could get Acamptonectes in there? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly sometime over the next few days, it would have to rely pretty heavily on Ophthalmosaurus and Baptanodon though. I was going to see if anyone else wanted to make the size comparison, but considering that nobody's made one in 355 days since first requested, I may as well take a stab at it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah, it doesn't help there doesn't seem to have been any published length estimates of it? But if we know the length of the skull, it could be extrapolated from relatives? I wonder if it would be considered too much original research... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb would be to avoid making a size chart unless a length estimate exists or some sort of size-indicating diagram (i.e. the one in the Grendelius paper) appears in a peer-reviewed academic source. I realize that I violated this with Choconsaurus, it seems... oops. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can probably wait then. The article is also pretty image heavy as is. I didn't add a size comparison for Catopsbaatar for the same reason, no overall size estimates exist. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megatherium range map

edit
 
 

Based on these maps, I tried to avoid using straight lines to make it more natural looking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the second source and your map, its range appears to extend a bit further to the southwest. Do you know why this is? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of different levels of interpolation of the range from the single find in central Chile, as indicated on the first image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new range map, this time for Macrauchenia and Xenorhinotherium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kronosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 
Current version
 
New version

Here's something that I'm very excited to share - a size komparison of Kronosaurus queenslandicus! Our current size comparison is a bit odd-looking, with missing teeth, no trailing edge on the hind flippers, and no caudal fin (which can be inferred to exist through Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and cryptoclidids). I relied heavily on the Devourer of Gods thesis while creating this. One thing that I noticed is that the "Plasterosaurus" silhouette only came out at ~12 m when scaled to the 2.6 m mandible - perhaps scaling it to the 2.9 m report would be better? To create a rough "skeletal" for reference, I sliced up a photo of the mount in GIMP and reassembled it with McHenry's skull. After making this, I'm considering making charts for Sachicasaurus & "K." boyacensis. Any comments on this size comparison? Please analyze it brutally - Kronosaurus can be a contentious taxon. Also, does anyone know if any work's being done on the "Richmond pliosaur" (actually a polycotylid)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kronosaurus Korner website confirms that it's a polycotylid and explains that the "Richmond pliosaur" nickname was made back when scientists thought that polycotylids were pliosaurs. [53]. As far as a know, the specimen is still taxonomically undescribed but the website states that phylogenetic analyses were made on it. For my take on the reconstruction, it is much better than the old one currently in the article. I haven't studied too much about Kronosaurus, but I have a few comments. First, I think that there should be some indication given in the diagram that the Harvard Mount is inaccurately long since people might think that the mount is depicted as the "upper estimate" of Kronosaurus. Second, it seems to me that the parietal crest for the MCZ 1285 proper reconstruction looks too short. Great job on the diagram! Macrophyseter | talk 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What exactly should the parietal crest look like? Right now it's both slightly longer and taller than in the McHenry (2009) skull reconstruction (although I'm not sure that that reconstruction accounts for the fact that pliosaurid posterior crania tend to cave in significantly). The labels can be changed pretty easily, perhaps to something like 'MCZ 1285 - Historic Reconstruction' and 'MCZ 1285 - Revised Reconstruction'? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note we have a photo of the "Richmond pliosaur" on Commons[54], which sat unidentified on Flickr for years with only a Swedish description. Not sure what we can use it for until the specimen is described, though... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Macrophyseter, I've made the parietal crest a bit taller, akin to what I did in the Sachicasaurus and "K." boyacensis size comparisons below. I've revised the labels, too. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 
Looks pretty good to me! Macrophyseter | talk 05:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a size comparison of one of Kronosaurus' Colombian cohorts, Sachicasaurus vitae. Sachicasaurus is huge, complete, and published in a freely licensed paper, so its size comes with a greater degree of confidence than that of Kronosaurus. It's about 10.1 m long here, which is close to the estimate of 10 m provided by Páramo-Fonseca et. al. (2018). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you also checked the bodily proportions against tables 1 and 3? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean 2 and 3? Not until I read your comment, but going by table 2, the neck seems okay, as does the precaudal series based on rough guesses & added cartilage after Kronosaurus. Table 3 deals with appendicular elements, most of which are in perspective here and therefore don't have determinable lengths. Table 1 was used to scale the skull, and with it, the animal. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean Table 1. I was concerned that you may have used the specimen's photograph directly. That's fine then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I tried to do initially, but I realized that something wasn't right when the scale bars for the skull and body didn't match by a significant margin... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 
  • Here's the third promised pliosaurid - "K. boyacensis (which may in the future become Sachicasaurus boyacensis). It came out at about 9.7 m, a bit on the lower side but well within the range recoverd by McHenry (2009). The silhouette is based on the photogrammetric reconstruction, Kronosaurus, and Sachicasaurus, with the proportions cross-checked against the provided measurements. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Models by Peter Menshikov

edit

Here are the new models by Петр Меньшиков (Peter Menshikov). He plans to create animation with them. Are there any errors? In the future, I will add even more files to the gallery. HFoxii (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Grendelius is really lumpy, the quadrupeds are all missing their manual unguals, and the Austriadactylus is missing a rudder and its teeth don't match up with the fossils. I haven't done any rigorous comparisons yet, so there may be even more anatomical problems present. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Grendelius and Austriadactylus updated. HFoxii (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not fond of the wing membrane on the latter. Should attach at the ankle? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A new version of the file has already been uploaded. HFoxii (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do claws of Jachaleria and Aetosaurus look better now? HFoxii (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure aetosaur osteoderms were not subcutaneous. That's what it looks like for this model. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the new version better? HFoxii (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Glaring issues outstanding: aetosaurs have quite sizeable teeth, and the fourth and fifth fingers should not have claws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now? HFoxii (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to have been a misunderstanding. The fourth and fifth fingers are at the outside of the hand, like your ring and pinky fingers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today were uploaded models of Tashtykia primaeva (known only by teeth and based on relatives), Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine and Atopodentatus unicus. HFoxii (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general aesthetic terms, the splotchy skin patterning and dark background make these restorations look unappealing, which detracts from their potential educational value. In specific terms, proterochampsians lack a fifth toe on the foot and have an enlarged second toe, unlike what the Pseudochampsa piece illustrates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dark background can be replaced with white. HFoxii (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 
Current version
 
New version

After a few plesiosaurs, it's time for an ichthyosaur! Here's a new Ophthalmosaurus size comparison. The current size comparison has a few problems, including the label (O. discus is a jr. syn. of O. natans, and O. natans is most likely Baptanodon). Despite the label being O. discus, it seems to clearly be based on File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, which is O. icenicus (and Ophthalmosaurus proper). The head shape in the current chart also gives the impression of gills, which Ophthalmosaurus/Baptanodon obviously didn't have. I drew my Ophthalmosaurus based on Scott Hartman's skeletal and the skeletal diagram in Lawrence (2008). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific specimen with a size estimate that can be used? Might want to check that McGowan & Motani source cited by Lawrence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, it seems the eye should be modified, since it seems to take up the entire sclerotic ring, when only the inner ring should define the visible part of the eye? I've been thinking of this for years without knowing what to do, hehe... And the old diagram also has this issue, maybe we could use it for Baptanodon after all if fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the above image by making the eye smaller and removing the ear opening, which I haven't seen illustrated in other ichthyosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since a non-bilobous tail has been illustrated previously, we may as well keep this as a historical example. Does this imply anything for Cymbospondylus, though, which is sometimes found to be more derived than Mixosaurus (although more basal just as frequently, it seems)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankylorhiza reconstruction

edit
 
Ankylorhiza life restoration

Just started work on a life restoration of Ankylorhiza since the article's devoid of images (and surprisingly didn't even exist until a few days ago). Here's what I've got so far for the early sketch; comments are highly appreciated since mammals aren't my forte, but I tried my best using the paper's skeletal and reference images of living dolphins and other whales. I know Macrophyseter and Dunkleosteus77 have done a lot of editing on cetacean articles before, maybe you guys have some thoughts? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be consistent with the skeletal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me as well. Macrophyseter | talk 21:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! The restoration's been fully rendered and uploaded now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of creative liberty coloring it somewhat like that of a common dolphin, but I think it's good! Macrophyseter | talk 21:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperodapedon Size Comparison

edit
 

Here's a (somewhat random) size comparison depicting the rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon gordoni. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebufo Size Comparison

edit
 

Here's a Beelzebufo size comparison, any thoughts? I'm not very good at drawing frogs, so I'm not sure how realistic the flesh outline is. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can try making a silhouette out of File:Beelzebufo ampinga comparison.svg or File:Beelzebufo BW.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that in the first image, the outline of Beelzebufo is clearly derived from Nobu Tamuras drawing in the latter image, but is totally uncredited. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more bulk, how does this look? Frog skin doesn't hug the bones closely at all, it seems. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it's similar to the African bullfrog, which has an 80° angle from the lip to the belly, as opposed to the 35° angle here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to emulate the African bullfrog a bit more, does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks kinda unfroglike. Do bullfrogs actually lift themselves off the ground like that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't think so. I've distended the belly a bit more, and also rested the knee on the foot, as modern frogs often do. Previously I had it crouched like a more nimble frog (i.e. dendrobatids). Does this look froggier now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooedigera life reconstruction

edit
 
Ooedigera peeli

As some of you may recall, I recently argued that both reconstructions of Ooedigera peeli we have are inaccurate. I have now drawn my own reconstruction of it so that we have at least one reasonably accurate artwork for it that we can use. I can change the background color to white if needed. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say anything about accuracy but looks clear and nice! FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe Apokryltaros has some comments? They did most of our vetulicolian art, including one of the Ooedigera I think is inaccurate, so I'd be happy to hear their input. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was always under the assumption that the tail's shape was due to deformation during burial. I think the picture is otherwise smashing as is.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Vinther et al. describe the segments as hourglass-shaped and discuss the dorsoventrally asymmetrical tail at length, as well as including it in the diagnosis, so I'm fairly certain the tail shape as I have depicted it is more or less accurate. Is there anything else or does this look good to go? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your updating the Ooedigera article as a mark of approval, so I guess we can call this discussion done. I don't know how archiving works and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to archive my own thing? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really wanna, you can just copy/paste this discussion into the most recent archive. There are no hard rules here, so you can archive whatever you feel is closed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this isn't your regular talk page, we can do whatever fits the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tylosaurus Size Comparison

edit
 

I've been at work on updating this old size comparison lately. I've decided to include T. proriger, T. nepaeolicus, and T. bernardi in addition to T. pembinensis. The skeletals from Nicholls (1988) were helpful as a start, but as I went further, issues clearly began showing up, such as the fact that the skull shapes don't conform very well to the actual remains. I'll list my current progress for each species below:

  • T. bernardi - Done. It used to be restored with many, many vertebrae, which made it different from Tylosaurus and much bigger. Following the revised vertebral count Jiménez-Huidobro & Caldwell (2016) and skull length of 1.6 m from Lindgren (2005), it turned out to not be much bigger than T. proriger.
  • T. proriger - Partially done. I've decided to include two specimens for this one, the first being Osborn's T. "dyspelor". The second will show the largest known specimen, which I think is Bunker. Does anyone have any measurements for Bunker, beyond a skull length of ~6ft?
  • T. pembinensis - Partially done. I've scaled a silhouette based on Hartman's skeletal to match the 1.21m skull length for MM V95 in Bullard & Caldwell (2010). However, it doesn't seem like a low enough total length estimate has been published for this not to count as OR. As in T. proriger, another silhouette depicting the largest specimen would be nice to include. This, from what I can tell, is Bruce, which is supposedly larger than Bunker, but I can't seem to find any bone measurements for this specimen. Does anyone know of them, or of a source providing a size estimate for this species?
  • T. nepaeolicus - Done. Everhart (2002) provided a pretty good overview of the subject, making scaling relatively easy.

The sheer number of mosasaurs needed for this size comparison will probably necessitate a different format, most likely something akin to Steve's megalodon size comparison. Any comments on anything above? Sorry for the huge post. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 
Figured skulls, details in description
Wonderful timing given that I have been working on the article myself (currently in sandbox draft), I was going to ask you to remaster the size comparison one of these days. It's great that you're giving attention to most of the major Tylosaurus species rather than just the most well-known ones. I would highly suggest though that you also add T. saskatchewanensis to the diagram as its quite anatomically well-known for a non-Kansas Tylosaurus and is one of the few species included in stable phylogenetic studies. Here's my comments:
  • T. proriger- For some reason, it seems that exact measurements on the Bunker skull haven't been published (either that or not easily found), despite the thing literally being on display at the Kansas University Museum and in many other museums as replicas. I've seen other rigorous amateur works facing this problem and simply estimating the skull at a flat 180 cm without much insight due to the lack of available information. I recall hearing from someone that the skull measured around 175 cm, but I have been unable to locate that source. Scientific sources roughly estimate a crude length at 12-13 meters without much insight, but IMO I would find Triebold Paleontology's replica length of 13.7 meters to be possibly reliable given their repute. However, I think that the people who've handled the specimen should know the exact measurements of at least the reconstructed skull. Maybe you can contact Mike Everhart or another paleontologist working in Kansas on this.
  • T. pembinensis- The Guinness World Records measures Bruce at 13.05 meters. However, given that the skeleton was mounted years before Bullard & Caldwell (2010), I believe it's likely that it may have too many vertebrae as erroneously estimated by Nicholls (1988). I do not know of any reliable information regarding the length of the specimen's skull; I had seen a number of claims that it measures around 180 cm but they don't seem to be backed up at all.
  • T. saskatchewanensis- It's represented by a nicely preserved skull and a good amount of postcranial material. The Royal Saskatchewan Museum made a bunch of skeletal replicas of the holotype, which measures at 9.75 meters. The skull length is stated to measure 132 cm, although it's not clear on whether this refers to the lower jaw or not (you could try confirming using the photograph of the skull which is D in the figured skulls on the right)
Since there are a lot more than five species in the Tylosaurus genus, if you think it would be informative you could try adding three remaining known species, although they are all from very fragmentary remains and so their estimates are pretty crude. One of them (T. borealis) has had its length estimated. Scientists haven't even considered attempting length estimates for the other two species, but it is possible to get a crude estimate via a few formulas that roughly translates crown height to total body length. An MS thesis by Garvey (2020)[57] reverse-engineered the measurements made by Everhart (2002) and formulated ratios that can, in theory, estimate the total length of a Tylosaurus using the crown height of a tooth (There's no exact formula calculating TBL using tooth crown height but there is a formula that specifically calculates the ratio between midline skull length and total body length, which can be used as a bridge with calculations of the hypothetical length of the midline skull from the teeth using the Tylosaurus skull measurements provided. The measurements show a rough ratio range of crow height-midline skull length by around 1:21-26 depending on tooth position). However, you may want to take these with a grain of salt because it could teeter on the edge between original research and application of basic mathematics.
  • T. borealis- Technically not yet a validly recognized species since its been described earlier this year by an MS thesis and probably won't be formally described anytime soon (which is why it's not in the taxobox) given that it took 12 years for T. saskatchewanensis to be formally described since it was identified as a new species by another 2006 MS thesis. Only fragments of the snout and jaws are known, but the author of the thesis estimated its total length since it has enough material for the holotype to be estimated at around 8.83 meters in TBL.
  • T. ivoensis- This guy is only known from isolated teeth, vertebrae, and some skull fragments, but the teeth can measure up to 6.2 cm in height, which is very big for Tylosaurus. Although it is also known from isolated vertebrae, I'm not much aware of many postcranial-body calculations. Using the estimated crown height of the largest known tooth (6.2 cm) and running it through a range of crown height-midline skull length-total body length ratio, I yielded a length range around between 10-12 meters.
  • T. gaudryi- The holotype skull has some good teeth in it, but I haven't been able to find any quantified measurements of the teeth. However, there are a number of photographs with reference scales, and so using those I estimated a crude crown height of around between 4.6-5 cm (eyeballed), which roughly translates to a crude TL of around between 7.4-9.8 meters. Let me know if you want to try examining it yourself.
  • T. iembeensis- There are currently no available described specimens to this species since the holotype went missing and reported fossils from a recent expedition to Angola has not been described yet. As a result, I don't think it's possible to estimate its length for the time being.
Let me know on any developments. I'm really excited to see how the revamp will turn out.
Here's the current WIP: [58]. Scaling Bunker to a 1.8m skull length produced a 12.5m TL, so I think that should suffice. I've also added the juvenile T. "kansasensis". "T. borealis" may warrant looking into, but as for the others, I think that I'll have to refrain from including them due to OR issues (my rule of thumb is to not make a chart unless a length estimate or reconstruction with a scale bar has been published). As for T. saskatchewanensis, the scale bar seemingly indicates the skull and mandible are under 1m in length. Additionally, the only photo of the mount we have seems to be skewed by perspective. Do you know of any resources for constructing a lateral view (i.e. photos, body segment measurements)? Thanks for the really helpful comments above! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great so far. Ignoring all of the crude estimates species is probably the best, I provided them just in case they could be of use. For the saskatchewanensis skull figure, I think this picture does it more justice [59]. As for constructing lateral view, I know that the more rigorous skeletal reconstructions made by the amateur Deviantart community scale individual vertebrae to construct body segment measurements/proportions. Basically, you simply need to know the vertebral counts of the species and then reconstruct the skeleton by scaling each individual vertebra to get the proportions; if you're trying to make a skeletal reconstruction this would be tedious but I think its easier if you're simply trying to get body proportions. Regarding T. pembinensis I think you would be better off to simply ignore Bruce for the time being and just use the holotype measurements and Hartman's skeletal.
An interesting thing to note is that the validity of T. kansasensis is still disputed. Most recent mosasaur papers recognize the synonym, but that's only because most of them are co-authored by Caldwell and his students (i.e. Jiménez-Huidobro and other University of Alberta students) or simply are not focusing on the subject at large. Not everyone agrees with Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016). This is also the case with T. bernardi, as the majority of studies that go into its taxonomy are co-authored by Caldwell and his students; there is a group of scientists that still think Hainosaurus is a valid genus based on dental characteristics, although I haven't found any followups to these arguments. However, I have only been able to find two studies that specifically put to the test Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016)'s arguments for kansasensis synonymy. One of them (Stewart & Mallon, 2018) argues that the proposed ontogenetic trends of T. nepaeolicus with T. kansasensis as a juvenile form is inconsistent with the reconstructed growth trends of T. proriger and offers a good chunk of rebuttals to the arguments of Jiménez-Huidobro et al. (2016). The second one Zietlow (2020) used a size vs maturity-conscious construction of a T. proriger growth series and found that the holotype of T. kansasensis is more ontogenetically immature than the T. nepaeolicus specimens AMNH FARB 124 and 134, which was interpreted as being evidence of the former being an immature synonym of the latter (I personally find some issues with this conclusion since it seems that only the holotype was tested despite the taxon being known from at least 13 well-preserved specimens compared to the poorly represented latter). Due to the given lack of consensus, I would personally recommend that T. kansasensis specimens should be recognized as a tentative (albeit disputed) valid species and be labeled as such for the time being until followups are published.
Going a bit out of the scope of the scale diagram, because we have a photograph of Triebold's Bunker replica with all of the vertebrae in the skeleton visible, we could be able to estimate the length of the Bunker skull by scaling all of the vertebrae and then subtracting the total reconstructed column length from the given replica length (13.7 meters). We can also do this with Bruce if we can count all the vertebrae in the skeleton (Or use Nicholls (1988)'s count) to find skull length, although I believe that the Guinness World Record's length may be inaccurate since it may have been measured without respect for skewed perspective (some parts of the skeleton bend sideways).
Macrophyseter | talk 20:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the T. pembinensis holotype have a length estimate, though? I can't find one for it (the citation in the article doesn't appear to back the ~12.2m length up), so it may have to end up being removed from the chart entirely. Also, what's the specimen number of Bruce? As for the T. kansasensis? juvenile, I'll probably just remove it to avoid taxonomic controversy. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any explicit length estimates for T. pembinensis with the corrected vertebral count, but the passage in question seems to refer to this excerpt at the end of the first paragraph in the introduction to Lindgren (2005):
"With an estimated total length in large, presumably adult, individuals of about 13 m (see discussion below), H. bernardi is one of the largest mosasaurs known, rivaled in length only by Mosasaurus hoffmanni Mantell, 1829 and ‘Hainosaurus’ pembinensis Nicholls, 1988."
However, given that the paper cites Lingham-Soliar (1995) for the length of M. hoffmannii (which he puts at 17.6 m), it's unlikely that this implies that they explicitly mean that T. pembinensis was measured at around 13 m, although it could be. Given that we have a vertebral count for T. pembinensis, I strongly recommend that you should use Hartman's skeletal as a reference for MM V95 or construct your own skeletal reference using the given count.
Regarding T. kansasensis, given that its the most well-represented after T. proriger if its a distinct species, I would still include them in the size comparison. You should simply label them as Tylosaurus 'kansasensis'. Macrophyseter | talk 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've identified the specimen catalog for Bruce, which is MDM 74.06.06. Nicholls (1988) has a table of measurements for the specimen, and when comparing the dentary length with the V95 skull I've estimated a lower jaw length of around 1337 mm. The lower jaw length of V95 is 1321 mm. Also, I've realized that Hartman's skeletal appears to have a lot less pygal vertebrae than reported by Bullard & Caldwell (2010) (7 vs 20), although it could simply be a difference in interpreting what defines a pygal vertebra. This means that the tail of T. pembinensis could be longer than reconstructed by Hartman (the dorsal vertebral count are consistent). Macrophyseter | talk 23:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the second WIP. I've added three T. "kansasensis" specimens based on Everhart (2005) and Everhart (2008). T. nepaeolicus was used to restore the postcrania, since it is another small tylosaur and, as discussed above, quite possibly its senior synonym. I think that Bunker's okay for the moment. I haven't yet gone further in my attempts with T. saskatchewanensis, although I definitely did not intend to create a full-blown skeletal of it. Hypothetically, with enough views of the skeleton, I should be able to chop up the photos in GIMP and turn them into a rough reference for the silhouette (not the best thing ever, but it'll work in a pinch), although just having the body proportions and modifying T. pembinensis to match them should also work. Speaking of T. pembinensis, I tried scaling Hartman's skeletal to a mandibular length of 1.337m, but only got a TL of 9.5m (also, Bruce's specimen number would be MDM M74.06.06, I believe). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The " surrounding kansasensis should be changed to single apostrophes like 'kansasensis'; as far as I know that is the convention of writing out such taxons. For T. pembinensis, as I've pointed out in the above Hartman's skeletal has around 7 pygal vertebrae while Bullard & Caldwell (2010) reports 20; I have not fully counted the number of postpygal vertebrae in Hartman's skeletal. The number of cervical and dorsal vertebrae in the skeletal seems consistent, so I guess you simply have to elongate to tail to accommodate the missing tail vertebrae. In case you don't have the full paper, the vertebral count in the paper is as such: 7 cervicals, 29 dorsals, 20 pygals, 36 precaudals, and 74 caudals ("’Precaudals’ are defined as those vertebrae anterior to the first chevron bearing caudal, and ‘caudals’ as the vertebrae posterior to, and including, the first chevron-bearing caudal."). Also, I think it would be important that you make sure the estimates for the Bruce skull are optimal, as there may be multiple ways to estimating depending on what skull features you are comparing with V95 in Nicholls (1988). I compared dentaries (because I believe that comparing more posterior bones like quadrates may not account for differences in anterior extension), but you can get different yields when comparing different bones. I'm wondering why you mentioned your belief about the specimen catalog of Bruce when I just stated it earlier... lol
Also, if you're going to do T. borealis, I made a mistake with the length stated earlier. 8.83 m actually refers to the length of AMNH FR 221. The actual length was stated in text to be between 6.5-8 m. When going through the thesis appendices, I've calculated that the length yield would be approximately 6.94 m when using AMNH FR 221 as a proxy and 7.93 m when using T. nepaeolicus as measured in Everhart (2002) as a proxy. So that means you can try scaling either of the two models to the given lengths, but you'll have to confirm the accuracy of my calculations. Macrophyseter | talk 07:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a loose suggestion, I'm wondering if also referring to specimens by their nicknames alongside their catalog numbers (i.e. Bunker and Bruce) would work out. Macrophyseter | talk 07:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled T. 'borealis', it came out at 6.5m so I'm happy about that. I've corrected the labels for T. 'kansasensis', although I realize that I may have to update the silhouette after this. Adding Bunker's nickname shouldn't be a problem. Regarding T. saskatchewanensis, do the 1.32m MSL and 9.75 TL come from the description paper (I don't have access to it)? Scaling Hartman's T. pembinensis skeletal to such a skull length produces a TL of ~9.5m. As for T. pembinensis, the reason I restated Bruce's specimen number is because you initially left out the M in front of 74, which, weirdly, leaving out makes all the different in whether or not Google Scholar produces search results. The big issue with T. pembinensis seems to be this: Are there actually any published size estimates in the academic literature for it, beyond rivaling T. bernardi? If there are none, this may actually force us to have to abandon including this species, which, seeing as it is supposedly the largest, would be rather unfortunate. Additionally, just as an experiment, I scaled Hartman's T. pembinensis to a 1.8m SL and got a TL of 12.8m.
I have just thought of a way to potentially deal with Bruce, though. By roughly approximating the body proportions based on the former vertebral count, then scaling the silhouette to ~13m, it should, hypothetically, be possible to reapply the modern proportions and thereby produce a silhouette for this specimen. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but it is at least a possibility, similar to the photographic method you mentioned before. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread Bullard and Caldwell, and I'm starting to think that the study intended to mean that T. pembinensis had 7 cervicals and 29 vertebrae between the cervicals and caudals, based on the explanation in text that that is the number of vertebrae they could count in such region, but they could not differentiate between dorsals or pygals due to preservation. It's a bit confusing because they still say that there are 20 pygals in the vertebral series chart despite likely contradictions. But with that sort-of clarification, that would bring the vertebral count down to one that is a bit shorter than T. proriger. That basically means that T. pembinensis should be smaller than T. proriger given the estimated size of the skull. Here's[60] a modification of Nicholls (1988) I made (T. pembinensis above, T. proriger below) with the extra vertebrae removed in Williston style; It's not certain where the pygal series starts but I've placed its count at 7 as that's the standard diagnostic for Tylosaurus. As it turns out, that number is also around consistent with Hartman's skeletal; for some reason, his skeletal has two cervical vertebrae missing (which should be an easy fix, just split the neck, add two additional cervicals, and reconstruct the body from there). So in all, it's probably accurate all along to get around the 9.5 m range, although it could be slightly different when you add the possible two missing cervical vertebrae. After all, Bruce was likely reconstructed with too many vertebrae as implied by Lindgren (2005) (makes me wonder why the Guinness World Record declared it scientifically accurate years after it was found outdated), and he probably didn't consider how much reduction in size accounting for the extra vertebrae would get when comparing it with T. bernardi since that's not the focus of the paper. Also, I did not realize that you put the M before the 74 on the catalog, apologies for that stump!
Regarding T. saskatchewanensis, the 132 cm MSL is from this passage in Jimenez-Huidobro et al., (2018): "The type specimen of Tylosaurus saskatchewanensis, RSM P2588.1, represents a large tylosaurine mosasaur with a skull length of 132 cm." The 9.75 TL actually comes from the length of the reconstructed skeleton on display at the museum, whose length is stated in multiple sources by the museum. Here's a link to the specimen's official museum webpage [61]. If it helps, here's what I think is the vertebral count based on what I'm getting from Jimenez-Huidobro et al., (2018): 55 vertebrae anterior to chevron-bearing caudals (7 cervicals, 39 dorsals ("from presumed last cervical to first pygal"), 9-10 pygals) and >31 caudals (>18 intermediates and >13 terminals; both series are incomplete).
Regarding T. kansasensis, this[62] blog claims to have contacted Everhart regarding the Triebold skeleton, and he reportedly claimed that the flippers are too long, although nothing was specified. 21:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This is mainly a preliminary reply, hence its brevity, but there are very good reasons for not trusting that blog: [63]. Additionally, that post apparently seems to consider T. 'dyspelor' valid, despite it resting comfortably within T. proriger for years. I will probably refrain from updating the T. 'kansasensis' silhouettes, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the third WIP: [64] For T. saskatchewanensis I scaled the skull to the published length (after all, it's not as if scale bars are infallible); swapped out the short, broad T. pembinensis flippers for the more elongate T. proriger ones; and elongated the torso until the TL was 9.75m (I think that the museum website should be good enough for the chart). Does Nicholls (1988) actually give a length estimate of 9.5m for T. pembinensis, though? This chart seems to be from that publication, but it doesn't include T. pembinensis, which is rather odd. Other than that species, the technical side of the chart is basically done. I am slightly concerned about the gigantic size of the image (which is rather inevitable when you try to fit no fewer than ten tylosaurs into one diagram) and how it forces the text to be so small. I'm wondering if there's a better way to label them. Any ideas? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the controversy surrounding David Peters. But unless he's someone who straight-up lies about his correspondences, I don't think his reputation discounts what Everhart said to him. His claims derived from such may be absolute BS, but I'm concerned about what Everhart said. Regarding T. pembinensis, I don't think Nicholls (1988) gives explicit length estimates, but she has a chart comparing the lengths of T. pembinensis with T. proriger.[65]. The image you linked was basically Everhart using Nicholls (1988)'s two drawings which were convenient because they both represented Tylosaurus proper and 'Hainosaurus'. But as I have said earlier, Reconstructions prior to Bullard & Caldwell (2010) are bound to be oversized due to the extra vertebrae. I'm pretty sure there are no published up-to-date explicit estimates for the length of T. pembinensis. But this does not mean that making a scale attempt is unverifiable, because again, you can derive from Hartman's skeletal with corrections where necessary and scale it to the estimated length of the skull; I'll still let you know if I do find a published length, though.
Regarding formatting, you could experiment with grouping different specimens of the same species together to save both horizontal and vertical space. Here's a crude example I made[66], but have some creative liberty. Macrophyseter | talk 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the fourth and final WIP: [67]. There are now a total of eleven tylosaurs in the (very colorful) chart. You are probably right that the claim cited to Everhart is correct, as Peters goes on to claim that T. 'kansasensis' had distinctively large flippers anyways. I scaled a T. pembinensis silhouette drawn based on Hartman's skeletal to the mandible length in Nicholls' reconstruction (1.7m), and got a TL of 11.8m. Since estimates have never gotten more precise than "rivals T. bernardi in size," and it's less than 50cm shorter than T. bernardi here (12.2m), I think that this is about as good as we can ever hope for. I listed it as MMMN V95, since that apparently was the primary basis for the reconstruction. I've rearranged the key and superimposed the smaller silhouettes upon those of their larger kin, and also marked the 2m one as a juvenile. Unless there are any glaring errors, I will upload this version to Commons soon! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! However, I think there is still a problem with T. pembinensis. The mandible length (from dentary to surangular/articular) for MMMN V95, which is complete, specifically measures 132.1 cm per Nicholls (1988)'s measurements[68]. A diagram of the specimen's skull in the same paper puts it at a similar size[69] (above is by Bullard & Caldwell (2010), lower by Nicholls (1988), both scaled to the 10 cm scale on the bottom), although Bullard & Caldwell (2010) lowered the estimate of the MSL to 12.1 cm. The skeletal diagram in the same paper doesn't specify what the skull's length was reconstructed from, but it contradicts the lengths of MMMN V95 as established earlier in the paper if it's at 1.7 meters. I have said before, I believe that the "rivals T. bernardi in size," claim by Lindgren (2005) is likely outdated given that the claim was made prior to the revision of T. pembinensis's vertebral series by Bullard & Caldwell (2010). Other than that, everything else is fine; I really like how the superimpositions turned out. I think T. pembinensis should be scaled down to the explicitly published skull lengths and the size diagram would be as good as finished. Macrophyseter | talk 18:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with extrapolating a length from a smaller T. pembinensis skull is that doing so is almost certainly in violation of WP:OR, a line that anything we do here with T. pembinensis comes dangerously close to. The only loophole that I can really see here would be to label the specimen as Bruce, which could be what the figure is scaled too (the other two specimens certainly are too small), could rival T. bernardi in size, and probably is the largest specimen of this species. As much as I'd like to scale it to the more complete skull, I don't think that the available literature is going to allow us to do so. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would necessarily be WP:OR, rather I think it would fall more into Wikipedia:Combining sources (I am aware that this is not an explicit rule), given that we are basically building the size comparison by utilizing only the explicit information given by Nicholls (1988), the skeletal by Hartman, and the validation of the latter by Bullard & Caldwell (2010). This means that it can be verified via these three sources. But if you really think otherwise, then all we can do is either elongate the model to Bruce's "official" length based on the skeletal provided by Nicholls (1988) scaled to the Guinness World Record length and label it as an outdated estimate or simply remove T. pembinensis entirely. I don't think it would be a good idea to label the current scale as Bruce and cross fingers that the skull in Nicholls (1988) might be from such given that she was never clear on that, which puts verifiability to question.Macrophyseter | talk 19:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload the new version with MM V95 (apparently it lost the "MN" somewhere along the line...) scaling. You're probably right that this is the better option considering WP:V, and, after all, I can always remove it if objections are raised. Thanks for all the very useful advice, I've discovered a whole lot about Tylosaurus through updating this chart! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring V95 as MM is fine. The new diagram is really nice, I'm glad that the Tylosaurus article is finally getting better updated visual representation it deserves. Thanks for revamping it! Macrophyseter | talk 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome! I'm also pretty happy with how this turned out, and may use the format again for Prognathodon eventually. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I would love to see File:Tylosaurus proriger12DB.jpg get a proper tail fluke and skull update (the current "updated" one does not do any justice). I've been intending to have it updated for use in the Tylosaurus article and recently attempted to try updating it myself, but I don't have sufficient knowledge in Photoshop to replicate the texture for the tail fluke. Macrophyseter | talk 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought it was inaccurate in its very snake like posture also (if they were mainly propelled by their tails?), but if you think it's worth saving, I can give it a try. I guess the artist's own corrected version[71] is a better starting point? And I think your longer comment you deleted was interesting, maybe you can include it here collapsed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never considered the restoration to be that snake-like, but I can kind of see how one can see it like such. If you want, maybe you could try editing the trunk portion to be more straight and robust to make the posture look more carangiform. I also forgot to mention that per Lindgren et al., (2014) we know that T. nepaeolicus had dark-colored skin (which seems to be interpreted as having countershading with the dorsal half of the body having a dark coloration similar to that of the leather-back sea turtle, but the paper itself wasn't very clear on this), but it seems that most of the usable Tylosaurus restorations we have have light grey skin. While all of the restorations are specifically either T. proriger or T. pembinensis, its possible that those species had similar cases of dark skin. Maybe it's possible to darken those parts in File:Tylosaurus proriger12DB.jpg and also in File:Tylosaurus pembinensis 1DB.jpg and File:Tylosaurus-proriger.jpg?
As for adding the tail fluke in the original restoration, here's a crude sketch that I made prior to attempting to add textures, mostly based on Hartman's skeletal:[72]. Part of the tail with the fluke drawn over it was edited to bend 40 degrees downwards from the horizontal plane, meaning that it's bent lower than it is in the original. Macrophyseter | talk 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for dark coloured T. nepaeolicus, I just noticed there is a free NT image of it:[73] Can it be used as is? Because then we'd at least have one image of the correct species with the right colour, and then I think we could be more lax with the others since they, after all, are not the same species (belonging to the same genus says little about colouration in extant animals). FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're at it, NT also has a free image of Mosasaurus missouriensis:[74] FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both images are great! I've added them to their respective articles. You are right about the fact that T. nepaeolicus having dark skin doesn't necessarily mean that the other species have to have them as well; I was hoping that the dark-skin findings would be represented somewhere, but the new image solves that. Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a white square on the bottom left of File:Mosasaurus missouriensis NT.png   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the whole BG white instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promexyele species reconstruction

edit
 

Hello, I have illustrated the two species of Promexyele , P. peyeri (top) and P. bairdi (bottom). How do they look? I also apologize if the formatting is bad in this, I am very new to adding things here

Calamacow75 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about iniopterygians but a few things seem off from the description:
  • The head seems too elongated.
  • The first ray of the pelvic fin seems too thick.
  • There is a hooked pelvic apparatus that appears to be missing.
  • The claspers are supposed to be tipped with small denticles.
But otherwise the diagnostic traits of both species seem to be present. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megaloceros giganteus range map

edit
 

Drawn using locality data from this figure of The extinction of the giant deer Megaloceros giganteus (Blumenbach): New radiocarbon evidence (Open access) Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

does the source say anything about Irish elk inhabiting the North Sea? A lack of fossils from there is most likely because no one digs at the bottom of the sea. Also the source shows fossils from the tip of Denmark so why is that cut off here?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this paper discusses a specimen from the North Sea (which is mentioned in the article), but it's only 10 km from the current shoreline (I think it's the pink dot off the coast of the netherlands on the map). There's no specific discussion about the North Sea, but I thought it was a reasonable interpretation of LGM map. The denmark one is because just below the tip of Jutland is a specimen, the map also shows for the time period that the specimen comes from (34-55 kya) the area immediately north was covered by an ice sheet. It's also not entirely accurate in other areas as it includes parts of the Alps which were glaciated and therefore uninhabitable, but since the area of the Alpine glaciation varies during the last ice age it's not really mappable. Hemiauchenia (talk)
The water doesn't recede that far until after the beginning of the Holocene, and your source says the northernmost limit was 58°N which is north of Denmark, and also the southernmost extent was 43°N so the bottom line is a bit too northerly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, that that the grey zones on the maps mean that the area was glaciated at the time, which it is immediately to the North of the Danish specimen on the 54-35 kya map. I think that the upper latitude limit refers to the specimen from the Scottish Highlands and the ones near Lake Baikal. Stuart et al 2004 and Vislobokova 2012 show ranges that extend deep into the caucasus and to the coast on the ukranian region, but the 2019 paper notes that many previous records were base on misidentified red deer, so I'm trying to work on securely identified records only. Also 43 degrees North looks pretty close to the Pyrenees and Balkans records from what I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I just was at a museum with some Danish specimens yesterday but didn't take photos, but they're very fragmentary anyway, so probably of little use for the article. I have a book about Danish fossil mammals that says Megaloceros has also been found in Scania, Sweden, but that's absent from this map. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Late Pleistocene remains of giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus Blumenbach) in Scandinavia: Chronology and environment" They are only known from the very SW tip of Skane, I have modified the map to accomodate this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it will look a bit better when cropped, so that it just includes Japan on the right edge and Sri Lanka on the bottom edge; the range would be a bit more in the centre, it would also be larger, making it easier to spot the details. This is a purely subjective style consideration of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cropped the map to better centre it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megalolamna reconstruction

edit
 

Noticed the lack of a reconstruction for the Megalolamna page (which itself is in severe need for expansion), and went along with drawing the shark myself. Based its features off of extant lamnid sharks, mainly the great white and porbeagle, primarily because of its dental characteristics and suggested ecology being similar to them. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can't say much about shark anatomy, but could you have a look at your first Squalicorax section on this page so we can get closure to that restoration as well? FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts from Macrophyseter? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slate Weasel, what happened to your Megalolamna reconstruction?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fossil I initially based it on turned out to be that of an odontaspid. I recently updated it based on other shark species, but it has yet to receive any feedback (its section is located further up). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say much given that the species is based on teeth suggesting a more generalist predator. Shimada et al. (2017) interprets the species as a sort of intermediate between Cretalamna and Otodus, but I guess your interpretation works fine. Macrophyseter | talk 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deinosuchus riograndensis

edit
 

A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Scott Hartman. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.

Should definitely be cropped. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it has an alligator-shaped head, but this one looks more like a Nile crocodile   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undersized Wadiasaurus scale diagram

edit
 
Wadiasaurus diagram by Smokeybjb

This scale diagram for the dicynodont Wadiasaurus indicus may be undersized. It's based on a skeletal diagram in Ray (2006) which seems to reconstruct the skull at around 15 cm in length. However, Wadiasaurus has been described as a "medium-sized" to "moderately large size" kannemeyeriiform (which can get quite big). Moreover, Roy-Chowdhury (1970) and Bandyohapadhyay (1988) both estimate a skull length of about 40 cm. The various published skull diagrams are composites based on specimens from multiple age classes, though they also seem to be based on the same specimens. Unfortunately, many of the earlier publications do not have scale bars, and instead have scaling information like "1/4 natural size", which is only really useful in a print copy. Can anyone who is more experienced with scaling try to edit the diagram or resolve this conflicting information? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:

  • Roy-Chowdhury (1970): Two new dicynodonts from the Triassic Yerrapalli Formation of central India.[76]
  • Bandyopadhyaya (1988): A kannemeyeriid dicynodont from the Middle Triassic Yerrapalli Formation.[77]
  • Ray (2006): Functional and evolutionary aspects of the postcranial anatomy of dicynodonts (Synapsida, Therapsida).[78]
I've given it a go of scaling up the silhouette to match the ~40 cm skull length estimates[79], and I can upload the replacement SVG if everyone else is happy with it.
I couldn't find any reason to doubt the ~40 cm estimate, and although detailed measurements of the skull are lacking I did find a paper (Ray, Bandyopadhyay & Appana 2009[80]) that contained measurements of limb bones from different size classes, including individuals ">60% adult size" that corroborate the large body size (some of the largest bones are almost as long as the animal currently in the diagram!). I made a rough scale based on these lengths, which produced a larger animal and a skull length noticeably exceeding 40 cm.[81] However, this is based on some conjecture on my part, and also relies on Ray's skeletal being correctly proportioned (which it may not be given Wadiasaurus is known from a bonebed), so I'd personally stick with the first diagram based on skull length alone. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you happy with this version, Fanboyphilosopher? If so, you can probably make an SVG, DrawingDinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mosasaur Size Comparisons

edit
 
Plotosaurus
 
Platecarpus
 
Plioplatecarpus
 
Goronyosaurus
 
Yaguarasaurus

Here's a Plotosaurus size comparison, the first mosasaur chart by me that matches my new style. I hope to add another (Plioplatecarpus and perhaps Prognathodon), as well as update Platecarpus, Goronyosaurus (finally getting to things that don't start with "P"), Clidastes, and Tylosaurus. How does this first one look? I wonder if the skulls are perhaps too small (they're larger here: [82]), as the holotype (smallest one) should have a total length of 4.2 m according to more than one source. Hmm... Plotosaurus would look an awful lot like an ichthyosaur if it had a dorsal fin... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main differences appear to be that Lindgren et al. reconstruct a longer axial skeleton and larger flippers than Camp, as well as a slightly deeper torso (due to the incomplete ribcage)... but the verts also seem to be scaled differently. Not totally sure what's going on there but it could be due to the composite nature of both reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled down the postcrania to match the 46cm skull length and 4.2m total length. The proportions are now intermediate between the Lindgren and Camp skeletals. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the curve is a pose? Additionally, I wonder if there is a non-amateur source that can be cited for the reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1: yes 2: I don't know. I didn't find any, but I can definitely try to. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page: [83] from North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources that has a supposed Plioplatecarpus skeletal cited to Carroll (1988), a publication that I can't seem to find with Google Scholar and isn't listed on the Oceans of Kansas website. Any clue what publication this might be? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can identify Carroll (1988) as his well-known vertebrate palaeontology textbook: [84] But I cannot find a Plioplatecarpus, at least not where I would expect it to show. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps IJReid has some input on this one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theres not much to say it seems to match my skeletal and thats all I know about it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather careless and accidentally named it File:Yaguarasauurs Scale.svg, it seems. I've requested a move to the correct filename. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 
Clidastes
 
Opetiosaurus
Seems quite a bit more rotund than the life reconstruction. Any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the ribcage was restored in the aigialosaur (first listed) paper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Perhaps the reconstruction needs revision... its chest looks more like A. dalmaticus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found a diagram of all the "important" Tylosaurus species (except T. pembinensis, but Hartman's skeletal covers that) here: [85], so this will be a major reference for the Tylosaurus update when it comes. Additionally, would halisaurines have had bilobous caudal fins? If so, then the "basal ichthyosaur" shape would have evolved at least three different times in Mosasauridae (as the basalmost mosasaurine known, Dallasaurus, preserves claws [86]). Then again, so did flippers, apparently. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Polcyn et al. (2012) suggest that halisaurines had caudal fins based on caudal morphology. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this resolved, Lythronaxargestes and Slate Weasel?`FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment. The follow-up is at #Tylosaurus size comparison. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The halisaurine size chart I was contemplating making will probably just be given its own section upon completion (although I actually still need to start it). I think that this entire section's been completed, with the diagrams either added to their respective pages or their pages being too crowded. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordodon

edit
 

The user who drew Thanos has also uploaded a Lisowicia and Gordodon, the latter of which has been added to the article. How accurate is it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple things stick out to me on the Gordodon. First is the ear hole, which shouldn't be there as pelycosaur-grade synapsids wouldn't have any visible external ears. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of the "cross-bar" tubercles on its neural spines, which should at least be visible on the sail above the 'hump' at the bottom (the presence of those tubercles all the way down the neural spines might also go against the interpretation of a 'hump' at the bottom, but that point seems more debatable). I'm a bit unsure about the skin texture with rows of large rounded 'scales', but it doesn't seem so egregiously wrong as to be detrimental to the picture in my opinion. DrawingDinosaurs (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably contact the user so he can fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try pinging Juan(-username-) to see if he can sort anything. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the long absence. And thanks for realizing and pointing out the innaccuracies of my reconstruction. During this month I will remake this one as well as the Lisowicia and also upload some fossil animals without images yet. And also create my profile here on Wikimedia. Juan(-username-) 12:20, 04 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still on this, Juan(-username-)? Otherwise we might have to tag it as inaccurate and archive this section. Or does someone else want to fix it? I can give it a try also. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ear, but I'm not sure I understand the other issues, so I might need to get it spelled out, DrawingDinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of what I meant was that Gordodon has those little cross-bars on the side of its spines like Edaphosaurus(middle spine here), which look to be missing in this one. My comment on the hump was to do with those cross-bars being present down pretty close to the base of the spine, which I would think implies that the spines were exposed in a sail down pretty close to the back rather then buried under a thick hump (and I'm not even sure there's anything to suggest such a hump in pelycosaurs to begin with). Hope that clears it up. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't noticed it was supposed to be a hump until now. Hmmm, I could remove the line that "defines" the upper line of the hump? The cross-bars will be more difficult, so will have to wait. Or would they maybe not have been visible in life? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm able to tell, the notion that sailbacked pelycosaurs had a hump is a misinterpretation of the sail anatomy that arose around the same time as that sailless Dimetrodon meme. I think the notion arose because people heard that the epaxial muscles extended onto the neural spines (as they do in all vertebrates), and interpreted this as meaning that the epaxial muscles extended well onto the sail as a "hump". In actuality, the epaxial muscles were no deeper than in sailless taxa; the transition point on the neural spines that shows where the epaxial musculature ended was only a few centimeters above the zygapophyses. In other words, we can safely consider the hump inaccurate. The crossbars probably would have been visible in life. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now painted out the weird hump, so now it's at least much closer to accurate than before... FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cenozoic fauna

edit

Life restorations of Cenozoic fauna taxa by Петр Меньшиков. There are no reconstructions in articles about many of these species yet. HFoxii (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're pretty crude, and I don't quite understand the shadows. The hind limb on Enaliarctos reminds me of a turkey drumstick, the limb proportions for Lestodon don't seem right, I'd think Cetotherium would have a pleated throat like other baleen whales, the tail spikes for Eleutherocercus don't seem to match the fossil (but I could be wrong), the front limb of Vulpavus looks like it begins at the bottom of the throat, that's not what a giraffe head looks like, I guess Kubanochoerus is okay, the whiskers for Pakicetus looks like they were just scribbled on and I don't think its proportions are correct (and the feet look too small), Diadiaphorus has a weird looking tail, and Rhinotitan has a clunky horn   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that the fuzz on Dinornis, Vulpavus, and Ceratogaulus doesn't look very realistic, and I fear that the integument of Lestodon is even stranger. I agree about the shadows, it obscures the anatomy and makes them look as though they're suspended in midair. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are tail fossils of Eleutherocercus known? According to Cuadrelli et al., 2020, it is a sister taxon of spiked on the tail Doedicurus. HFoxii (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caudal tube fragments are known for both species of Elutherocercus but I don't believe they preserve the distal portion. This seems fine to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a Miocene glyptodont, shouldn't the tail spikes be less prominent? Also, the biggest spikes would've been along the edge, but this image completely lacks spikes on the edge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has been constested by another paper but I can't read the specifics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was unaware of that, but I suppose that it isn't too surprising. Tortoises (File:Galapagos Turtle skeleton.jpg) seem to have differently-shaped feet than meiolaniids anyways though, don't they? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Tetrapod Size Comparisons

edit

Throughout August, I've decided to make size comparisons for variety of Permian tetrapods. I've identified ~40 possible taxa suitable for this purpose. Here are three, or, actually, two. To my slight embarrassment, I didn't realize that we already had a Diictodon size comparison until after uploading mine, so the third diagram is a bit superfluous. The other two are currently lacking size comparisons, though. Any comments on these? I must admit that my understanding of dicynodont anatomy is a little rusty. I'm currently working on Suminia. The extensiveness of this little project becomes will depend upon how much time I have. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I'd say your overall anatomy is looking fine, just a few comments on specifics. The lower limbs on the Endothiodon could do with being bulked up, SAM-PK-K011271 preserves much more robust pairs of radii/ulnae and fibulae/tibulae than was incompletely constructed for the AMNH mount. The forefeet could also be upsized by almost twice as much as well based on SAM-PK-K011271, it really makes the AMNH mount look dainty by comparison. This last one's possibly optional, but it's been noted that a number of Endothiodon skulls preserve a massive pineal boss that looks a bit like a "bone periscope" in Kammerer's words[87]. It may only develop in the largest individuals, but seeing how the diagram is scaled to SAM-PK-K011271 it might be worth including.
The abrupt change in depth between the ischium and tail in the other two is a little jarring, but that might just be my personal preferences talking. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 00:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endothiodon is outrageous. I've added a bit more flesh in the caudal regions of Dicynodon and Diictodon, too. How do these updates look? Suminia and Procynosuchus have been uploaded, any thoughts on those? Next up will be gorgonopsians, probably Lycaenops and Rubidgea. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procynosuchus looks imbalanced. Repose the front limb? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suminia and the dicynodonts all look good to me (I've never appreciated how long its hands were when they're not wrapped around a branch, wow). DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 08:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's Rubidgea, and it's pretty big! Its reconstructed canine teeth are so long that I couldn't think of a way to cover them with lips without giving the animal a ridiculous amount of oral tissue, so they are exposed here. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Christian Kammerer has told me on Twitter that he thinks the canines of Rubidgea were probably covered by lips [88]. My best guess as to how that would be possible is that the jaws probably couldn't close as tightly as is shown in most depictions of the skull, so the canine wouldn't protrude past the lower jaw. That aside, it looks kind of weedy to me—are you sure it shouldn't be bulked up some more? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to beef it up a bit, does this look better. I tried to rotate the jaw further, but I still can't seem to get the canines to fit within lips, and I believe that I've already been rather liberal with the flesh on the underside of the mandible. Additionally, here's a Lycaenops, any thoughts on that? There was also a Scymnognathus (apparently Gorgonops now) skeletal in the Lycaenops paper, so that taxon's probably what will come next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two more - Gorgonops and Titanophoneus. Comments? Also, I can't seem to get the cite book template to work properly on Commons, does anyone know how to do so? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the author fields, they don't work and you'll have to add them manually. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've solved the issues with the author parameters, but what about the editors? Additionally, here are Jonkeria and Moschops, which will probably be it for therapsids. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Head posture on Moschops checks out. Ornithopsis may want to weigh in on Titanophoneus? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything clearly objectionable about the Titanophoneus. It's possible you should consider tilting the Titanophoneus and Jonkeria heads downward slightly; if I recall correctly, the heads of all dinocephalians exhibited a downward tilt, albeit not to the extreme of tapinocephalids. See fig. 8 of [89]. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll modify the head posture soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing—you might want to check the tail length on Moschops. The tail of the famous mount is mostly reconstructed; the complete vertebral column of Tapinocaninus shows that the tail of tapinocephalids was a good deal shorter than previously believed. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How much shorter should it be? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty darn short [90]. I don't think I have anything else to say about any of these for now, they look fine. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man, that puts even Jonkeria to shame! I've shrunk the tail on Moschops, is this enough or is more shrinking needed? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me now. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pantelosaurus has been completed (note that the cited source refers to it as 'Haptodus' saxonicus). Palaeohatteria will come tomorrow. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misspelled Sphenacodon ferocior. Other than that, I don't see any issues. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palaeohatteria has arrived! Thoughts? Tomorrow should bring in some edaphosaurids unless I decide to make a chart for Ianthodon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little late, but here are size comparisons for Edaphosaurus, Lupeosaurus, and Gordodon. I noticed that the newer skeletal that I based E. cruciger on had a significantly shorter tail than the older skeletals used for the other two species (and Lupeosaurus, for that matter). Should the tail lengths of these long-tailed ones be reduced? Is there anything else that seems off? Ianthasaurus will be next. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that much of our Lupeosaurus article is plagiarized from its entry at Palaeos. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ianthasaurus had come. Comments? Next up will probably be Ophiacodon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the various edaphosaurids I suggest at least verifying against this image from Spindler et al: [91] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ophiacodon has been completed. (O. retroversus is gigantic!) I've not yet checked the edaphosaurs but the image you linked does seem to support a longer tail in Edaphosaurus boanerges. I'll take a closer look at this soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've taken a closer look, and this suggests that the limbs and skull of E. boanerges are too small, and Ianthasaurus is quite ill-proportioned and too small. Is this ([92]) the paper that image is from? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aerosaurus is here. Archaeovenator, it turns out, is actually from the Carboniferous, but since I already drew a silhouette for it, I may still upload it later as a bonus. Next up will be Ennatosaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ennatosaurus has been completed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128449 gives an Archosaurus total size estimate (you'll have to download it as a Word document)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, it was very useful! Here's the size comparison. Archosaurus apparently was very big (for a Permian land animal, at least). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing your Archosaurus to the figure and measurements of the holotype in Ezcurra et al. 2014, you've made it somewhere around 33% to 50% bigger than it should be. Additionally, shouldn't it have lips? Finally, this Archosaurus (and several other of these diagrams, such as Orobates and Seymouria) look too erect-limbed to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added lips and made it more low-slung (similar posture changes were made to Orobates and Seymouria), but Bernardi et. al. (2015) estimate the skull length of Archosaurus to be 46 cm, which matches the size shown here. Are there any other creatures who need their posture revised (I'll keep this in mind for the temnospondyls)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Bernardi et al.'s skull length estimate, this scale diagram objectively does not match the actual measurements of the only known specimen[93]. Are you certain you got the proportions right? Honestly, most of these still look too upright, even the ones you've now updated—pretty much the only exceptions are the therapsids, which are supposed to be mostly upright. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check Archosaurus a bit more thoroughly. As for adjusting the postures, I'm wondering if lowering the torsos and making the forearms and shins less vertical might do the trick (for whatever reason, I seem to have difficulty drawing sprawlers in SVG). Any other recommendations to make them more realistic? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ornithopsis, I think that I found the source of both issues. The skull reconstruction that I was referencing gave it a "short" snout, whereas Bernardi et. al. were presumably assuming more Proterosuchus-like proportions. I cut out the premaxilla, dentary, and skull roof from that diagram, then superimposed them on Paul's reconstruction of Proterosuchus, leading to a significantly longer skull. I didn't quite reach the estimated skull length, but the body size still checks out (since the back of the skull is obscured in the silhouette, I would think that it allows for more wiggle room). I also rearranged the limbs even more, so that the humeri and femora are basically in the same plane as the torso in the near limbs. I've moved the limbs further apart, too, seeing as modern sprawlers of roughly comparable ecomorphies (Komodo dragons) put their limbs pretty far apart while walking. The animal has actually changed from looking rather goofy- to reasonably believable-looking with this update, which would appear to be a good sign. How does it look, accuracy-wise? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claudiosaurus' scapulocoracoid looks weird. Are you sure it would jut out anteriorly like that, or should there be more tissue there? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more tissue, since I assume that it would need such streamlining as a swimmer. How does this look? The scapulocoracoid is really big and the head's pretty small, so I think that a little weirdness of profile is inevitable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. Should be OK. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thadeosaurus has arrived. Comments? The article claims that it was 60cm long, but that's cited to the Marshall Encyclopedia, an older and non-technical source. I've scaled the animal to the size indicated in Fig. 29 in Carrol (1981) here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here's Hovasaurus. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pareiasaurs begin with Deltavjatia. Next up will probably be Scutosaurus, then either Anthodon or Pareiasaurus (I'm leaning more towards the former at the moment). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun work on Scutosaurus, but it's wound up at barely more than 1.5m. Does anyone know of any measurements or how long the scale bar in Figure 2 of this paper is supposed to be? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's 15 cm according to Lee (1997)[94], which from a rough straight line measurement puts the skeletal at around 2.3 metres long. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! Scutosaurus is terrifyingly large. I forgot how tedious drawing armor is. Anthodon probably won't come until tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anthodon is the one that won in the end. Comments? Now that I've overloaded my brain drawing osteoderms, it's time to do the same with teeth (Mesosaurus will be next). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The limbs seem more upright here than in the life restoration, which feels kind of procolophonid-like. Perhaps the latter needs to be updated... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be due to a wonky perspective. Additionally, here's Mesosaurus, the last amniote I plan to do for this project. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anteosaurus and Estemmenosuchus seem like shoe-ins here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely considered doing those two taxa, but wasn't able to find any super good resources in the literature. I may make them further on in the future, though, if I can find some good resources, I've actually found quite a few other Permian genera in my searches that seem like ideal candidates for size charts for the future. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an Orbates, thoughts? Also, does anyone have any good resources for Diadectes? I've found various skeletal reconstructions, bone measurements, and specific assignments, but never a combination of all three for one diagram/photo. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Diadectes, I managed to find Cope's original description of Diadectes tenuitectus and scale the silhouette to the skull length provided there. How does this look? Next up will be some lepospondyls, I believe. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lepospondyl. Diplocaulus has arrived in all its boomerang-headed glory. I've drawn it in dorsal view since that illustrates in anatomy better, and since that's how the reference material I found restored it. Comments? Next up will be Seymouria, then some temnospondyls. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Seymouria. Is the tail too long? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be much shorter in the "Tambach lovers" S. sanjuanensis, which I suppose is the closest taxon with a reasonably complete tail. But I'm not sure how caudal morphology compares between the two.
Also note that there is a newer skull reconstruction, which seems to account better for crushing: [95] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seymouria had a pretty large skull and barely any neck, so the proportions can probably be altered. Also, it might be a good idea to acknowledge the Diplocaulus skin flap hypothesis? And this is just a general critique, but many sprawling taxa look to have a very upright stance which may not be parsimonious considering the stance of modern reptiles and amphibians. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the Seymouria. I thought that the extent of such soft tissue in Diplocaulus was still debated? I've updated the postures of Archosaurus, Orobates, and Seymouria (Ornithopsis brought this up above), are there any others that should be altered? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fanboyphilosopher - I've added some more extensive soft tissue to the basicranial/cervical/pectoral region of the Diplocaulus to be a bit more like these two life restorations. We do have another life restoration that showed less flesh, but I suppose that showing a more moderate profile is perhaps more reasonable for a diagram like this. Does this level of soft tissue appear acceptable? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two of the promised temnospondyls, Archegosaurus and Peltobatrachus. Does the posture of the latter better depict sprawling than some of my previous diagrams? I thought that I'd left the troubles of drawing armor behind with pareiasaurs, but Peltobatrachus proved me wrong. Anyways, any comments on these two? Two more temnospondyls will be coming tomorrow. Also, I've updated the posture of Protorosaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something I don't get about these armoured temnospondyls... do we have any reason to think that the armour would have been visible externally? Or would have they been covered by skin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cacops seems to have a set of internal and a set of external osteoderms: [96]. I'm not sure exactly what "external" means in this context, is it just outside the inner row or visible in life? The osteoderms of Peltobatrachus are referred to as dermal armo(u)r in the description paper, which would presumably mean armor plates embedded in the skin (akin to ankylosaurs?)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further into the Peltobatrachus paper, the armor apparently was internal in many forms, such as Eryops and Archegosaurus. However, it seems to be implied that forms with larger, ornamented osteoderms, such as dissorophids and plagiosaurs would have had prominent armor in life. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this Eryops look, is the body too elevated? I'm not sure if Cacops will come today or if it will come tomorrow. I've adjusted the postures of Thadeosaurus and Sphenacodon, do those look any better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They look reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cacops is finally here! Comments? This is the last size chart that I plan to do for this project, so from now on I'll be mainly working to update the stances of the ones in need of updating. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just updated Protorosaurus, Varanosaurus, Ophiacodon, and Lupeosaurus. How do these look? Ophiacodon looks a little awkward, but so do big lizards and crocodilians when they're running at full throtle, and, anyways, it looks less awkward than before. On the other hand, I'm not to confident about Lupeosaurus - were the modifications any improvement? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Youngina and Captorhinus have also been updated, thoughts on those? As for pareiasaurs, didn't they have more vertical limbs or is that now thought to be outdated? I assume that Claudiosaurus, Hovasaurus, and Mesosaurus are immune to the posture issues in the charts due to them not actually being shown standing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that it was only Bunostegos [97], the glenoid of which is oriented ventroposteriorly instead of laterally (as in many other pareiasaurs). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I've updated Ianthasaurus, Varanops, and Aerosaurus, as well as updating the "updated" Orobates, Diadectes, and Seymouria. I think that Palaeohatteria, Edaphosaurus, Gordodon, and the pareiasaurs are all that's left to be updated. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in addition to some minor formatting fixes, I've updated Palaeohatteria, Edaphosaurus, Gordodon, Deltavjatia, Scutosaurus, and Anthodon. I may add some more flesh to Diplocaulus later on today, but otherwise I think that I've addressed all the feedback, unless, of course, anyone has some more. I also will create some more categories on Commons relatively soon to better organize the files, I fear that I may have clogged up the categories there a bit. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Random Tetrapod Size Comparisons

edit
 
Trematolestes
 
Archaeovenator
 
Proterosuchus

While working on the Permian size charts, I came across a paper with skeletal diagrams for quite a few temnospondyls. I used one of as a reference to draw a chart for the Triassic trematosaurid temnospondyl Trematolestes (which turns out to have quite terrific alliteration). While working on varanopids, I actually drew an entire silhouette for Archaeovenator before reading the paper title and learning that it was actually from the Carboniferous. I've restored the tail to be twice the length of the preserved segment, following the paper's estimation. As for Proterosuchus, much of my Archosaurus' skull is made of Proterosuchus material, as well as the entire postcranium, so it seemed like a good idea to give the younger taxon a chart. Any thoughts on these?

Also, it seems that it's no longer possible to license files on Commons with PD-self? While we're at it, is it possible to change the licenses of one's own files? It would be nice for some of my earlier mosasaur size comparisons to have PD licenses matching the newer ones. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:
  • Where is the total tail length of Archaeovenator inferred from?
  • This goes for both Proterosuchus and Archosaurus — at second glance they seem a bit front-heavy? As in, I'm not sure the heads should be raised that high. Granted, they do have long tails. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caudal length for Archaeovenator was extrapolated from the rough estimate of 2/3 of the tail being missing (page 672 of the cited paper). As for the proterosuchids, I honestly don't know how high they could raise their heads, although wouldn't stretching the neck out further make them more front-heavy? I'd guess that they'd be able to briefly raise their heads to look around for prey and danger, but I'm not totally sure. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my issue with the proterosuchids is not so much head position as it is musculature... I think a thicker neck would be needed to maintain that position? Particularly the epaxial muscles at the base of the neck. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a better amount or should I beef up the pectoral region a bit more? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archosaurus has received the same modifications. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tristychius

edit
 
Tristychius

Uploaded to the page without review. Shark anatomy's not my forte so perhaps Macrophyseter has some thoughts?. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more versed with lamniformes, and so I'm afraid I don't have too much knowledge on more primitive types of sharks. But taking a quick look at the recent fossil developments of the genus, I can only nitpick in that both dorsal fins could have been a bit bigger (which may not even matter), but otherwise it seems to me that your reconstruction is fine. I would recommend stating the distinction between your reconstruction evidently based on the skull study by Coates et al. (2019) and older reconstructions, and maybe stating that the previous reconstruction on the page may be outdated. Either that or mention the study in text. Macrophyseter | talk 06:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This paper seems to provide a very different proportions ([98]) for Tristychius compared to what's seen here. I don't have access to Coates et. al. (2019), so I'm not sure how much of this is due to historical interpretations and how much is genuine. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I see would be the end of the tail fin, and it indicates that portion is unknown (i. e., you can safely guess any proportion you choose so long as it's logical)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to note, since I was a bit vague in my original comment; this isn't my restoration, but Cameron Spahn's. I've messaged him to let him know about the review page however. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paranthropus robustus

edit
 
Reference skull
 
Reconstruction

This is my first time doing paleoart. I reconstructed the female specimen DNH 7 based on the skull the left. I'll have to fix up the hair on the chest so it looks less weird, but any comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you getting into paleoart, I certainly wouldn't say primates are the easiest place to start! The nose seems like it could be rotated a bit towards the right to account for the perspective. And I'm wondering if the ears aren't too small for a human relative, considering it is bracketed by humans and chimpanzees which have pretty large ears? The ears here seem more like those of a gorilla. There doesn't seem to be much of a neck, and the shoulders could be wider, compared to this restoration from a similar perspective:[99] Apart from this, I can't say much, not exactly being an expert on hominids... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
how's it now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but again, I'm certainly no expert, so perhaps others can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just put it up now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Updating the Adelophthalmus, Adelophthalmidae and Hughmilleria size diagrams

edit
 
Hughmilleria
 
Adelophthalmus
 
Adelophthalmidae

I am surprised I did not request this at its time, but two years ago a species of Adelophthalmus that is considerably larger than the rest of the species was described. This species is A. khakassicus, which reached 32 cm, so both ([100][101]) size diagrams need to be updated. Other smaller Adelophthalmus species have also been described, but 15 species in the size diagram is more than enough and it is not necessary to include them.

I would also like to change the size diagram of Hughmilleria. For some reason I remember requesting the largest known Hughmilleria to be marked as separate from the 3 species even though it belongs to H. socialis, so I'd want the figure marked as the "largest known Hughmilleria" to be replaced by H. socialis.

I am not in any special rush for these requests so whoever decides to take them can take as long as he wants. Thanks. Super Ψ Dro 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Hughmilleria update, do you recall which source we used for the estimated lengths of Hughmilleria? It would probably be a good idea to include it in the file description. I'll look into updating Adelophthalmus relatively soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that I wanted there to be only 3 silhouettes, that is, remove the small H. socialis and remove "largest known" from the name of the large one. Sorry, I didn't know exactly how to say this in English... And yes, the source is this. It's the supplementary info of this article. Super Ψ Dro 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, is this better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is. I have checked the original request for this diagram and apparently, the article of Hughmilleria used to give the average size of each species, not the maximum size. H. socialis is good and the size of H. wangi seems to be correct as well (6 cm), but H. shawangunk measured 12 cm, not 8 cm as the article said back then, so that should be fixed too. Super Ψ Dro 13:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the sizes of the two smaller species (H. wangi was also too small, I think that I used to just scale by eye (!) back then). I'll start work on Adelophthalmus either today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Now it looks good. Super Ψ Dro 18:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just reread your comment, sorry about that... I do wonder if some of the species with identical sizes should be removed, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the image, any thoughts? How does this method of organization look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice! And yes, I think it would be better to remove some of the species with the same size. If I had to choose between two species, I would rather remove A. luceroensis instead of A. sievertsi (earliest species) and A. zadrai and A. waterstoni instead of A. granosus (type species). I have no preference between A. mansfieldi and A. pennsylvanicus. Super Ψ Dro 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the updates. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why would you remove species just because they're the same size?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't they too many species in a single image? Super Ψ Dro 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no limit. You should put down all the species for which reliable size estimates have been made. How is the reader supposed to know which species you lopped off because it was the same size as another one?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We know the size of 20 species of Adelophthalmus, almost double of species featured now. Adding a silhouette for each would be excessive. Maybe we could add a slash for the species with the same size? For example, instead of "A. mansfieldi", we could put "A. mansfieldi/A. pennsylvanicus" or "A. mansfieldi/pennsylvanicus". Maybe a "&" could be used instead. Super Ψ Dro 15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a problem if the species differed in anatomy, since by using silhouettes we claim that the species all look like that and have that size. That being said, I assume these are just the same silhouette at different sizes anyway? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are the same silhouette. It would be too much effort if we added the differences of each species of Adelophthalmus. Some are fragmentary anyway or we don't have much information about them (like for example A. douvillei). And even if we added the differences of each species, the reader would not be able to see them unless he clicked on the photo and even then they would not be very noticeable in the smaller species. I dont think it's worth it. Super Ψ Dro 19:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. But in that case I wouldn't label one silhouette multiple species still, given the implication. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we can let it as how it is now. Super Ψ Dro 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is it possible to add species whose exact sizes are not given but whose measurements of their body parts are known? I'm saying this because I would like to add Bassipterus to the size diagram of Adelophthalmidae. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your silhouette was not only limited to that body part, I'd be concerned about WP:OR. Unless there is a full-body reconstruction in the literature? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there isn't. Super Ψ Dro 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good! Thank you for all these updates! Super Ψ Dro 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulocetus

edit
 

Could someone cut out the skeleton onto a white or black background? It's the best image of an Ambulocetus skeleton on the Commons, but the background's a bit noisy, and the sculpture on the bottom right makes the image a copyvio (no FOP in Italy)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the base image is a copyvio, I reckon the edit could be uploaded directly over the image? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a crop/clean background version should be uploaded over the original. The painting under the tail is also a copyvio (and the little skeletal model too). FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found a good one, so I'll just nominate this one for deletion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's needed if a crop can just do the job. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should now be fixed, as Mariomassone removed the background. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oculudentavis Size Comparison

edit
 
Oculudentavis holotype size comparison with human hand.

I noticed there wasn't a size comparison for Oculudentavis so I made this. I decided the animal/fossil is fairly significant, even if the exact classification is unclear. The diagram shows the currently described fossil material (skull in amber) with a bee hummingbird for scale. I know Oculudentavis (most likely) isn't a bird, so the hummingbird might feel out of place, but I thought it might make a good reference anyway, Thoughts or comments? SlvrHwk (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried that you might have reconstructed it, but this is pretty neutral. I like it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SVPOW links to a link to a chinese language article which gives much more detail on the situations, in which it states that they managed to find a second specimen with a postcranial squamate morphology. In SVPOW's translation it states:

The reporter found that the key to retracting the manuscript was "the authors discovered that research progress has been made on a new, more completely preserved specimen from the same locality." The team realized that the skull of the new specimen was very similar to HPG-15-3, but the postcranial skeleton showed a typical lepidosaurian form and should be classified as a lepidosaur. This indicates that HPG-15-3 is likely to belong to the Lepidosauria, contrary to the initial conclusion.

Lythronaxargestes can probably provide a more fluid translation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have directly edited the translation. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SlvrHwk: The second specimen has been published in a preprint would you like to tackle that as well? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice! I think I will start working on that. Before I begin, do you have any advice? SlvrHwk (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SlvrHwk: The preprint notes that both specimens have been crushed and distorted in different ways which is why they both look so different, just something to bear in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add some sort of tiny chameleon in addition to the hummingbird? Would provide a size comparison of something more closely related. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleLazyLass: That's a great idea, I'm just not entirely sure how to carry it out. If I were to add a chameleon, I suppose the most logical choice would be B. micra. My main concern with adding another object is that the diagram would look overcrowded with the hand, hummingbird, chameleon, and two Oculudentavis specimens. Is there a way I could prevent this? Maybe remove the hummingbird? I'm open to suggestions. Anyway, the diagram is almost done, though I admit I've been very busy so it could be a little while before the diagram is finished. SlvrHwk (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be plenty of space to the left of the hand? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetrodon grandis

edit
 

This life restoration of Dimetrodon grandis added to article without review. HFoxii (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fairly competent. I forget, what's the status on external ears in basal synapsids? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain Dimetrodon and other pelycosaurs used bone conduction rather than an eardrum   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_12&oldid=1138358266"