Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 13

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology | Paleoart review
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Super Dromaeosaurus in topic Number of body segment of Pterygotus
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Request: Thylacosmilus size comparison

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I and Rextron are currently working on the Thylacosmilus article, and we think the size comparison there is overcrowded, so we'd like to ask if anyone wants to make one that only shows this genus? One size estimate is a 60 cm shoulder height (24 in) and head/body length of 140 cm (55 in) in the book Prehistoric Mammals by Alan Turner. But perhaps others have better estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh, is that existing size comparison a copyvio? The Inostrancevia looks pretty much identical to Raul Martin's: [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it, the various parts seem to be taken from many different sources... FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Mimetaster

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
restoration by

Added to the article by Franzanth without review. The restoration looks quite nice, however, the front pair of limbs seems a tad too large (Compare with the restoration in Kuhl and Rust, 2010).Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This reconstruction was actually painted over a 3D model based on Kuhl & Rust' diagram but I can see that the slanted perspective does give the impression that the front limbs are too thick. I've updated the file to mitigate this. User:Franzanth (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lips for sabertooths

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I've noticed that for dinosaurs, we've started reconstructing them with actual lips so that the teeth are sheathed away and protected from the elements. Why hasn't the same been done for sabertoothed cats? Having them outside in the open is surely quite destructive for the teeth, and the only animal which does this is musk deer which shed their fangs seasonally (which most certainly was not the case for sabertooths)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 
If even taz can do it...
There has been some discussion of this on blogs, and at least Mark Witton has argued against it.[5] And since no serious studies or paleoartists (Mauricio Anton would be the gold standard for modern mammal paleoart) have endorsed it, we probably shouldn't either. Even Tasmanian devils often have exposed canines, so not sure why it should not be possible for prehistoric predators (musk deer are certainly not the only animals with exposed fangs). I think we might be going a bit overboard with completely hiding the canines of for example gorgonopsians on older artwork here (pinging Monsieur X), as long as it is not demonstrably inaccurate, we should let the artists themselves decide. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
To quote the relevant part form Witton's post: "If this is so, only especially long teeth which project a considerable distance from the margins of the skull and lower jaw should be considered strong candidates for permanent exposure. Select examples might include the canines of certain mammalian carnivores (e.g. Smilodon and other machairodont felids), the tusks of fossil elephants and their relatives, and the larger tusks of dicynodonts. We should also note those fossil reptiles – such as certain crocodyliformes, pterosaurs and marine reptiles – where entire toothrows are composed of dentition so long that their tips extend well beyond the margins of the jaw skeleton. Such extensive dental apparatus would seem to preclude the development of any sheathing tissues, at least akin to those exhibited by from modern animals, and these animals probably had fully exposed toothrows in life." FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm definitely ok with any reverting or re-editing any of the things I did in the past. Some of them probably haven't aged well. Though, I generally tried to avoid covering long sabres, as seen with Bogdanov's Smilesaurus. Monsieur X (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it's likely the canines were exposed all the way to the root, so I think such restorations could at least have that part painted over. But if the tips poke out, as I did in my only ever gorgonopsian restoration[6] (I should probably remove that ear hole?), I don't think anyone could call it downright inaccurate, since there are modern mammals like that (as shown above). FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, reading Witton's post above, he does say "We have to concede that the dentitions of many fossil animals frequently shown with exposed teeth – particularly theropod dinosaurs, gorgonopsids and other carnivorous stem-mammals – are relatively no larger, and in some cases a great deal smaller, than those enclosed inside the oral tissues of living animals. . . For these species, it is very difficult to justify why their teeth should not be covered". Also by Witton's argument, scimitar-toothed cats (and Thylacosmilus?) shouldn't have exposed sabers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
In any case, we have no authoritative sources arguing for covered canines in the animals in question, and we shouldn't really be first movers, but follow published precedence. If someone wants to depict some of the animals with covered canines, that's fine, but we shouldn't run around fixing images that are not demonstrably inaccurate or tag them as such. There is no scientific consensus on whether Tyrannosaurus had lips, for example (Thomas Carr notably argues it didn't), so we can't say restorations that shows it without are inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Not to dip too deeply into irrelevant discussion, but Carr appears to be in the minority wrt Tyrannosaurus being lipless. The D. horneri paper, to my knowledge, put very little emphasis on how its facial scales would've affected the presence or absence of lips, and Scott Hartman has a very good article going into the less-discussed osteological tip-offs for liplessness. Spoilers, it's not quite as simple as tooth length. https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/the-lip-post1
In general, lips seem to be the rule to which musk deer, crocodiles, tasmanian devils etc. are the exception, presumably for various reasons, and so probably should be treated as such in palaeoart. Some have even pointed out that many extant birds have conspicuous lips closer to the corners of their mouths, where the beak tissues don't reach. It seems like the general consensus at the moment is that machairodonts had exposed sabres, and, for as much as my hobbyist opinion is worth, I'd agree. The fragility of their sabres does admittedly throw that somewhat into question, but perhaps they were kept intact by some sort of behavioural tendency which, of course, wouldn't have fossilised. Witton seems to lean towards the sheathed-fangs camp wrt gorgonopsids, though equally reputable artists have depicted them as exposed, so that one seems currently to be free game. God knows what was going on with Thylacosmilus at all at this point, though the size of its sabres are reminiscent enough of machairodonts to probably justify exposure. Given how many animals have lips compared to how few don't, I personally think lips should be incorporated by default until such a time as a paper comes out discussing, or even disproving, them more thoroughly in extinct taxa, dinosaurs very much included. --TKWTH (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
One problem is that most of this is discussed on blogs and personal websites. Carr's papers hold proportionately more weight for our purposes, because they're some of the few about the issue that have actually been peer-reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that none of Carr's papers actually discuss this topic. His opinions are well-documented elsewhere, but have yet to be formally described in a peer-reviewed environment. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Didn't the one with the "crododile scales" imply it, at least in the figures? Anyhow, yes, there is very little published about this issue, are there any actual publications that suggest lips? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Paraentelodon

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This life restoration of Paraentelodon intermedium was added by Xiphactinus88 to articles without review. HFoxii (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems kind of wonky overall, very big hooves and eye. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The artwork is a bit crude and doesn't mesh well with the photorealistic background. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I made this picture especially for animal’s demonstration. If you think that Paraentelodon looks too strange, that’s deserve an attention, but talking about meshing in encyclopedia is something out of doors. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Request: Yaksha peretti skull diagram

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

A new genus and species of albanerpetontid, Yaksha peretti has been described from Burmese amber, it comes with a complete articulated 3 dimensionally preserved skull, the paper is here, does anybody want to take this on? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am working on this myself now, should have something to show soon Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yaksha peretti skull diagram

 

I have gone ahead and drawn the skull in oblique view based on a render of the CT scan here, a 3d rotation video of the fossil can be found here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if you could give the skull itself a white background instead of transparent? Would be hard to see against, e.g., a dark-colored background. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That's probably easily doable with an additional layer at the bottom of the stack, I'll consider adding it tomorrow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 

Channeling my inner Fanboyphilosopher here. Essentially redrawn from this press release image (including the colour scheme, with some minor differences, notably I have omitted the sliver of the other jugal and a small part of the other dentary that were visible. The peach coloured bone between the lacrimal and the frontal doesn't actually appear in the research paper images that I was drawing the labelling from, and appears to just consider it part of the lacrimal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The legend is a bit cluttered. Break it up into two columns? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Done, also removed bone that wasn't in the paper diagram. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I managed to figure out the mystery bone is actually the prefrontal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Anurognathus

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

These restorations of Anurognathus is used in some articles, but has never been reviewed. HFoxii (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't see much obviously wrong? Pterosaurs arguably didn't take off bipedally, but here it is probably mainly for schematic purposes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest we might be better off reverting the skeletal back to its original version without any of the membranes included in the silhouette. As is, they're not in agreement with the general consensus on pterosaur wing membrane setup (i.e. attached to the ankle, tail free, plus the cruropatagium between the hindlimbs attached to the long 5th toes in this case). Graphically, I also don't think the quality of the membranes matches up with the rest of the silhouette... DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 18:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, forgot that, yeah, I agree it can just be reverted... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Peloneustes Life Restoration

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
 
 

Hello all, sorry about all of my inactivity lately. I'm hoping that I'll manage to carve out some more time for on-wiki activity now, and my Peloneustes project is one thing that I'm aiming to finish up. Our current life restoration of Peloneustes seems to be quite inaccurate. Here are some things that I notice:

  • The teeth are too small, it seems. It also appears to have lips - pretty sure that this wasn't the case for plesiosaurs.
  • The paddles lack trailing edges
  • The paddles are significantly too small - the hind paddles of Peloneustes were nearly as long as its torso: [7]
  • The tail lacks a caudal fin and is too thin

With all of these issues, I'm almost wondering if it might be easier just to create a new life restoration instead of editing this one (I may also create an in-situ life restoration for this guy anyways, since I think that the article could become quite long). Any thoughts on this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, though it should be doable for someone with Photoshop skills and knowledge of plesiosaur anatomy (not really me), there's probably better chance of someone just making a new one... FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of NT's sauropterygian images, the Sauropterygia navbox has been recently edited to show a variety of illustrations (by Nobu Tamura and DiBgd), none of which have passed through here as far as I know. Some of them seem to have significant errors. I've posted them all below for review:
I've noted some errors that I saw in the captions. Any comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
We deemed the Elasmosaurus acceptable for its FA but I agree with your comments on the other restorations. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I also heavily edited the Elasmosaurus following a discussion somewhere (the original version can be seen in the file history here[8]). Shouldn't be too hard to add flukes and enlarge paddles in some of the others, but I'll wait and see if more comments come up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 

Since there was quite a bit wrong with the above Cryptoclidus, I went ahead and made a new one in lateral view, based on the Brown skeletal. Does it look okay or is it too crude? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The level of detail looks good to me! One can always add a couple of wrinkles and creases to the skin here and there to make it look less smooth. While I'm not really an expert on these, one thing I'm wondering is whether the paddles could rotate vertically all the way up like that, or if it's just something that's done out of convenience in skeletals to make the bones of the paddle more visible? FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean rotated up to the point where they're at right angles with the torso, then no. I haven't intended to make them look like that here, although it may still not be a bad idea to rotate them outwards more. Additionally, while speaking of plesiosaur image updates, I've overhauled my Peloneustes skull diagram (posted at the top of this section for spacing concerns). It previously was basically identical to the reconstruction in Ketchum & Benson (2011), but since all known skulls of Peloneustes are crushed at some level, there is presumably a bit of leeway when it comes to restoration, and I've avoided using the reconstruction in the paper where possible for this. De-crushing specimens and restoring bones was pretty tricky (I sure won't be attempting Simolestes, that's for sure!). Anyways, I'll look into updating my Cryptoclidus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably relevant: Carpenter [9] indicates that the flipper of Thalassomedon could have rotated to 49° above the horizontal axis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The Cryptoclidus has been updated. Adding the skin folds in strategic places does help! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Definitely better than the older one. Further investigating reveals that not all's well with the skull - the snout could be a bit deeper, I'm not too convinced with the lipped posterior jaw seeing as the teeth are pretty consistent in size, the cranium extends too far back and seems to extend posteriormost at mid-height, and the paddles don't seem to have enough flesh. Here's the paper I referred to for the skull information: [10]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried to do the fixes to the head and fins you mentioned, of course not sure if it's enough. Seems these will take more work than I thought... I could probably fix them quickly if I knew better what to do about each of them, but my plesiosaur knowledge isn't too great. But if further explanatons can be given for each image, I can give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The new head looks nice. I've laid out the entire known skeleton of Macroplata based on the above paper, and it reveals that the problems seem to be even more extensive than I feared. First of all, the head is about 50% too large. The neck and tail could be made a tad longer, too. The forelimbs seem to be missing the gigantic shoulder muscles that plesiosaurs would have had (the front edge of the paddle would probably appear straighter as opposed to starkly convex as it is now, and the paddle should be broader where it joins with the body). The distal edge of the paddle looks a little rumpled, I'd assume that it would actually be pretty smooth (not sure why that concavity's there). I can't believe I missed it before, but the hind paddles should be the large of the two pairs, seeing that Macroplata is a pliosauroid. They are significantly too small at the moment (the epipodials don't actually fit into the paddle) and probably shouldn't be so pointed (although the distal limb elements are unknown in Macroplata). Also, I'm not totally sure about this, but the limbs might be rotated to far down at the moment. Hopefully this is helpful! (Additionally, now that I've whipped up a schematic, I may create a Macroplata size chart in December, once all the stuff for November's done.) Also, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and add my Cryptoclidus to the navbox. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Quick follow-up regarding the head: It's actually artificially small in my scaling attempt. For comparison, the skull should take up ~12% of the TL, the neck ~27%, the trunk ~26%, and the tail ~35%. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 
Kronosaurus
  • I've created this Kronosaurus, thinking that it could perhaps replace the Attenborosaurus in the navbox if deemed sufficiently accurate (since that would show a great diversity of plesiosaur body plans). How does this look, both accuracy-wise and stylistically? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The hind flippers also look like they are maybe rotated further up than they perhaps would need to be? But like before, I don't know what their range of motion would be. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The high-level phylogeny of plesiosaurs is not stable but I think there's a reasonable case for rhomaleosaurids being close to pliosaurids. You may want to consider a rounded tail fin like that inferred for Rhomaleosaurus: [11] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've lowered the paddles and rounded the fin, how does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Scaling Bunker on Tylosaurus size diagram

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
 
Size diagram

A new paper on Tylosaurus (Zietlow​, 2020) was published a few days ago, and in it contains skull measurements for a bunch of Tylosaurus skull specimens, including much-elusive measurements for the Bunker specimen (KUVP 5033). When Slate Weasel and I were working on the current size diagram, the size of Bunker was at best a guestimate based on hazy accounts. Now that an actual measurement exists in published literature, we could revise the Bunker scale on the diagram to match it.

The paper measures the Bunker skull to have a TSL (upper skull length) of 1700 mm and a lower jaw length of 1850 mm, which isn't that far from what we originally threw in. The total length currently depicted was based on Everhart (2002), but as it turns out the length estimate has gotten bigger since. Apparently, Everhart et al. (2015) reestimated Bunker to 15.8 meters (52 ft); there's an online forum post that claims to have corresponded with a "Gripnev" (which I presume is a misspelling of the Russian mosasaur paleontologist Grigoriev), who stated that the increased estimate was based on accounting for unfossilized intervertebral disks, which adds a few more meters to the total length. Still, Everhart in his 2017 book puts the estimate back more conservatively at 14 m without explanation.

Still, it is possible that it may be better to caution with such estimates and the elongation that comes with it, but I'm wondering if we should start a slight revision of the Bunker size. Macrophyseter | talk 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's great to have an actual skull length, but the problem here is that it would actually make Bunker smaller (I assumed a TSL of 1.8 m). The postcranium is based on the T. "dyspelor" specimen, which, since it's articulated, I assume would account for cartilage. Adding in more than three meters of intervertebral cartilage feels like an awful lot. Still, I can try to redo Bunker sometime soon (I'll have a good bit of spare time over the following days). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've rescaled Bunker and elongated the vertebral column (1.7m TSL put Bunker below 12m). I think that extending Bunker to 14m would require a historic Hainosaurus-style reconstruction. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
We can stick with the usual ways estimates are made and hold off on incorporating the 15.8m estimate until it is better elaborated in a future publication. I'm a bit confused as to how the rescaling with the original proportions of AMNH FR 221 would cause Bunker to go below 12m. Given Osborn (1899)'s measurements, with an 8.83m total body and 1.22m head (which I believe is likely whatever makes the skull as a whole longer like the lower jaw as the upper skull aka TSL is separately measured at 1.19m), we would get a head-total length ratio of around 1:7.24. Using the 1.85m estimate for the Bunker lower jaw, this would yield an estimate of about 13.4m. If we were to use a strict TSL-total body ratio, the proportion would be 1:7.42; with a 1.7m Bunker TSL, that would still give us 12.6m TL. The disparity is likely because of allometric differences, and Zietlow​ (2020) found that Bunker is likely more mature than the dyspelor specimen.
Alternatively, per Zietlow​ (2020) the Bunker specimen and FHSM VP-3 (which has a complete skull and articulated + mostly complete postcranial apart from a section of the back that got reconstructed) are very similar in maturity, and I think it is possible to address the allometry problem by using the latter as a proxy. Everhart (2002) estimates the skeleton at 8.8m, and Zietlow​ (2020) measures the TSL and lower jaw at 1.13m and 1.23m respectively. This would give us a TSL-TL ratio of 1:7.79 and LJL-TL ratio of 1:7.15. Scaling both ratios to the Bunker measurements, and both yield a TL estimate of 13.2m. I personally would think this might be a better rescale due to the consistency, but it's your call. Macrophyseter | talk 18:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Your work checks out, I have no clue what went wrong the first time (perhaps I used 1.8 as the mandibular length?). I've done the rescaling based on the rough proportions of FHSM VP-3. Bunker is back on top and even bigger than before. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, upon comparison with the new version and the original, there appears to be no difference in length for Bunker although you say that it is bigger than before. Perhaps you accidentally uploaded the wrong file? Also, it appears that the description has been left unchanged. Macrophyseter | talk 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Bunker's only around 30 cm longer than in the original upload (I probably made this increase sound too exaggerated above). I forgot to update the description. Sorry about that, I've updated it now. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. And just to make sure, are you putting into consideration the natural vertebral bends in the animals, hence why the animals are depicted with slightly shorter lengths? Macrophyseter | talk 23:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, without compensation for the spine's curvature, Bunker is about 40 cm shorter. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you mean 40cm longer, since that would lead to the calculated 13.2m estimate, but all is good. Macrophyseter | talk 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I figured out where all this trouble started. I did actually mean 40cm shorter, which prompted me to go back and recheck my scaling of AMNH FR221, and found that it had a tail that was significantly too short. I've amended this error and re-done the Bunker scaling. Bunker now does indeed come out at over 13m long (12.9 without compensation for the spine's curvature). I quickly looked over all the other silhouettes, and it looks like they all match up with their estimates (I'm guessing the sinuous tail in Osborn's reconstruction fooled me). I think that everything should check out properly now, sorry for all of the clumsiness on my part. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
That's great! I guess that's that for now. Good job! Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

About giant penguin, Anthropornis

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
 
 
Inkayacu
 
Anthropornis

This is what I wrote on the Anthropornis talk page, but I would like to discuss the images in detail here. I am very skeptical if this image on the Anthropornis page is correct.

First, regarding the size. Like many other birds, the size of a penguin measures the length from the tip of the beak to the tip of its tail.(Bird measurement) For example, the emperor penguin's body length is 120 cm long, but its standing height is about 100 cm. There is a lot of confusion between body length and standing height when it comes to penguins surveying. In this paper, body length of Anthropornis nordenskjoeldi is estimated 164.9-200.2 centimeters, but it is not standing height.

Next is its body shape. This paper describes the skull of Anthropornis. According to the paper, it seems that Anthropornis, like other primitive penguins, had a long beak on its body. But body shape of Anthropornis in this image is almost the same as that of an emperor penguin.

What do you think about this? I would appreciate it if you could give us your opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely it would just be an upscaled emperor penguin, as shown in this image... FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I am happy that there is a person who agree with me. The skull was discovered in 2019, but even before that, it seems more natural to think of it as having a long beak, given the primitive penguins found, such as Kairuku, Perudyptes, and Icadyptes. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed it. Slate Weasel, do you think you would be able to create a replacement? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, if anyone knows of a good skeletal. I don't know enough about penguins to create a schematic on my own. On the subject of the beak shape, an Anthropornis mandible is actually known, and it is indeed quite elongated: [12]. I probably could create a size chart for Inkayacu, if other giant penguin charts are wanted. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an Anthropornis skeletal here [13] but it is not exactly in lateral view. This Inkayacu [14] is in lateral view but it is in a swimming posture. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I think the swimming pose is easier to understand as a size measurement. Like Kumimanu in this page[15], the body length of a penguin is its swimming length. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I'm probably going to have the penguins in a swimming posture. I've finished the Inkayacu silhouette, but I can't find any bone measurements for it. Does anyone know of any? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
[16] has some limb measurements. Ah, and in fact the supp info [17] has all of them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's the Inkayacu, scaled based on the measurements in the supplementary info Lythronax linked above. If all's well with this one, I will proceed to produce Anthropornis, although I may not finish until tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's the Anthropornis. Comments? It was a bit difficult to scale. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this is pretty accurate. Nice work! It's up to others to decide if this can be used. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, these both look great. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Request: GAs and FAs needing restorations and size comparisons

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
  • I just looked over our GAs and FAs (in both the paleo and dinosaur projects) to see which promoted articles that need restorations, and there seem to be a few. Ands since those are supposed to be our best article,s we should probably prioritise making images for them. So maybe this could be a permanent thread here (if that's even possible), or we could have it as a list somewhere else. I've added some below, feel free to add more, and sign up to those you want to do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

He, tried to sketch out Bassipterus, but I think it's just too difficult for me without an overall reference for the proportions, and with so many different elements that have to be based on other species... Is there any more complete relatives that could be done? Or is there any more unified diagram it could be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
FunkMonk Yeah, looks like Carcinosoma got snatched (restoration for it looks fine as far as I can tell). Super Dromaeosaurus did the Bassipterus article but IIRC there were other elements (the fossil was quite complete, supposedly) of it known but no figures of them available (and adelophthalmids differ quite a bit so might be difficult). If you're interested, the most famous eurypterid without an accurate life restoration is probably Megalograptus of Walking with... fame (stuff we have now is either inaccurate or just diagrams). The Stylonurines are also generally lacking in restorations compared to the Eurypterines, so I'll give a honourable mention to Drepanopterus as well. If you specifically want to a close relative of Bassipterus, there are complete body diagrams of Nanahughmilleria and Parahughmilleria in their articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I can try to continue on Bassipterus after all, but I'll probably need some steady guidance... I'll try to work more on the sketch and put it up here... I'm sketching on paper, but the proportions can probably be tweaked last digitally... FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for responding late, glad to hear someone is doing a Bassipterus restoration. If I had to choose a diagram between Parahughmilleria and Nanahughmilleria, I would use the latter as Nanahughmilleria is closer to Bassipterus than Parahughmilleria. For the prosoma, you can use Pittsfordipterus as an example (image of the carapace (with some segments), restoration), it is the closest known relative of Bassipterus. There is a problem however, I think the shape of its eyes are unknown, although it can be assumed that they were similar to Pittsfordipterus'. I think there's no problem with using the ocelli (the small dots between the eyes) of Pittsfordipterus for Bassipterus. The appendages will be highly hypothetical, as we only know the 6th pair. Apparently, it was of Hughmilleria-type (as most adelophtalmids if I remember correctclty), so you could base the rest of the appendages on Nanahughmilleria (which also had the Hughmilleria-type of appendages). This article (page 646, image in page below) talks in detail about the Hughmilleria-type of walking legs (appendages 2-5). The first pair of appendages (the chelicerae) were small in the adelophthalmids, so they won't be visible. Regarding the segments, the first of Bassipterus was very narrow. Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in the Pittsfordipterus article and I don't remember any description of its tergites in any journal. The left specimen of this image (already linked above) of Pittsfordipterus appears to show a small first segment though. For a small first segment, you can base yourself on these restorations [20] [21] [22] [23]. I imagine you can rely on Parahughmilleria and Nanahughmilleria for segments 2 to 12. Here another problem arises, we do not know if any adelophthalmid more basal than Nanahughmilleria (that is, Bassipterus, Pittsfordipterus and also Eysyslopterus) had epimera (those small spikes between segments 7 and 8 you can see here). Apparently, the most basal pterygotid (Hughmilleria wangi) is the only one with epimera, so it can be assumed that epimeras were also present in basal forms of other families. I guess it's up to you to include them or not, if so, I recommend using the Nanahughmilleria restoration again. Finally, the telson can be based on this restoration [24] (don't forget the keel, that weird thing at its dorsal part!). Nanahughmilleria's restoration can also be used but its keel is a little too big.
Finally, regarding the original question, I have two articles left to create before going back to work on Pruemopterus. I'm not sure right now if it's well-preserved and known enough to be worthy of a restoration, if it is, I'll mention it here. Perhaps we could have a life restoration for Onychopterellidae or Hughmilleriidae to complete a bit more the Eurypterina part in this cladogram in the Eurypterid article, but it is not urgent. Apart from this, at least on Eurypterina, I don't any restoration is lacking. By the way and to finish this, Pittsfordipterus and Bassipterus were very similar to each other, so maybe a restoration of Pittsfordipterus could be done once that of Bassipterus is completed? Super Ψ Dro 18:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice, quite a puzzle, I'll see what I can do without getting a headache, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, not much more we can now about its body proportions anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

IJReid did make a size comparison for Eolambia, it's down in Paleobiology since it includes the juvenile. But I think it might be good to add a human silhouette? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but it only shows relations between specimens, so it is pretty difficult to figure out how large it was compared to a human, unless one starts extrapolating from the scale bar. But we'd want the reader to get the information quickly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I got a PM from Damouraptor, apparently there was a long-term situation that had him take on a hiatus but is hopefully now able to return working on the Cardabiodon restoration. He showed me a revised sketch and said that he's currently reaching out to Dr. Mikael Siversson (the guy who described the genus) for feedback. Macrophyseter | talk 09:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I am working on a restoration for Cardabiodon, C. ricki specifically. At the moment it is on stand by, as I have reached out to Dr. Siversson himself to see if he can offer critique or inquiry on my current draft. When that happens, I'll be sure to continue working on the restoration and have it uploaded here for the appropriate reviewing process. Damouraptor 07:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bobosaurus Size Comparison

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
 
Bobosaurus
 
Qianichthyosaurus
 
Thalassodraco
 
Guizhouichthyosaurus
 
Nothosaurus

Here's a random size comparison of the almost-plesiosaur Bobosaurus. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Confused by the silhouette. Is that a tail fin at the right end? Is there reason to think it would have had one? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a tail fin on the right side, which was seemingly implied by the paper's skeletal. I can remove it if preferable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The paper doesn't seem to discuss any evidence for the structure so it might be better to remove it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add Q. zhoui as well? The adult specimen CMNH V1412/C1120 has a length estimate of 1.5 m. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added it, it seems to have quite a small skull compared to the referred species. Is this too cluttered now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, a little. Move it out from under the diver perhaps? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
How about now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that's OK. I notice there's a typo though: xingviensis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixed it, it looks like I picked it up from the first source I looked at. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's a Thalassodraco, which doesn't even have an article yet! Any thoughts? Additionally, I think that I've got a Guizhouichthyosaurus. I abandoned it because it was about 5m long, but in retrospect, that was unwarranted. I'm not sure where the article gets the 10m estimate from, but the description paper lists 6+m [26], and these studies ([27] & [28]) list 5m. I'll see if I can dig it up and finalize it sometime soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe change the 3 meters on the Thalassodraco (which now has an article) to 2 meters as it only grew up to 2.25 meters long in total. --82.41.151.124 ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I've scaled it to the skull length now (it seems that the 1m scale bar was off by a huge margin), which matches the 2.25m estimate pretty well. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's the promised Guizhouichthyosaurus, any thoughts? I should note that I rather foolishly listed Pan et. al. (2006) as the description paper up above (which is totally wrong, this taxon was named in 2002). The silhouette here is scaled to the complete skeleton GNP-d41,1. I realize that this isn't explicitly marked as Guizhouichthyosaurus in English. Was this indeed a specimen of this genus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I've done some more research and concluded that GNP-d41 does indeed pertain to this taxon according to Maisch et. al. (2006). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Acrophyseter and Acrophoca

Latest comment: 3 years ago30 comments4 people in discussion

@Xiphactinus88: just uploaded this image to the articles. I don't believe the snakelike motion being depicted here is anatomically possible for a cetacean. The eyes are too big on both animals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's swimming side to side like an eel almost, or maybe it's as flexible as a sea lion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to create something unusual and made this too unrealistic, I see. I didn't know about such Wiki's Paleoart review at all... I'll be more accurate with pictures in future. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your future artwork   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Since Acrophyseter is one of our few paleo GAs without a proper life restoration, I was thinking of doing one, but I have never attempted to draw a realistic whale before. Any sources you would prefer I look at if I do this, Dunkleosteus77? Restorations of it I could see on Google also differ in how far the "snout" protrudes from the head, or rather, how far the "melon" is expanded forwards. What would be best to show? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
[29] here's a good published restoration on p. 466   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Cool, so a long snout before the melon? FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
that should be fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a sketch[30], Dunkleosteus77, any thoughts? Based on our skull photo and photos of modern whales mainly. Why is it often depicted with a large dorsal fin when modern spermwhales don't (even the pygmy ones)? And any preferences for colouration? FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
If we assume that the common ancestor of all toothed whales had a dorsal fin, then the dorsal fin for sperm whales would be a basal trait and may have been present in more basal sperm males such as this one. Because it wasn't a deep-sea predator like the modern sperm whale (instead, a more coastal predator), the counter shading may have been more defined   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a basic pattern, before I start adding details[31], any thoughts? And do we have an idea where the blowhole would be? Now I've added it vaguely on the front top of the head. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I've read somewhere that the "melon" (junk + spermaceti organ) likely extends to where the supracranial basin locates (which is suprisingly short, in the holotype it starts at the nuchal crest (the pointed extension at the top of the skull; it's figured in Lambert et al. (2016)) and ends right behind the posteriormost tooth of the upper jaw), but perhaps it could have extended beyond; I think Dunkleosteus77 would know more. When it comes to proportions, I think it would be great to use the holotype skull as a closer reference for the head and probably derive the postcranial based on the Zygophyseter reconstruction by Biannuci and Landini (2006)[32], given that Lambert et al. (2016) uses it as a proxy for Acrophyseter's size estimates. Also, I tend to see restorations of "beaked" stem physeteroids by paleontologists having the "melon" bulge a bit anteriorly, reminiscent of its shape in modern sperm whales and maybe Berardius, but that's hypothetical and probably a nitpick. Macrophyseter | talk 17:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The Lambert paper says "Shape and extent of the supracranial basin This key character of the superfamily is present in all the taxa of the cladistic analysis. However, its extent is limited to the facial area and posteriormost part of the rostrum in many genera. In the latter, the forehead is proposed to have been shorter anterodorsally than in Physeter (see for example the reconstruction of Acrophyseter deinodon in Fig. 39)." The figure referred to is this, which is what I based the extend of the melon on (with the head itself based on the holotype skull):[33] Fig. 6 also shows the extend of the supracranial basin on the skull, which I assume s what would correspond to the extend of the melon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about the above, Macrophyseter? It appears to be the other species, D. robustus, which had a more expansive melon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Or do you have any comments, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Anatomically you followed the published example pretty finely (you could argue that the melon went well beyond the basin and that Acrophyseter had a much shorter beak or none at all, but that's entirely your decision at that point; personally, if the melon could extend that far beyond the basin, what's the point of extending the basin in derived taxa?), stylistically you went a bit too heavy on the wrinkles (reminds me of an old man), and being a coastal mammal, would deep blue have been an effective coloration?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The "wrinkles" can be made to look more like scars, reflections and such once I start rendering the colours better, as for the pattern, I followed other restorations, like the one you pointed to, where it is very dark on the upper side (counter-shaded). Are there modern species you would point to for colouration instead? FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess most all coastal cetaceans are open-ocean-going enough to favor deep blue coloration   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Was out for a bit. Personally if I were to make the restoration myself, I would probably prefer to draw the melon only around the extent of the supracranial basin (which Lambert et al. (2016) identifies as ending around the posterior upper teeth), which would end the "beak" more posterior than you put it. But Dunkleosteus77's insight that the melon could have possible extended beyond the supracranial basin seems certainly valid. From my looks into literature, I haven't been able to find more clues on this specific issue, although some restorations of stem physeteroids in published literature (i.e. Zygophyseter) may appear to have the melon extend beyond the basin (although this may be that I am misunderstanding where exactly the basin ends). Macrophyseter | talk 18:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought it was safest to follow how it was reconstructed in the published figure, it would take a bit of speculation on our part to deviate from that. Here's a version with colour[34], which integrates the various lines (which are really there to indicate shape rather than wrinkles) better, any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks fantastic, but does the tailfin look lopsided to anyone else or is it just me? That's sort of a nitpick anyways, so I'd say it's good to go   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, it does look asymmetrical, I tried to make it look like each fluke was bent in a different way or something, but also to keep the exact shape ambiguous. But if we cant a more defined shape, is there any modern whale you think it should be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd say killer whale since they're ecologically comparable. Whale tails seem to vary depending on the species' activity, and I mean the sperm whale has a different tail than the dwarf sperm whale, so it's clear not all physterids have the same tail (though physeterines is not completely out of the question).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 
Restoration of Acrophyseter deinodon
Here's a version with a more killer whale-like slender tail fluke, Dunkleosteus77. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I still think the perspective is off because, if it's in 2-point, you shouldn't be able to see that much of the underside of the tail (so it looks like its rotating its tail to its left)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but thought it could be explained by a slight turn in the body in relation to the tail or something. But I'll see if I can make it look more foreshortened. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Updated with a more foreshortened version, Dunkleosteus77. For some reason it is extremely hard to find a reference photo of an orca from that angle and in that pose... FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
looks fantastic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, seems there's a space for it under description where I'll place it, but feel free to move it elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Archaeoceti sizes

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
  •  
    Remingtonocetus
  •  
    Protocetus
  •  
    Qaisracetus
  •  
    Rodhocetus
  •  
    Basilosaurids
  •  
    Peregocetus.
  •  
    Peregocetus size.
  •  
    Georgiacetus.

Hi everyone. I have returned to Wikipedia with some size comparison images of protocetids as well as an update of 2010 image of Basilosaurus by adding some "cousins" (Cynthiacetus and Dorudon, so far). FunkMonk recently removed my Rodhocetus image from the article on Rodhocetus because it had not been reviewed and were "too simple to be of use here" (that was before the human was added). Does anyone see any flaws with my figures? If you argue this to be the case, remember: "cetacean needed, if you please" (pun intended) Conty~enwiki 08:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I removed it before the human was added, because I didn't see why we needed a line drawing when there already was a fully rendered life restoration. But of course, size comparisons are always useful. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I was still using my "Sneaking Stoat" account when I created the image and wanted to get re-start my old account before I added the human. I might add a human to the Remingtonocetus as well. 12:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

They're all well-sourced (even the speculative tail measurement in Remingtonocetus) so it looks good to go. The basilosaurids cites Walking with Beasts for Basilosaurus, so I'd advise checking a more authoritative source because, no doubt, they likely chose the highest estimate for dramatic effect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dunkleosteus77! Regarding the Basilosaurus, the estimation length of 18 meters seems to be "common knowledge" (the Wikipedia article on Basilosaurus states the length would have been 15-20 meters).
I would prefer Basilosaurus being split into B. cetoides and B. isis on the chart. B. cetoides reached 18–20 m while B. isis reached 15–17 m [35]. There are also specific specimens that can be associated with these estimates instead of a figure stated in a documentary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, why'd you put 3 genera into 1 chart?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I have now separated the Basilosaurus into its two species. The reason I wanted to add more genera to the image is that I would make it easier to see the size differences (it is not a new concept to have several genera in one image...). When you say it, I realize I could have uploaded a multiple genera image from start... Conty~enwiki 19:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I am planning to make a new size comparison of Basilosaurus and make the version with several genera into a file of its own. I recently made silhouettes of Georgiacetus and Peregocetus as well, what do you think (apart from giving Peregocetus nostrils...)? Conty~enwiki 18:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mixosaurus Size Comparison

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Current version
 
New version

Our current Mixosaurus size comparison lacks the bilobous caudal fin, and the dorsal fin seems to be too posteriorly placed based on newer specimens that actually preserve it. I've created a new size comparison to address these issues. Additionally, since Mixosaurus is pretty small, I opted to compare it to a human hand instead of a diver. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Though we might need to fix the life restoration then... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Brindabellaspis life reconstruction

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
My reconstruction of Brindabellaspis stensioi

As B. stensioi was a mid-sized, reef-dwelling benthic placoderm, I based the integumentary anatomy off of benthic reef sharks such as Triaenodon obesus. The skull anatomy is referenced off of this image, from the research article "New information on Brindabellaspis stensioi: Young, 1980, highlights morphological disparity in Early Devonian placoderms."

The previous reconstruction by Stanton Fink featured prominent plates reminiscent of Weejasperaspis, which implies it was based on the outdated idea that Brindabellaspis was a Weejasperaspidid--as such, I omitted these plates in my reconstruction to reflect a more modern paleontological view of this animal.

While mostly speculative, its close skeletal resemblance to Acanthothoracids implies it may have had a bit of a pre-dorsal fin ridge/spine and small projection coming off the anterior lateral and/or spinal plates, which was also incorporated into my reconstruction. I kept this rather small to avoid making the reconstruction overly speculative. Entelognathus (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reconstruction is sleek and alluring. I gave it plate-like scales under the assumption that it either is an acanthothoracid, or is closely related to to them, and that acanthothoracids had bodies covered in plate-like scales.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

images for the Sinotherium page

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

The Sinotherium page has one very old and anatomically wonky image which I wish to change sometime in the future. My friend is working on a reconstruction to replace the one that is already on the page. I will direct him here for review when he is done with his piece.

I've been spending my time editing the page, and I am currently adding info and images from Deng et al 2012 before moving onto other publications. I want to use some images of the fossils from the paper and also illustrations made for the paper by Chen Yu if that's alright? The paper is under creative commons.

paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-012-5574-4 illustrations by Chen Yu made for the paper (these are of higher quality than what the paper shows): https://www.deviantart.com/sinammonite/art/Sinotherium-lagrelii-350840886

https://www.deviantart.com/sinammonite/art/Sinotherium-lagrelii-351259570 KingRexy328 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You may not use the high quality versions unless they are also tagged as CC. We have gotten in trouble because of this in the past. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

so does this mean I'm good to go with the illustrations from the paper instead? KingRexy328 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, provided the paper doesn't say otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, what if a paper doesn't make clear whether the diagrams and illustrations are under creative commons, or protection? When then? I've stumbled onto a paper talking about the spread of Sinotherium, and it doesn't give any indication of whether it is alright to use its diagrams or illustrations https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vadim_Titov/publication/330858720_Early_pliocene_vertebrate_fauna_from_the_Manych_River_Valley_Orlovskiy_District_Rostov_Region/links/5c6eabb34585156b570ee5d4/Early-pliocene-vertebrate-fauna-from-the-Manych-River-Valley-Orlovskiy-District-Rostov-Region.pdf I've translated the whole paper and found no mention KingRexy328 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is no mention, assume you cannot use it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Given the paper is paywalled on a Russian journal site I highly doubt it's CC. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I got the paper from a public upload on Research Gate. Seems it was uploaded by the author himself https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330858720_Early_pliocene_vertebrate_fauna_from_the_Manych_River_Valley_Orlovskiy_District_Rostov_Region KingRexy328 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

All papers on researchgate are uploaded by the authors, often infringing on the copyright of the journals, which has gotten researchgate sued by the major journal publishers, see this story in Nature. This does not give us the right to upload the images to commons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, understood. KingRexy328 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to put this image on the Sinotherium page. Posting here for review: https://www.deviantart.com/kingrexy/art/Cheen-ke-Gende-865094104 KingRexy328 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

But is it free? FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Assumedly OP is the author and can release it how they see fit. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, in that case, something like this[36] image may be more appropriate for Wikipedia, since it shows the morphology better? Not that both couldn't be used, of course. As for accuracy, the horn seems to be placed much further forwards on the snout than in for example this[37] restoration? Which makes it look more like a modern rhinoceros than an elasmothere. Why is it often shown with two horns instead of one? FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the illustration so it is indeed free. I was planning on using this image as a "Sinotherium in its habitat" kind of image but I just realized that I already added an image of the Liushu formation fauna from Deng et al 2013 on the Sinotherium page which does a better job. And yeah, I do plan on making an illustration that shows the anatomy of the animal from a side view. Much like skeletals do. The horn isn't exactly placed further down the snout, the main horn is placed before the eyes, where it is present in Sinotherium, whereas the back horn is right above the eyes. The front of Sinotherium's snout is not preserved in fossils, so I looked at rhinos and their snouts, and gave my Sinotherium the same soft tissue since they're both multi-ton grazers, having the same niche.

And the reason it is shown with two horns is that deng et al 2013 points out a second rugosity on its frontals for a second horn. It also states that these two horns fused to form one full horn in the derived Elasmotherium, evidence of which can be seen as a suture on the horn boss of Elasmotherium. KingRexy328 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, not being a rhino-expert, I can't say much more about the anatomy, but as long as you follow other published restorations, it should be on the right track. I see for example that you made the muzzle broad as in the white rhino, instead of narrow, which also seems to be how it's restored in that smaller fauna illustration in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a rhino expert here either lol. Just acquired an interest recently and trying to learn as much as I can about them. And yeah, made the muzzle broader as in white rhinos to emphasize on its grazer lifestyle, which a lot of paleoart doesn't seem to. KingRexy328 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oculudentavis Size Comparison

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I finally got to finishing up my Oculudentavis size comparison. I added the second specimen of the animal, as well as Brookesia micra, the smallest known species of chameleon, per request of LittleLazyLass. I'm still working on finalizing the sizes. I'm no expert on chameleons, so it might look way off. Thoughts? SlvrHwk (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed the size of the second specimen based on the measurements in the figures of the paper. It looks a little small, though... SlvrHwk (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 
Revised Oculudentavis size comparison with chameleon and second specimen.
You should use a brighter color for Brooksia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I changed the color of the chameleon. Does this look better? SlvrHwk (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Eonatator and Aegirosaurus Size Comparisons

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
 
Eonatator
 
Aegirosaurus

Mosasaurs now join the huge stream of marine reptile size comparisons this month. I hinted that I'd make this over the summer, but ultimately I was unsuccessful, until recently, when I found Bardet & Suberbiola (2001) and was able to better plot out E. sternbergi' proportions. Comments? (Also, it seems that long tails were a uniquely russelosaurinan development. And, of course, outrageously, it seems like mosasaurids evolved a bilobous caudal fin three times over.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. That taxobox image is wack, though... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of the Bobosaurus section above, it's time to expand this section with more marine reptiles, specifically the peculiarly big-headed but exquisitely preserved ichthyosaur Aegirosaurus. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I wonder if the flippers should be wider at all? The humeri and femora are said to be "massive". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The flipper shape is based on the preserved soft tissue outlines, which appear to be unusually narrow for the foreflippers. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Stem reptiles

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are a lot of life restorations of non-ichthyosauromorph stem reptiles on the Wikimedia Commons that would be good to review. HFoxii (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Not an expert on these, but pareiasaurs are thought to have had erect legs now, right? And there are of course some overly visible fenestrae in some of these... FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
that's only Bunostegos for erect legs as far as I'm aware, but I agree the skin hugs the bone too tightly on the face   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I just edited my Acleistorhinus. Are you happy now? Conty~enwiki 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of body segment of Pterygotus

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
 

Pterygotus in this illustration is missing one segment. The number of body segments in the illustration is 11, but it should be 12 to be exact. An image recently posted by user Junnn11 seems to reconstructed correctly on that point.[38] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, a segment is missing. I think the swimming legs could also be improved, right now they are missing the podomere 7a, which is a small thing next to the last segment of the swimming leg. Junnn11's restoration includes it, but this one does not. Super Ψ Dro 14:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I can try to fix it. Where would the missing segment be placed? And how does podomere 7a look? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
All the segments that should have epimera appear to be present, so the missing one could be any of the first. The first segment is usually shorter than those that follow it in all eurypterids (I think), but the author of the image does not appear to have taken this into account, so it most likely is the first. I do not know very well how to describe the podomere 7a, but I can leave some images. This one is probably the best one to indicate where it is as the podomere 7a is marked as black. It is better to look at the podomere 7a of Parahughmilleria as it is the most derived one of the 5 eurypterids featured on the image. This image is probably the one with the biggest close up to a podomere 7a we got. You can also take a look at the images of Pterygotidae we have. Super Ψ Dro 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see if I can wrap my head around it... But their anatomy sure is complex for someone who mainly know about vertebrates! By the way, I was wondering how you and Ichthyovenator got so knowledgable about eurypterids? Since they're kind of an obscure group, and most of the rest of us mainly know about extinct reptiles. Did you know a lot about them before writing here, or did you learn while writing? FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I actually learned everything I know about eurypterids from writing about them here on Wikipedia. I didn't know anything about them before, I would just have been able to mention Eurypterus and a few others. At first I did not understand much and their anatomy was complex and difficult to understand for me, but as time went by I began to understand it better and now I consider them rather simple, especially compared to other extinct animals such as dinosaurs (I don't understand almost any of the terms used for their bones, which seem infinite...). Although the truth is that I have always focused on editing one of the suborders (Eurypterina), so my knowledge about the other one (Stylonurina) is quite low. Super Ψ Dro 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, like Super Dromaeosaurus I didn't know much about eurypterids before I began working on them; I knew Eurypterus, Megalograptus, Jaekelopterus, Megarachne and Pterygotus but that was it. Eurypterid literature is quite accessible and easier to keep up with than dinosaur literature; there are virtually no huge changes taking place since many eurypterid specimens, even ones found very early, are more or less complete, which means that they are quite well understood and that older papers are often still reliable enough to use as sources (which they in many cases would not be for other groups - imagine using a 1912 source as extensively for an article on Velociraptor as one is used in Hughmilleria). Grasping eurypterid anatomy was also a case of there being quite a few good and accessible sources available, though I had to spend quite some time during the early articles looking at the diagram we have :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I also know most of what I know about osteological terms from writing articles here, and since the bones in dinosaurs are mostly called the same in all other tetrapods at least, that knowledge can be used in many other fields. So yeah, writing on Wikipedia certainly has benefits for editors, not just readers! FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 
Size comparison
  • On the subject of Pterygotus, I think that my Pterygotus size chart could use an overhaul. I'm currently working on a new silhouette, which I'll post when done. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the updated size chart, any thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, this did not appear on my watchlist. It looks better, especially the human silhouette. Good job! Super Ψ Dro 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_13&oldid=1216467120"