Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 2

Marasuchus

Any thoughts? http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5909/69265844.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Just out of curiosity, what is it based on? There is a skeletal of Marasuchus in Sereno & Arcucci (1994), which can be found here.[1] There is also a skeletal[2] by J. González in the book The Age of Dinosaurs in South America by Fernando E. Novas (Indiana University Press, p. 13) which came out last year and is different than the one in Sereno & Arcucci. I don't know if it can be found in any scientific papers, though. I suggest that you use the newer one as reference because it is probably more accurate. Based on the newer skeletal, the head in your restoration seems to be too short and robust. The tip of the snout should be slightly downturned. Also, the hands may need to be smaller and the feet bigger. Unlike the skeletal in Sereno & Arcucci (1994), the skeletal by J. González shows the hand with five fingers, with digits IV and V greatly reduced. You should add these in. In your restoration, the torso seems too short relative to the limbs. The tail may need to be a little longer, too. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I used Gregory S. Paul's skeletal from Dinosaurs of the Air, here's an inverted version of it[3]. But it's pretty old, because it was used in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World too, only difference is that the hand was pronated in the old version (which is the one I linked to), so it might not be up to date. So I'll fix it. How about this? http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6546/55943235.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's looking great. I'm wondering if the premaxillary and maxillary teeth would have been visible when the jaw closed. It seems like they would, judging by their size. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a coloured version. Went all sketchy in frustration over my inability to create proper volume with colours... FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The colouring looks good! Smokeybjb (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Drepanolepis

Drepanolepis

Here is an outline of my Drepanolepis restoration: [4] . But there is something peculiar about the fossil. The caudal fin looks more like a paintbrush than a V with cones lining its pit to me. So, should I reconstruct the caudal fin like I did in my earlier furcacaudiform illustrations, or should I make an exception here and make this guy a "brushfin" (lol). Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell looking at the photo of the fossil, but Wilson & Caldwell say that there is an apex to the caudal fork, and it is dorsal to the anal notch. Therefore, a V-shaped outline is probably the way to go. Wilson & Caldwell also believe that Drepanolepis had ten intermediate caudal lobes, although not all are preserved. Be aware that Drepanolepis had very prominent fin-flaps, like what is seen in Furcacauda heintzae but much larger. Photograph "a" in the figure shows the left fin-flap, which is the rectangular area at the bottom of the fossil. Smokeybjb (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How's this: [5] Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! However, reading over Wilson & Caldwell, they think that the light grey area of the head in the specimen is the entire mouth preserved in dorsal view. This means that the midline does not run along the margin of the fossil as it would if the animal were preserved in perfect lateral view. It's almost as if the head is turning around to look at you. Therefore, I think you should remove the snout like projection on your restoration and make the head more rounded. Also, if you want to, it would probably be a good idea to add scales to the ventrolateral fin flap, because the scales are quite apparent in the fossil. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely noted the perspective in the fossil. However, you might be right that the mouth might be a little too protruded, so I'll shorten it in the next version as well as make the forehead more round. I will consider the scales on the ventrolateral fin flaps as well. As well, should I make the body taller as well, like I did in some of my other improvements in other furcacaudiforms as well? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there probably should be a deeper body and a steeper slope from the dorsal fin to the mouth, as in the fossil. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. Here is an improved image, with a shorter mouth, a rounder forehead, a deeper body, and: [6]. By the way: [7] Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Never thought of them that way before! The image looks great and ready for the article. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Subfossil lemurs

As requested, I am making some restorations of subfossil lemurs. As a start, here's a sketch of Hadropithecus[8] based primarily on the skull here (third photograph, bottom left skull) and the life restoration in figure 6.2 of "Lemurs: Old and New" in Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar. In that restoration, Hadropithecus has a stubby tail like an Indri. However, in this restoration, which was made more recently, the tail is like that of most other lemurs. Which one should I go by? Also, the fur could be longer in my illustration based on the more recent restoration. If necessary, I'll fix that. I'm going to put restorations of several other subfossil lemurs up for review, too, including Archaeoindris and Babakotia. Smokeybjb (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The sketch looks nice, you should maybe make it more visible where the finger joints are though, and make the pads on the distal phalanx broader in relation to the rest of the finger, like on the other restoration and here: [9][10] Or well, rather than broaden anything, the parts between joints could be narrowed. Visionholder might have a thing or two to say too. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thnaks, Smokeybjb! When choosing which image to base the restoration on, in the case of subfossil lemurs, I would recommend the newest over the oldest, especially if Stephen Nash drew it. (He works closely with the experts to create restorations for all the newest lemur books.) I also had a conversation with him recently, during which he stated that there have been a lot of changes in the restoration of the subfossil lemurs. Who knows... maybe it might be wise to wait for the 3rd edition of Lemurs of Madagascar to come out (due 3 months ago). However, the linked Hadropithecus restoration by Nash is new and probably will be the one included in the new book. Maybe I'll email Nash later today... –Visionholder (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Stephen Nash has sent me a digital copy of the latest subfossil lemur illustration which will be published in the Lemurs of Madagascar, 3rd edition, which is due to hit the press in a week or two. Because he does not own the image, he could not give rights to publish the image on Wiki, but anyone may use the image to create their own life restoration. Since I can't post it on the web, please go to my user page and email me your address if you need a copy of this illustration to assist in the creation of a life restoration for these extinct lemurs. –Visionholder (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I might try to get the book when it comes out. I'm not too sure how the EmailUser feature works, but I emailed you and you should be able to find my address. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy! I've revised my restoration on the basis of the new restoration in that illustration.[11] The legs in mine are now more robust with longer fur, the chin is much deeper, and there is more hair around the face. As FunkMonk suggested, I tried to make the joints more noticeable. I must admit, the fingers and toes looked a little like sausages in my original :). Smokeybjb (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been juggling work, volunteering, and a dead computer for the last week or so. Anyway, the image looks good. Keep up the good work. I'll be watching for any others you produce. –Visionholder (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the finished version, sorry it took awhile. My next illustration will be of Archaeoindris, which I'll put up for review ASAP so there can be more images for your subfossil lemurs article. By the way, the article's looking great. I'm looking forward to seeing it in the article namespace. Smokeybjb (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's Archaeoindris, any problems?[12] It's based mostly on Stephen Nash's latest restoration. I drew this a while back, and used a photograph of a skull as reference, but I can't seem to find it again. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice! I was thinking of joining in and drawing a lemur or two myself, but I wouldn't want to overlap with you, Smokey, so which ones are you working on and which ones are you thinking of doing? Then I'll take what's left, if I can find skeletals. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks very nice! Keep up the good work and keep me in the loop—both of you! I've just finished an important article (Illegal logging in Madagascar), which caused me to detour from the Lemur topic for a couple of weeks, but I will be going back to the subfossil lemurs starting tonight. I'm eager to see how the page will look, especially with some nice new artwork! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In addition to Archaeoindris, I'm also working on Babakotia. I might also illustrate Megaladapis, since there aren't any recent restorations in the article (the Tiere der Urwelt illustration seems a bit outdated and even human-like). It would be nice to have different artists illustrate lemurs, so feel free to make some yourself, FunkMonk. And great article, VisionHolder, very comprehensive! Smokeybjb (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This sounds good... especially for Megaladapis. I'm dying to remove that out-dated life restoration that we currently use! I would also like to have an image of Pachylemur (if possible) and maybe a scaled shadow illustration comparing the modern Aye-aye with the Giant Aye-aye. (If you need more details on either of these, let me know.) I know that I'm asking for a lot more than just a single illustration, so if this is too much for the two of you, just say so. But I promise that these illustrations will do more than grace a mediocre article, or even just a FA article. These will be part of a featured topic on lemurs, hopefully to be one of the crown jewels of Wikipedia when I'm done... – VisionHolder « talk » 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's Archaeoindris. I'd be happy to make any illustration, even if it was to be put in a small article that very few people will ever look at. A scaled shadow illustration for the aye-ayes seems interesting. I could do it, but I can't find any images to use as reference for the Giant Aye-Aye. It would also be interesting to make scale diagrams for other subfossil lemurs, especially the big ones, maybe comparing their size to that of a human. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The image looks great! I'll try to put it to use soon. Coincidentally, I am planning to write a page for Hadropithecus tonight, so the previous image will be up very soon. As for the size comparison illustrations, I think I've now got the feel for creating those. (I made File:Microcebus_scale.svg last night.) The two things that would help the most there are 1) keep making images for the extinct genera so I have something to work with, and 2) maybe help create the shadow image for various species or genera (extinct or not). It's all up to you, though. Anyway, keep up the great work! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been doing a bit of reading about the sloth lemurs, and it appears that Archaeoindris may have been more like the giant sloths of North America and may not have gone up into the trees. Is it possible to adjust the background of the image so that it is on the ground, possibly pulling a tree limb down to eat the leaves? Sorry! Also, let me know when you get to Babakotia and Megaladapis. I may be ready for them at any time. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the previous post, I was wondering if you might have time soon to work on the life restoration of Babakotia. The reason I ask is that I might try to make a run for FA. It would be a very small FAC, so a picture would probably help a lot. If you can't get to it, it's no biggie. I'm seeing if Stephen Nash would be able to release a shadow copy of his illustration so that I can do a size comparison diagram instead. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, FAC! I'll try to get a drawing up for review as soon as I can. I would have made one sooner, but I've been very busy lately, and haven't had much spare time. I'll probably try to put a sketch up here sometime tomorrow. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here it is.[13] It's based on the picture of the skull in the article and a picture of a skeleton in "Anthropologists Bet on Their Latest Data in Las Vegas" Science 56 (5055): 308 - 309 [14] (the only one I could find). The hands and feet look very big, especially when compared to Stephen Nash's restoration. Are there any better skeletons to go by, or should I just revise it to better match Stephen Nash's restoration? Smokeybjb (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks incredibly good! This may be your best restoration yet! Anyway, before you finalize it, I'd like to send you the only photo of the skeleton that I've seen. (I don't have access to the article you linked to.) The photos may be the same. Once you reply to me so that I have your email address, I'll send it along. I may even send your sketch to Dr. Laurie Godfrey, the researcher who not only helped discover and describe the species, but also my primary contact on all things about subfossil lemurs. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just got some feedback from Dr. Laurie Godfrey, one of the researchers that discovered and helped describe this species. She pointed out some key errors that I completely missed: "In lemurs, the second digit is the shortest and the fourth the longest, and even though the relative length differences are less pronounced when there is a hook, the second would never be the longest digit. On all of the lemurs, including the extinct ones, there is a grooming claw on the second digit of the FOOT, not the third of the hand. For realistic postures, please have your artist check two and three toed sloths. Palaeopropithecus had proportions and likely postures similar to Bradypus (three-toed sloths), while Babakotia had proportions and likely postures more similar to two-toed sloths Sloths don't look up, they look straight ahead or down even if upside down (normally, anyway)." Once you reply to my email (so that I have your address again), I can put you in direct touch with Dr. Laurie Godfrey. She seems willing to send a critique of all your subfossil lemur life restorations as well as any future ones. Sorry that this creates a lot more work for you, but you seem to care about accuracy and I'm sure you want your restorations to be some of the best ever done. With her guidance, I'm sure that will be the result. Keep up the good work and keep me posted on your progress. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's finally a sketch of Megaladapis edwarsi with blocked in colours, I redid a lot of sketches, and didn't have access to my PC for a couple of months, that's why it's so late. And after all this time, it ends up looking like goddamn Alf: [15] No ears yet. And I may also have problems with computer access the coming months... FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. The posture looks very nice, and from what I understand of the skull, I think you did a great job. What did Dr. Godfrey have to say? I'm eager to see the finished product, whenever that may come. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, she liked it, but she will be going to Japan for most of September, so I won't be able to get input from her the coming weeks. As for skull shape etc, it will become much more "concrete" when I get to work some more on it. This is just to get the initial colours and pose blocked in. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pezopallichthys

Here is an outline of my Pezopallichthys drawing: [16]. I've added a dorsal fin, because the second picture, if you look at the top, you could see a tiny remnant of the dorsal fin, or I could just be fantasizing... Did W. & C. address this? Also, even though there is no evidence for ventrolateral fin flaps, since this guy was a primitive furcacaudiform, should I add them anyway or should I not? Also, I talked to Stanton Fink about his illustration of the furcacaudiforms of which he labled Cometicercus, that they resembled Pezopallichthys more than the former. He says that the reference he used was unnamed when it was published. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Stanton Fink's restoration looks much more like Pezopallichthys than Cometicercus. As for yours, I think the dorsal fin is alright. I looked over Wilson & Caldwell, and they say that the dorsal fin is either absent or greatly reduced (perhaps they were thinking the same as you). The throat region of your restoration should be deeper and rounded out; W & C say that the orobranchial chamber was probably laterally expanded in life because there are many folds and wrinkles in the throat region of the fossil. When you make a new version, make sure the margin of the throat is very far from the branchial openings. The caudal lobes seem very small in your restoration in comparison to other furcacaudiforms. I know it seems that way in the photo, but W & C say that the dorsal and ventral lobes are large, there are twelve narrower intermediate lobes, and the dorsalmost and ventralmost intermediate lobes are much shorter and arise from the main lobes. They don't say anything about how short the lobes are, so I suspect that the apparent shortness of the lobes is a result of the poor quality of the photograph and/or the fossil itself. The caudal fin probably doesn't look much different from that of any other furcacaudiform. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Palaeorange maps

Merychippus "Range"

Cynarctoides lemur "range"

Allosaurus fossil quarry map

There are a number of articles that currently have "palaeorange" maps in the taxoboxes. While the basic concept is sound the maps themselves are very close to or crossing the into being OR. The maps appear to be based on the data points for fossil sites listed in The Paleobiology Database, this is fine and is very similar to the dinosaur quarry maps that have been created for several dino genera, such as Allosaurus. The problem is the mammal maps show "ranges" which there is no way to verify and seem to be generated by adding an arbitrary amount of "range" around sites that have produced fossils of a given taxon. This is an OR problem and can result in odd looking maps such as the Cynarctoides lemur map where there are three disjunct "ranges" that are not connected. I think the concept is great but should be adjusted to show fossil sites without trying to infer palaeorange for taxa. Thoughts?--Kevmin (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've never seen "range" maps for fossil taxa in any published studies, but rather maps showing localities. It does seem like OR to show some ranges as divided and some as continuous when we cannot be certain if the taxon is unrepresented from the areas in between localities due to either poor preservational conditions or geographic barriers. Maybe we should ask the creators of these maps if they want to change them themselves? Smokeybjb (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like OR. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Map creator notified and asked for input here. --Kevmin (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The color appears red to me and I used the color found in several maps which display counties. With respect to the range, this is based solely on fossil evidence. At a point I only placed localities as fossil collections show no evidence of a particular genus or species elsewhere. Suggestions? Thank you. Noles1984 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is to say that Merychippus occurred throughout most of Mexico, as is shown in your map? Fossils in one Mexican locality (according to the Paleobiology Database[17]) surely don't provide evidence for a distribution across most of Mexico. Pretty much all range maps lean toward being OR, since it is the creator of the map who judges the distribution of a taxon in the absence of a continuous fossil record. Maybe it would be more accurate to show the extent of formations from which fossils have been found, because it is more likely that the taxa occurred throughout most of the range of the formations. In any case, the localities should probably be marked as points in each map. I've recently annotated an image so that each fossil locality is linked to a page about either that locality or the area it is located in. It might be a good idea to try this for other fossil distribution maps, too. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Things that would be nice to have are citations in the image descriptions of such images. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bishanopliosaurus

Drawing: http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8465/bish.jpg Based on this skeleton: http://ojsfile.ohmynews.com/STD_IMG_FILE/2009/0123/IE001008341_STD.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this genus, it has a very deep body! There seems to be a lot of muscle on the tail near the part where the chevrons are lengthened. In most restorations of pliosaurs that have this expansion, there isn't much muscle surrounding the chevrons and it almost looks like a fin (see here, for example). This might just be artistic license, so I don't think you need to change it. Also, looking at the skeleton and those of other pliosaurs such as Rhomaleosaurus[18], there should probably be less of a dip at the base of the neck. Other than that, it looks fine. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty obscure, I wanted to draw a plesiosaur, but most well known ones were taken, so digged up this guy. Also happened to find an unlabeled picture of it on Flickr that could be used for the article. How about this? http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8465/bish.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice, can't think of any other suggestions. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Colour. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Scale diagrams

Thought I might start making some scale diagrams, so here are a few I whipped up: Ischigualastia[19]; Kronosaurus[20]; Prionosuchus[21]. Nothing special, they're essentially based on the diagrams that other users make, with the same blue human / green animal colour scheme. Ischigualastia is based on my own restoration (which, by the way, hasn't been reviewed!) and an illustration of the skull.[22] Prionosuchus is based on the restoration by Dmitry Bogdanov and the size estimate in Cox & Hutchinson (1991).[23] The silhouettes of Kronosaurus are based on the skeleton at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.[24] For the smaller one, the proportions are the same because Kear (2003)[25] described Kronosaurus as a "pliosaurid up to and probably in excess of 9m", while the skull length as shown in one of the figures seems to be a little less than 2m. Therefore, the skull length to body ratio is roughly the same for the MCZ skeleton and the smaller size estimate. Smokeybjb (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! All look nice to me, but I think I once read that the proportions of that restored Kronosaurus skeleton were wrong... I'll see if I can find a ref. You're probably safe with the hairs on Ischigualastia, there doesn't seem to be consensus on when they originated. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Found something: "The iconic Harvard skeleton is nicknamed 'plasterosaurus' because much of it is reconstructed in plaster - in fact the specimen is 1/3 plaster and has at least seven too many vertebrae in the dorsal region. As mounted the specimen measures 42 feet (12.8m), but in life this was probably far less." http://www.plesiosauria.com/kronosaurus.html FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for telling me. I've shortened the length of the body, increasing the length of the head, tail, and limbs. The head looks a little big based on what was shown in Kear (2003), but I suppose it will do. I've uploaded the files to Commons, any problems with the SVG versions?

• 
• 
• 

Smokeybjb (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the estimates length of the Kronosaurus skull? You've scaled both estimates isometrically, but surely such different length estimates would have very different proportions. For example, wouldn't the larger estimate have a relatively smaller head relative to the body length, or longer tail, or something? Or is the Kear estimate based on a smaller specimen? Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems. It's hard to appreciate the size of Prionosuchus without a scale image, but now, looking at yours, I can see it really was awesome! FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kear (2003) doesn't give an exact estimate, but a skull reconstruction based on MCZ 1285 is about 160cm. I'm not sure where he got a total length of 9m, though. My first version was scaled isometrically, but I later shortened the dorsal vertebrae. Because of this, I increased the size of the head to keep the length at around 9 meters. This makes the head in my diagram bigger than the length of the reconstructed skull in Kear (2003). Anything bigger than what it is now seems to be pushing it, so no, the skull probably wouldn't be that much bigger proportionally in the smaller outline. I've increased the size of the limbs because the ones in the mounted skeleton seem pretty accurate, assuming that the assume that the phalangeal length relative to the rest of the limb is correct. Skimming over the 1959 Breviora article[26], it seems that much of the femur, tibia and fibula, tarsals, and metatarsals were preserved, but not the phalanges. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just make sure the skull in all versions sticks to the estimated size. I've run into this problem scaling sauropods. If a restoration of Argentinosaurus has a short tail, scaling it the the published 90ft estimate makes the known elements (verts, tibia, etc.) way too big, because the underlying assumption of the 90ft figure is an animal with a long, diplodocid-like tail. So to fix this I had to adjust the underlying diagram to lengthen the tail and make sure the known bones were coming out to the right length. The best bet is first to scale based on the length of known elements, not total length, then adjust the rest of the recon based on that. We don't know how long of a tail the estimates assume, for example. If you scale for overall length and then find known elements are coming out too big, the diagram (and usually either underlying reconstruction it's based on or length estimate used) is fatally flawed. My guess is that with Kronos, the larger size estimate assumes a much longer body than the actual data suggests, or at least longer tail. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the skull reconstruction in Kear (2003) is not based on MCZ 1285. It may be from a smaller individual. As far as I know, the skull of MCZ is incompletely known, so it's still likely to be an overestimate. Now that I'm not as limited by skull size, I've made the head bigger and the tail shorter. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Asilisaurus

Here's a sketch of Asilisaurus.[27] It's based on the skeletal in the Nature article, although a much better version that I just found can be seen here. Problems? Smokeybjb (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The proportions look a little off based on the skeletal. The head looks too small compared to the rest of the body, and either the torso is too skinny or the limbs are too big. The humerus looks almost half the height of the torso in the skeletal, but in yours it's nearly the same height, making it two times too long. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this?[28] I tried to move the shoulder joint down more to shorten the humerus. The humerus may look long because the hight of the torso is shorter in my restoration. This is because I didn't add as much flesh over the dorsal vertebrae as the silhouette of the skeletal implies. Would the muscles over these vertebrae really have been that thick? When you say the limbs are too big, do you mean they are too long? They may appear that way because they are more extended than in the skeletal. I've tried to show what I mean here by rearranging the skeletal over the restoration. Smokeybjb (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok that helps! I think it looks fine now, though maybe a bit scrawny with bare minimum soft tissue. I would expect an herbivore to have more of a gut, but that's not really something that can be known from the fossil. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

m

Dicrocerus: illustrating extinct Cervids.

Dicrocerus.

Hi everyone! I'm a stranger on this page, as most of my illustrations has been dinosaurs. But now, I may will start to visit this page. I start with my Dicrocerus. It was mostly based on these horns. As I haven't been able to find any photos of Dicrocerus skeleton, I decided to build it from my own head, with my knowledge about modern Cervids (which I think is pretty great, I don't mean to brag or something...). What do you say? Conty 20:30, 18 March 2010

Good job! I'm going to let the experts deal with accuracy though. I think that It should have more "typical" deer colors, though, not impala or gazelle colors. Just a suggestion. Like you, Conty, I am new in this area. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sneaky Oviraptor18! Remember that Cervidae comes in many colors. As example, the wintercoat of this fallow deer have 2 different hues on the side/the back. In the summer, it can also have a stripe on the side (see HERE). Conty 18:50, 19 March 2010 I'm saying that it has the colors of a pronghorn. The species you described still does not have colors to blend into a savanna, like yours does. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it should look like this:[29] sorry for editing your image so badly, it's just that most people who restore prehistoric life try to use colors based on their relatives or descendants or animals that have the same niches. Just so I know, what habitat did it live in? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sneaky Oviraptor18, I know the things you tells me. Conty088:05, 22 March 2010

Fedexia

Fedexia: [30] I am new to the image making buisness, so I'm due to make lots of mistakes. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Do you think so? don't be sad for that! It can take time to grow as illustrator for Wikipedia, but you are at the start, continue!. Conty 21:20, 19 March 2010

It's good to see we have some new people making paleoart here! To make it accurate, I'd suggest you look at pictures of the skull in the paper Fedexia was described in.[31] Since you're doing a lateral restoration, fig. 5 of the paper would be a good basis for your illustration. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Smokey, thats entirely what I based it on I traced it over. Seriously, I did everything I could to make it realistic. Do you think it is already ready to put in the article? Or should I edit it? --98.185.26.16 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log on. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you just traced the outline of the skull? There are still some major inaccuracies to be fixed. The eye is placed too far back on the skull, and the jaw margins are wrong. Look at the skull, the jaws are relatively straight. There are too few teeth, and they are too large. You can see in the figure that the teeth are small and quite narrow. Fedexia had 27 or 28 teeth on each side of the upper jaw. The largest teeth are the sixth and seventh maxillary teeth, which are the tenth and eleventh teeth from the tip of the jaw. The teeth gradually decrease in size in front of and behind the sixth and seventh, with the exception of the third and fourth premaxillary teeth, which are significantly larger. As for the lower jaw, there are around 28 teeth. They gradually decrease in size from the first tooth until the seventh or eighth tooth. The ninth and tenth teeth are a bit larger. After these two teeth, size begins to gradually decrease once again. Don't trace over the teeth exactly, because they are not perfectly preserved. Also, the nostril is too large in your illustration. The naris of Fedexia is subdivided into anterior and posterior portions. The anterior portion is the part that contained the nostril, and the posterior portion probably contained a large salt gland, like that of most reptiles. I don't think the gland would be very visible externally, though. Sorry if this seems like a lot of work, especially since it looks like you're just using MS Paint. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

( Yes, thats really what I'm doing. This shows I never get anything right :( --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't do the image on paint so thats why its that bad. I HAD TO LOOK AT IT, draw, LOOK AT IT, draw. Is there any chance you could make a drawing of the skull so I could fix it all. I'm kind of in the quitting my hobby mood. Is this alright for a template for you to do the teeth on or are the jaws and eyes and nostrils still screwed up like I always do? [32]--Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute}

Here's a rough outline of the head that you can use.[33] It might be easier for you to draw it out on paper first, and then either scan it or take a picture of it (if you can) so you can color with Paint. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news! I INSTALLED GIMP! --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerobatrachus.

I have done some illustrations of the Permian amphibian Gerobatrachus. If you want to see images of the fossil, take a look at those: [34] and [35]). A more popular restoration is this. The one depicting it with a dragonfly might could had a more rounded snout, but what do you others think? Conty 21:30, 19 March 2010

Looks good. I'm thinking though that in the first two, the hind limbs are projecting at a strange angle. If they were pulled back that far, I'd expect the feet to be out to the sides more, in line with the rest of the leg. In all three of your illustrations, the pelvic area seems to be too wide. If you look at the fossil, the ilia are small and very close together. Also, Gerobatrachus had a large, wide head like a frog; you have drawn it too small in comparison to the rest of the body. The skull seems a little to tall in your first illustration, the one that's in the article. It probably should be flatter. Also, I'd expect the eyes to be more bulgy, like in modern amphibians. Right now they seem sunken in. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He's right. The back feet look like front feet glued to the back. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys... but I built them on the factor that most amphibians and reptiles have their legs protuding from the sides of the body, but it's possible I exaggerated it... Conty 08:10, 22 March 2010

As you can see here: [36]. 1 is the back leg. 2 is the front leg. 3 is a diagram of a typical tetrapod back leg. the sticks are the areas of the leg, the blue dots are joints. PS: dont listen to stuff like this: [37] while you work ;)--Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that the legs are sprawled out (they would be like that), it's that the feet are facing forward. They should be in line with the rest of the leg, meaning that they would face outward. Ignore what I said before; your second illustration has the feet in the right position. However, the knees should probably be positioned farther forward, because the legs don't just move in a sweeping ark, they push off from the ground. I've tried to show what I mean here. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem with these isn't that the feet are facing forward (they should be, see pics--unlike archosaurs the hands are pronated) but that the posture and position of the hip joints look generally very, well, dinosaurian. The legs emerge high on the body, the belly is held off the ground, all of which makes them look like ceratopsians with frog heads attachaed. I'd reccomend looking at some photos of the way frogs and salamanders carry themselves when walking, like this: [38] [39] Note that the entirety of the legs are spread wide even when walking, basically horizontal from the body, not high on the sides like a dinosaur but stemming almost from the underbelly. Even when walking the pelvic area would be practically dragging on the floor. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nyctosaurus

Created this for my web site, but was a bit startled by how small it is! It's rare to find an image of the "giant" (proportionally) crested Nyctosaurus with any sense of scale. So as a public service I put it up here too. Any concerns? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks cool! But I always thought the non-crested specimens had just had their crests broken off? But it seems not? FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, they seem to be genuinely different crests. The 'normal' crests clearly point posterior and have rounded ends like female/immature Pteranodon. The crest base in N. sp is nearly vertical like in Pteranodon sternbergi males, yet obviously these specimens are much smaller. I think Bennett's suggestion that these represent adult male N. nanus is sounding pretty good, while adult male N. gragilis crests are either much smaller and more female-like, or unknown. Some N. gracilis specimens also have the crest along the top of the beak, which isn't there in the big-crested specimens. Edit: either that or published wingspans are waaay off and I scaled N. gracilis was too big, I'll look into this). MMartyniuk (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I checked this against some skeletals and it looks like N. gracilis was a bit too big. Changed it, but now commons won't let me upload over the old file for some reason, the replace system keeps taking me in circles :P MMartyniuk (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

NM, there we go. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I think it's ready. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Last hotfix, also found some commentary from Bennett on his (still?) upcoming Nyctosaurus osteology. The snout crest in one specimen was the result of crushing and "enhancement" to the specimen, i.e. not real. So there are no crested Nyctosaurus specimens other than the big antlered ones. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trematopids

Here's some trematopids:

• Anconastes[40], based on figs. 7 and 8 of "A new genus and species of trematopid amphibian from the Late Pennsylvanian of north-central New Mexico" Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 7 (3):252-269 (lateral view of skull can be found here).
• Phonerpeton[41], based on fig. 1 of "A new trematopsid amphibian (Temnospondyli: Dissorophoidea) from the Lower Permian of Texas" Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 10 (2): 222-243 (lateral view of skull can be found here).
• Tambachia[42], based on figs. 5, 8, and 9 of "A new trematopid amphibian from the Lower Permian of central Germany" Palaeontology 41 (4): 605-629.

Smokeybjb (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about the accuracy, but they look good! FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Megaladapis

I finally have access to my own PC and time to draw, so I started on a sketch of Megaladapis edwardsi[43], based on these images: http://vesmir.msu.cas.cz/Madagaskar/images/megaladapis_kostra.GIF http://vesmir.msu.cas.cz/Madagaskar/images/megaladapis002.JPG So well, I hope Smokey haven't stolen my thunder already, but if, it can probably be modified into another species. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I can put you in touch with Dr. Laurie Godfrey. She's one of the lead subfossil lemur researchers and the one who critiqued the Babakotia illustration. I'll warn you, though... she's very thorough and will discuss anatomy and locomotion in depth. If you're up for the challenge, just email me through Wiki and I'll pass your email along to her. She's been a little busy lately, but maybe we'll get lucky and you guys can find a few nights to work on it. She's usually very prompt in her replies. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great, but I have to admit, I never figured out how Wikipedia email works... What do I do? FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an email through Wiki, so once you reply, I'll put you in touch with Dr. Godfrey. In the meantime, I've shared your preliminary sketch with her, and here's her initial (brief) feedback:

The skeleton's posture is all wrong... begin by looking at lots of posture photos of koalas. The hands and feet of the skeleton that your artist is using are largely plaster. The real proportions were not known entirely at the time the skeleton was articulated.

Laurie Godfrey

Hope this helps, to start. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Seems like it's back to the drawing table... I'll send you a mail. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, been a very long time, but to my defense I made a deal with myself not to finish any other restorations for Wiki before this one was done (which may still take a while, so perhaps it's a bad idea), I've been busy, and it has been a bit sporadic with the email correspondences, so yeah, not much has been done in the meantime, but I worked a bit on it today, still far from done, but here it is. http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9318/megaface.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bad attempt, given how weird this lemur was. It's more of a question for Dr. Godfrey, since she makes the final call. Does the nose demonstrate a rhinarium? I'm not sure how to show an almost prehensile lip with a rhinarium, so I wouldn't know. But don't feel like you have to dedicate yourself to this. My lemur work is on hold for a little bit due to some collaborations, and I think Smokeybjb—who's made all the other subfossil lemur art to this point—agreed to take this one on eventually. Honestly, I won't be offended if you opt to bow out. You picked the hardest of the subfossil lemurs to illustrate. But if you want to keep at it, I'd suggest emailing Dr. Godfrey and maybe CC me. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoration by Megaladapo

I actually emailed her before posting here, so I'll see what she says. The problem for me has mostly been that I had to leave for Copenhagen for many months at a time within the last half year, where I didn't have access to my PC, and that Laurie was also very busy, so when I had time, she wouldn't have time, and so on. But at the moment, as long as I get green light from Laurie once in a while, I don't think it'll take long to finish. The drawing does not show a rhinarium as separate form the rest of the snout, I'v emade most of the proboscis (which Laurie requested) naked. Also, since there are multiple species, Smokey could surely make his own restoration of Megaladapis, I've based mine on edwardsi, so he has two others to pick from if he doesn't want overlap. We've also illustrated a species of Aigialosaurus each for example. Also, it appears a user named Megaladapo has made his own restoration, which can be seen at the right, but it appears to have a few inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

She has now replied, and it seems that she approves it: "I love it. I think this is fun and good. Does Alex Dunkel know that you are still working on this image? He has another artist working on Megaladapis as well, I think." FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, another artist took up the task since I hadn't heard anything from you in a while, but similarly, he went silent for a while. He was the artist who made File:Necrolemur NT.jpg. But like you said, multiple illustrations won't hurt. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that would be Arthur Weasly/Nobu Tamura. You know which species he chose? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, he's only working on Megaladapis at this point. If he feels like it, he may move on and tackle others. Feel free to coordinate with him if you want. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I meant which species of Megaladapis, heheh. But I'll ask him. Since I've done M. edwardsi, he could maybe make one of the two other species, if he hasn't started already. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Now has a philtrum.[44] FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking good! Does Dr. Godfrey think it's ready? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and it appears it's ready anatomically, but I don't think it's ready artistically, needs some more work for sure... [45] I'll see what modifications should be made if I wanted to change it into another Megaladapis species than edwardsi, but anyway, there isn't much room in the article for a new image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A reconstruction will take priority over some of the other images. Anyway, I still need to re-write that article, and completed life restorations will give me a strong incentive to bump it up on my priority list over the next month or so. So don't worry about that. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I can say that it's basically done[46], I'm just waiting for a last word from Laurie... Then I'll upload it to Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything from Laurie since, but last thing she said was "Good…" when I asked how the nose looked... So I guess it's approved, but I'd still like a final word. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The link above doesn't work any more. Could you send me the file so that I can write to Dr. Godfrey and inquire about it? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this link should work: http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/354/megali.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I just got a reply: "I like it." Looks like it's good to go. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, here's the Commons file. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pterodactylus scale

Another pteorsaur scale diagram, this one for Pterodactylus. I tried to match the walking vs. flying silhouette proportions, and though the wings appear shorter on the standing models I think they line up, at least the measurable parts (wing finger to ground contact, ground contact to elbow). MMartyniuk (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's probably just the folding that gives the impression that they are smaller on the grounded ones. Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyphalosaurus

Recon of H. lingyuanensis and a scale diagram... MMartyniuk (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, really great volume. Can't comment on accuracy past proportions, that look good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Typothorax

Two Typothorax,[47] based on the skeletals in the new JVP paper.[48] I've also made a diagram of Brachychirotherium tracks, which were probably made by Typothorax.[49] Smokeybjb (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I can't say I know much about aetosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened to this guy? FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eunotosaurus

Quick sketch. This one's pretty weird. It's a parareptile that looks like a turtle, and may even be related to them according to this paper. I don't have access to it anymore, but here's the cladogram with a Eunotosaurus skeletal. Problems? Smokeybjb (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks cool, but on the skeletal, what are those things coming out the back of the skull? Spikes or just part of the lower jaw? Are they present in the sketch? FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I assumed they were an extension of the lower jaw, but they might be spikes on the skull like the ones Meiolania has. It's hard to tell with the skeletal in dorsal view, but I'll try to find out from some other sources. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's part of the lower jaw. Look at fig. 9 of this paper. It has a clear outline of a real Eunotosaurus skull. The postparietal, tabular, and supratemporal bones at the back of the skull are labeled, and they don't form spikes. Then again, the lower jaw doesn't stick out that much either, so I'll adjust it. Here's a new version. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pakasuchus

Here's a diagram of the dentition of Pakasuchus, a new notosuchian that is described today in Nature. I'll also put a complete sketch of the animal up here soon. The diagram is based on these two figures.[50][51] The beige part represents the fossil, and the gray part is an outline of what the skull would probably look like complete (not sure, so I guessed at the shape of the snout). How is it aesthetically and accuracy-wise? Smokeybjb (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you copied/pasted the teeth directly from the article? Not sure that's kosher since it's not under a CC license. Can you use them to outline your own versions? The 3D texturing on them doesn't quite mesh with the 2D skull reconstruction right now anyway. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I used "trace bitmap" with Inkscape to get a vector image from the original picture. Not sure if that would be considered a derivative, but if it is I'll tweak the teeth so they don't look so much like the original. Smokeybjb (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a problem, tracings are considered derivative works. FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's a simple version with outlines of the teeth.Smokeybjb (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, here's a life restoration based on the fossil. I'm thinking of having sauropods in the background once I finish it, so here's a rough sketch of some. I'm not sure what kind would be in Tanzania during the Early Cretaceous, but I'd think they'd be similar to Malawisaurus. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile, so I've uploaded the diagram. I'm hoping to complete the life restoration, but I don't want to try until I know that everything is accurate (especially those sauropods, because I used a lot of guesswork in drawing them). Smokeybjb (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed the life restoration! Diagram looks good, and on the restoration, only thing is the right hind leg seems to maybe be a bit too far down? FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx scale

Hey guys, going through my old scale charts, this one seemed particularly weird. Using Headden's scale charts, I kept coming up with drastically different sizes for old Archie. It took me a while to realize that one of the scale bars in one of the images must have been mislabeled. Checking them against photos of the fossils, it looks like the scale bar I used to make the original said 5cm instead of 10 cm. So, I re-did the whole thing and added some wingspan silhouettes for good measure. I'm not handy with svg images so hopefully it came out ok. Figured I'd run the change past the committee to make sure I haven't overlooked anything :) MMartyniuk (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can the binomials be italicised? mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but the specimen names seem to merge with the binomials when the image is at a certain size, such as in the Archaeopteryx article. I'm not sure how you could fix it, though, other than spacing the names even further apart. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Morrinhosuchus

Sketch of the head of Morrinhosuchus (another notosuchian) based on the figures in this paper. Problems? Smokeybjb (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why I haven't commented before, but looks good, maybe the eye slit should be moved a wee bit to the right? So that the slit will be in the exact middle, don't think crocodiles can turn their eyes in the sockets? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a crocodile eye's range of motion is, but looking at this video[52], it looks like crocs can move their eyes. I'll push the pupil back a bit though because I'm not entirely sure that the pupils could move that far. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice video, seems like the eyemovement is very restricted, almost looks painful. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eusuchian osteoderms

Here's a basic diagram of osteoderms in Bernissartia, Susisuchus, Isisfordia, and the saltwater crocodile, showing the transformations in osteoderm pattern over time. It's based on this figure of this paper. This is just a quick drawing, I'll make it look prettier in an svg version. I'm planning on including it in the Susisuchus and Isisfordia articles. Any problems? Does it look clear and easy to understand? Smokeybjb (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't say much about accuracy, but looks clear! FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an svg version I just uploaded. For some reason, the text doesn't show up. Any idea why that is? I can't figure out why. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Never edited SVG, maybe Dinoguy knows? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. I had to convert the text to paths (shapes), and slanted the shapes to italicize the names. Unfortunately, the labels can no longer be highlighted and typed over if anyone wants to change them. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cearadactylus

Here's a new version of my Cearadactylus with revised jaws. I'm guessing at the exact shape of the tips, and I'm not sure if there should be crests like in other ornithocheirids. From looking at the line drawing[53], I'm wondering if crests just aren't preserved in the specimen. I'm guessing the bump on the lower jaw (now the upper jaw) was the start of a crest, perhaps? While it's up, criticism of the rest of the illustration is welcome. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'm not sure how much of the jaw tip was actually reconstructed aside from the 'kink' and the teeth, so going with a generic ornithocheirid snout seems ok to me. Though there are ornithocheirds without keels out there (or only slightly expanded jaw tips, like Aetodactylus and the "boreopterid" complex), and some papers have used the shape, position of the keel as a key diagnostic character between species, so no keel may be a safer bet in the long run. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Simosuchus

Sketch based on skeletal and restoration. And here's a scale diagram. I can't get hold of the new JVP articles, so I'm limited to these images. The scale in the restoration is too blurry to read, so I'm scaling based on the length of the skull according to this diagram. The Wikipedia article says Simosuchus was about 1 meter long, but that measurement was probably made under the assumption that Simosuchus had a long tail. It would be helpful if someone could find out what the correct length is. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgi and Krause state (on page 116) that Simosuchus was about 0.75 m long (including tail; measurement based on UA 8679, a mature individual). Ag.Ent talk 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and as usual, only thing I'm unsure about is eye size. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)