Barinasuchus compared to other South American mammal taxa
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Figure from Molnar et al. (2016) that compares sizes of Barinasuchus, Thoatherium, Theosodon, Astrapotherium[1] results on the high priority of image searching, and I felt sizes in that figure is highly inaccurate, so I decided to make image based on other images on Commons. Are there any problems, especially for size estimation of mammals? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reconstruction by Nobu Tamura
Model with fingered foreleg
Is there any reason that Lariosaurus had flipper-like forelegs different from other nothosaurs? I just think it's the influence of illustrations in old books like "the Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals." The influence of this type of reconstruction is huge, and all sorts of people give Lariosaurus flipper-like forelegs and toed hindlegs. However, as I see, the leg structure of Lariosaurus apparently did not differ from that of other nothosaurs? Compared to figure in this article,[2] it looks like that reconstructing foreleg like Nobu reconstructed looks not reasonable. (also this is CC article so image from this paper is useable) I am not good at sauropterygians so I hope someone helps. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It is reported in the literature that various species of Lariosaurus have pachyostotically expanded humeri, flattened ulnae, and manual hyperphalangy. I don't think this directly translates to a flipper but the forelimbs are at least more flipper-like than the hindlimbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This chart shows 1.3 m-long specimen of Eurypterus remipes. Original reference that describe that[3] is no longer available, so I searched archive and found this[4]. This page itself is made for specimen of E. remipes, but description in page is for group eurypterid. It clearly says that largest one reached 1.3 m and is on display at the Paleontological Research Institution, however it is not clear that description says for E. remipes or group of eurypterid itself. Of course, larger eurypterids are known, but it is no solid evidence that 1.3 m-long Eurypterus existed, as I see one of the largest one described in paper is 15 cm-long telson[5]. I am not able to find any evidence that 1.3 m-long Eurypterus specimen in PRI, so I am really not sure about that. Do you know about that, @Super Dromaeosaurus:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read much about Eurypterus, but Lamsdell and Braddy (2009) in their supplemental information apart made a chart with the sizes of the biggest specimens of most eurypterids [6]. The largest Eurypterus species is reported to be E. pittsfordensis at 30 cm only. That size diagram is from 2011, while the giant specimen mentioned in the article Eurypterus itself was described in 2021. So I don't know what the source of that size diagram is. But we do have a giant specimen of Eurypterus (E. lacustris by the way, not E. remipes), estimated to be over 1.5 metres in size, so that size diagram could just be modified. SuperΨDro15:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for information! By the way what is that giant E. lacustris? I think 15 cm telson belongs to specimen about 50-60 cm long? Another large specimen is described in that paper? I don't have access to that though. (Yeah not to confuse, that 15 cm-long telson is one from E. lacustris as well...) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The one in the 2021 paper with the 15 cm-long telson is the Eurypterus specimen estimated to be 1.5 metres-long. SuperΨDro10:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Ohh I just realized I read "half a meter" as "meter and a half". Then I have no idea about the 1.3 m-long specimen honestly. But I haven't seen such specimen mentioned around in other eurypterid papers. SuperΨDro10:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This user seems to tend to edit the colors and proportions of old images of living and other extinct animals to treat them as images of other animals. These images can be misleading and are still used on various pages. In particular, Ara atwoodi has been featured in a paper even though it is an edited image.[7] In addition, this user process non-free images and upload many as "Own Work", and sometimes edit fossil images to make inaccurate, such as reversing and cropping (including actual fossil elements). Images believed to be Copyvio of this user should be reported at c:Commons:Deletion_requests/Traced_copyos_by_A._C._Tatarinov. (Thank you for @FunkMonk:.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for compiling this, I'm wondering how this should be dealt with, as apart from the lack of attribution, there are no rules against modifying images. One question is whether they are within the Commons scope[8] though, which says they have to be educational. And I'm not sure if potentially misleading counts as educational? FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
In addition, these are examples of cropped/flipped fossil images. I think that these edits were made to make the layout easier to see, but of course the fossils are not symmetrical. Above all, it is troublesome because sometimes parts of the skeletons were scraped. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the issue with this particular set of images, provided that the licensing checks out (I haven't checked). Sometimes flipped and cropped images can be incredibly useful for cladograms, etc., where skeletal detail is entirely irrelevant. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree for life restorations, but not for photos of specific fossils. They can be misleading in what parts are preserved. Likewise, we actually have a guideline saying: "It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)"[9] I think this applies logically to specific fossils as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
List of images
Modified
Original
Modified
Original
Modified
Original, see that some materials are deleted in modified image
Modified
Original, clearly shows shadowed skull material that is not shown in modified one
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I recently created the Andrias matthewi page and I think it would be good to have a size chart for it, since it is the largest salamander ever. There are already a couple of images on Commons that could be used for the silhouette.[10][11][12]Carnoferox (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Size estimate of Andrias matthewi based on Naylor (1981)
@Xiphactinus88: is editing the page Largest prehistoric animals for many times, and adding some unreviewed images from commons to the page. I think we have to check accuracy of these images. Especially for B. latifrons size chart, this chart looks like not referring paper or actual material but just use size estimation descripted in Wikipedia article. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The Repenomamus seem to have incorrect dentition (the number seems correct, but the front incisors are too small and blunt). However, since this is a physical model, the image should be, at most, tagged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Holotype material of Eopelecanus aegyptiacus
A simple reconstruction of Eopelecanus, really not much too it its a generalized Pelican silhouette with the single holotype bone filled in. Armin Reindl (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Current chart
Original reconstruction by NT
Skeletal reconstruction
Current size diagram of Archelon is problematic. Original art is perspective, by Nobu Tamura who many times mistook about proportion, and in diagram it is upside-down. So I think Archlon as well as other large turtles need new size diagram. However, researching shows some problems. For holotype specimen, in original description[13] while total length is 352 cm, carapace length is estimated to be 170 cm. Considering length of other materials, total length 352 cm looks correct but carapace length become much bigger. For largest specimen it is descripted to reach 4.6 m with carapace length of 2.2 m.[14] Putting skeletal reconstruction on 2.2 m shell just makes around bit over 3 m long animal, far from 4.6 m long estimation. Since ratio of carapace length and total length is similar in both paper, I think "carapace length" may mean not midline length but other measurement. However, recent paper about Stupendemys[15] have diagram of Archelon with midline carapace length of 2.2 m, so I am not sure which is accurate. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyway I found another reference.[16] It says that 3.4 m long Archelon had 193 cm long shell. Looks like that is based on Wieland (1909) so have to check that as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok this is Wieland (1909), with skeletal reconstruction.[17] I can't find any good measurement of the largest "Vienna specimen" NHMW-1977/1902/0001,[18] however what I can notice is Vienna specimen lacks front of the shell. If shell length 220 cm means preserved part in specimen, ttotal length about 4.5 m can be estimated. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Plesiotylosaurus crassidens
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Created a new restoration of the tylosaur-like mosasaurine Plesiotylosaurus crassidens. Since the species is only known from two skulls and some other associated material much of the postcranial is based on its closest relative Prognathodon including the general body form, head-body ratio, and tail shape. Colorations is based on Tylosaurus nepaeolicus as a more speculative way of illustrating the convergent evolution between Plesiotylosaurus and tylosaurines.
New restoration
I also want to bring attention to the existing two restorations which may be inaccurate. They seem to be based on the LACM Plotosaurus skeleton that was misidentified as Plesiotylosaurus for a while. This is pretty evident in DiBgd's version as the mosasaur's positioning matches that of the skeleton (which is also consistent with the illustrator's apparent trend of closely following the positioning of original skeletons as seem in File:Platecarpus tympaniticus.jpg and File:Tylosaurus-proriger.jpg). Nobu Tamura's version has a slender and slightly curved head that doesn't match up with the robust morphology of the two fossil skulls but is instead consistent with that of Plotosaurus (I doubt that the source they cited provides enough material for a good reference and was instead for the description facts). Thus there's a case to be made to remove the label for these restorations and possibly replace them as Plotosaurus.
DiBgd's version
Plotosaurus skeleton initially misidentified as Plesiotylosaurus
If they're based on a specimen that belongs to a different genus (as is clear from DB's image), yeah, they should be relabelled accordingly. But I think the case is a bit more unclear for NT's image, we can't be sure what he was doing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
One could guess that perhaps DB specifically inferred the teeth and other parts of the jaws from descriptions of the Plesiotylosaurus skull, but there seems to be little consistency. For example, there's also the elongated rostrum on the dentary (but not the premaxilla??), but the general skull shape still matches the Plotosaurus skeleton. In that case, we could salvage the restoration though some modifications to the teeth and snout as well as the flippers to be more distinctly plotosaurine if @FunkMonk: is down.
Even if we can't know what NT's process of making their version was, the end result still shows the feature of a plotosaurine head, so I'm still confident at least the head isn't correct. The body is less clear and seems at first glance to be something more generic that's acceptable for either genus, but that's with less confidence.Macrophyseter | talk23:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's also NT's official Plotosaurus restoration; you can see the uncanny similarity in head shape (Also wondering if this restoration is too serpentine?)
That will be almost impossible to fix without a huge amount of work, I think. Maybe easier to modify DB's version into Plotosaurus? Alternatively, the one in NT's image could be doing some sudden twist or turn. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It employed a full carangiform swimming that one source thought was close to borderline thunniform. This animal was not flexible at the hips and tail. We could keep the restoration for now, but I might try to replace it in the future. Macrophyseter | talk06:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone uploaded a new restoration of Plotosaurus, so I've replaced this with that one. Note that the new image has a hypothetical dorsal fin, which is probably unlikely but might in a tiny way be possible (if one could presume the present stiffness of the back is supportive enough for a small fin, though it seems that the main expert on the genus Lindgren omits one in his reconstructions). May perhaps have to erase that bit off if it's misleading. Macrophyseter | talk00:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
With the creation of an article for the newly described Prognathodontine Thalassotitan, it has come to my attention that we have two unreviewed mosasaurid size charts by the author of the paper (@NickLongrich:) who also uploaded them. I had some doubts about the addition of dorsal fins in all of the mosasaurids and wanted to ask why they were included. I thought it best to post it here so others could give some input aswell. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps versions without dorsal fins can be uploaded as separate files so we can keep both, but also have more conservative versions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Longrich's reconstructions seem to be criticized by members of the paleoart community because of their unusual proportions and dorsal fins; I don't know of any other major mosasaur experts that make such speculative depictions. It's generally considered that mosasaurs most likely do not have dorsal fins because no part of their spinal columns are stiff enough to support one, with possible exceptions being extremely derived genera like Plotosaurus and Plioplatecarpus which maybe might support a tiny stubby one. But Morocco is full of well-preserved materials that have yet to be published, so it perhaps might not be too fair to dismiss Longrich that easily.
I would agree with FunkMonk's suggestions to create a separate image that removes the dorsal fin (and maybe elongate the tail slightly? It's possible that it's just the thickness making it look shorter than it actually is) since it would be disrespectful to "correct" Longrich's original without an expert consensus. Macrophyseter | talk01:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Also Longrich admitted that his depictions of dorsal fins are speculative in a Twitter post, so my comment on unpublished fossils is moot. I've uploaded a derivation of the Thalassotitan diagram with the dorsal fin removed; feel free to make additional changes if nessesary. Macrophyseter | talk22:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This image is used as size comparation of Lisowicia, however this image looks like too overestimated. Although it is around 4.5 m long, if human silhouette is 1.6 m tall, animal in this image become 5.4 m long and 3.0 m tall. In the first place I think better size diagram with better reconstruction is good to make? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Lingyuanopterus
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Looks nice, only thing I'm wondering is how visible that lower margin of the antorbital fenestra should be, if the visible eye is perhaps a tad too big[21], and whether all that empty space at the top and bottom is needed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
For the antorbital fenestra, I've decided to puff it out a little bit like what Joshua Tedder does. I'm fairly certain the visible eye is okay since we have the orbital preserved in Lingyuanopterus and the empty space at the on and bottom is mainly for formatting, it doesn't look great as a rectangle, to fix that should I add some form of coloured shape behind the animal? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds fine with the anatomy then, as for the space, well, we have to fit it into an article, and then a rectangle is just more manageable than a square or taller, especially if we want to be able to fit in other images as well. So while it may look better artistically, it makes practical use in an article harder. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Life restoration of Qikiqtania by Nobu Tamura has been added to the article without review. Shouldn't the fins be placed laterally instead of directly under the body like they are here? HFoxii (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The spine is straight, though I can see why it threw you off. This is what it looks like under the fins. That particular caudal fin shape is based on various illustrations of Tiktaalik ([24], [25], [26]). Does this make sense? I'm not a fish expert, so I could be misinterpreting the anatomy... -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
With request from @Hemiauchenia:, I made simplified anatomical reconstruction of alienopterid insect. Based on this paper,[27] most characters taken from Alienopterus but with simplified and generalized characters such as shape of wings and abdomen. Are there points to fix? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This looks great. My only potential addition would be some generalised wing venation to the hind-wings. Would also be awesome to see a similar generic reconstruction of an umenocoleid, though no pressure on that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I've never drawn a silesaur before, but long wanted to draw one in the pose of a Sirrush for fun, as I think they look similar. This sketch[28] would be for the Diodorus article. Any thoughts before I continue? FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The tuft thing at the back of the head is supposed to be feathers, but it will probably get more feathery overall when done, this is just the first sketch. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
With some proportion fixes[30] based on comments at the Discord server. Not sure when I'll get time to fix it, but next will be fuzzy integument somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd think scales, but yeah, it's probably the most speculative part of the restoration, basically just to mimmick the ornamentation of the sirrush. I wonder if other "silesaurs" can even be used for phylogenetic bracketing, though, given that they are perhaps just a grade of basal ornithischians... FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Nobu's reconstruction, which is currently used on the page
New Reconstruction
Ctenacanthus concinnus
I've done a new reconstruction of Xenacanthus, since the one currently used on the page seems to differ from both the skeletal anatomy and from what is known about Chondrichthyan soft tissue. The externally visible Ceratotrichia seem implausible based on living Elasmobranchs, and the blunt snout, rounded teeth and highly elongated dorsal spine differ from what is known of X. decheni. I tried to base my reconstruction more closely off of the fossil material, with the signature V-shaped teeth on display, and the cartilaginous supports of the fins encased in flesh. I've also given mine small spiracles just behind the eyes, as in living benthic sharks and rays. Please let me know if there are any issues with my reconstruction. Gasmasque (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Both images give the impression that the pectoral fins are quite thick. Is this intended? Other than that these look fine, but I think I'll allow the fossil shark experts among us to weigh in as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this is just an artifact of me being bad at shading. The lighting on these was based on sculpted clay models I made as references, so the wonky looking lighting on the fins might have carried over a bit. The pectorals aren't meant to be any thicker than those of living sharks. Gasmasque (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Lazarussuchus skeletal
Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion
This is equally bad. I'm pretty sure the feathers are cribbed from some non-free image, and the skeletals are probably a composite based on Hartman as well. Notably it has maxillary teeth! Jixiangornis does not have maxillary teeth. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The Lazarussuchus doesn't seem to be that great a match for Peters' skeletal, though the scale bar is identical to the kind Peters uses and the composition definitely recalls a style he once used frequently, and the flesh outline somehow seems similar too. While not related to similarity with Peters' skeletal, I must say that I don't find the abrupt transition from typical caudal verts to spineless, flagellicaudatan-type ones especially convincing. Additionally, I can't find anything suggesting that Sharovipteryx skeletal is freely licensed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the only freely available Peters skeletons on Wikipedia are images in 2000s, Longisquama and Jeholopterus, Sharovipteryx which uploaded by himself. At least I don't think the images on the website are freely available. In the first place, Peters himself infringes the copyright and continues to use other images for his images. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that some elements of Natters Lazarussuchus skeleton are derived from Dave Peters version. http://reptileevolution.com/lazarussuchus.htm See the hindfoot from the upper skeleton, and the tail comes from the lower outline drawing but coloured in to match the other parts of the skeleton. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That is extremely weird. Someone should contact the uploader and ask what the heck is going on... And many of their uploads should be DR'ed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This gif of Sharovipteryx is another curious image from this user... "This is mostly speculation Based on Basilisk Lizards, Waterfowl running and flapping, and humans running". Well I don't know any person that wants to reconstruct running posture of Sharovipteryx, other then someone we know[32]... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
So this user replaced Lazarussuchus with 404 and nominated for deletion by themselves, and made the wings of Jixiangornis a silhouette. But this doesn't seem to be a good choice as the previous version remains after all. Interestingly, when I googled this 404 image, I found some exact matches. That means they may have used copyvio images to avoid copyvio. As you can see, there is something wrong with the way the nominate of deletion is written. In reason they say is, "I made it And it is mine". Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The very presence of skin flaps on the tiny, wing-like forelimbs, not to mention the whole "running gif" style, is very clearly Peters inspired. We should definitely inform this user that they're committing several cardinal sins of Wikipedia. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Well that image was already deleted, but that user replaced image to plane image with something like 404, taken from somewhere in the internet. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of its copyright status, I find this image somewhat problematic as it gives the impression that C. nichollsi is known only from a complete skull; whereas its skull is actually incomplete but also attached to a partial anterior postcranium: [33]. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking closer, I can also see considerable anatomical issues, including: extensive participation of premaxilla in external naris (actually basically nonexistent, at least along the dorsal margin), jugal-quadratojugal contact, with jugal nearly reaching squamosal (jugal-quadratojugal contact actually absent), no differentiation between quadratojugal and quadrate, splenial laterally exposed (actually hidden), lacrimal forms entirety of anterior margin of orbit (about half actually formed by prefrontal), 12 scleral plates (should be 14), and dentary extends posteriorly of orbit (actually terminates well anteriorly to the posterior margin of the orbit), based on Fröbisch et al. (2006) and Klein et al. (2020). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
C. youngorum bears a prominent posterior prong on its jugal, its jugal forms about half the posterior margin of the orbit, the lacrimal does not extend very far along the ventral margin of the orbit, and the nasal is excluded from the external naris. (Sander et al., 2021)
C. buchseri has at least 13 scleral plates, a much narrower jugal, a triradiate lacrimal, and the jugal does not extend along the posterior edge of the postorbital. (Sander, 1989)
C. duelferi does have 12 scleral plates, however, its dentary does not extend posteriorly of the orbit, the jugal and quadratojugal are only barely in contact, the postorbital is triradiate, and the teeth are larger. (Klein et al., 2020)
C. petrinus is by far the best match, with its laterally exposed splenial, broad quadratojugal-jugal contact, lacrimal forming a considerable portion of the ventral margin of the orbit, and jugal largely excluded from the posterior margin of the orbit. However, even it doesn't match perfectly; C. petrinus has less rounded orbits, a very tall sagittal crest, a much deeper posterior mandible, and general consensus seems to be that the premaxillarly contribution to the external narial margin was negligible to absent. (Klein et al., 2020; Sander et al., 2021) It ultimately doesn't seem to be a great match for any species. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, in addition to the weird inconsistency of detail, this is clearly not Ichthyosaurus. An incomplete list of issues: There is no differentiation between the premaxilla and maxilla, the nasals apparently diverge from each other at their front ends (a trait not seen in any ichthyosaur, to my knowledge), there's no differentiation between the nasals and lacrimals, the latter of which form part of the jaw line, there seems to be a maxillary ascending process (absent in Parvipelvia), the lacrimal appears boomerang-shaped (it's triangular in Ichthyosaurus), the maxilla seems to be involved in the external narial border (excluded in Ichthyosaurus), there appears to be no quadrate and therefore no jaw joint, there's no differentiation between the dentary and surangular, the angular/splenial extends to the front of the mandible, forms the tip of the jaw, and is exposed laterally throughout that part, the upper end of the humerus is significantly wider than the lower (characteristic of some undorosaurids/platypterygiines), there is an anterior accessory epipodial (synapomorphy of Ophthalmosauria) which contacts the humerus with a well-developed preaxial accessory digit, the posterior margin of the ulna is notched (pretty much exclusive to ophthalmosaurines among parvipelvians), digit II is not bifurcated (it is in Ichthyosaurus), the phalanges do not interlock, and the ischium does not contact the ilium. There are certainly more anatomical problems, but this appears to be chimaeric. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Red Natters has also uploaded this Anurognathus. Another likely copyvio; some parts look suspiciously similar to the skeletal in this paper, and it's clearly stitched together from multiple sources.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Original file
Translated version
This image well shows anatomical reconstruction of Pikaia according to this study,[35] but unfortunately this is only written as Russian. I don't know which name shows parts of that animal, so can someone good at anatomy translate this image? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
Reconstruction life-size model megalonyx jeffersonii
Added to the Megalonyx article without review. While obviously impressive on a technical level, I note that the original commons upload does not specify what ground sloth this is supposed to be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay it is specified to be Megalonyx on his website [36]. My main critique is that the coloration of the head is too closely modeled after the three toed sloth. There's no good reason to assume that they would have the same head markings given that they are only distantly related. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I question the illustrative utility of the image given that the human figure (presumably the artist) is not in a suitable position relative to the animal to serve as a scale bar. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Even in that picture you can see that the base of the tail is wider than closer to the tip. This is consistent between fossil specimens and isn't clearly reflected in the reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this critique, the tail of Glyptodon specifically is clearly cone-shaped, which is clearly not reflected in the model. Obviously in some other glyptodonts like Doedicurus the tail in parts is cylindrial, but that isn't what is being depicted here. Also, doesn't Glyptodon only have three large toes on the forefoot? See [37] C, with the other much smaller toe projecting away from the others. See also: [38]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Glyptodon clavipes is a species of questionable validity and most specimens used to describe G. clavipes actually belong to G. reticulatus. For practical purposes, there is no difference between the two species, and certainly not in the tail (the purported characters involve the shapes of the individual osteoderms). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
In that example though it's clearly continuous with the headcap, but admittedly this is a minor nitpick. What is the context of these sculptures creation? Were you comissioned by a museum etc? Your website doesn't make that clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
Ercaicunia
Balhuticaris
Works by @Domenic Pennetta:. I think, for Balhuticaris, more numbers of, narrower segmentation are needed for accuracy, of course it will be so hard work, though. Other than that, are there any problems? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
For Ercaicunia, I think the 5 pairs of dorsal spines on its middle body segments (Zhai et al. 2019, Fig. 3B, "ds") are visible in this angle. For Balhuticaris, as pointed out by @Ta-tea-two-te-to, is characterized by more and narrower body segments, like about 100 segments/limb pairs visible beyong the carapace (that's a lot of work so no hurry). Other than that, I think the caudal rami still can be improved by adding reinforced margins (Izquierdo-López & Caron 2022, Fig. 3D, "r.m."), lateral spines ("sp") and posterior setae ("st").
Anyway nice artworks! I'm glad to see somebody provide detailed reconstructions of bivalved arthropods (which are obscure and usually need lots of effort). Junnn11 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Junnn11:! This is really great feedback as well. For Ercaicunia, I have "dorsal spines" written down in my notes... and I forgot to add them! So silly of me. But at least it is not a difficult change.
Also, thank you for the compliment! I am super interested in obscure arthropods—especially as a scientific illustrator who loves depicting insects and invertebrates. I really admire your work and many other paleoartists here, so I hope I am not 'stepping on anyone's toes' reconstructing prehistoric arthropods... thank you all for being so courteous! 134.228.180.65 (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Qohelet12:, I wonder if you want to do better Balhuticaris reconstruction? (I am sorry to request that as I requested Arthropleura as well...) For Eucaicuina, I think I can do image tweak to add spines. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Also I uploaded new version of Ercaicunia, not only adding spines but also adjusted segments compared to diagram in paper. How is this @Junnn11: and @Hemiauchenia:? Though I see there is new study about carapace shape,[39] I hope that is already fine... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
That paper says the most likely valve opening angle is 120 deg. I honest can't judge from the image what the valve angle is supposed to be, so I think it's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. The larger caudal rami have segmented lateral margins, other than that I see no problem so far. Junnn11 (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I have uploaded a restoration of Scleromochlus taylori, based on the recent paper classifying it as a pterosauromorph. References for the main paper and a 3D skeleton can be found in the file page. Though usually depicted as quadrupedal, the paper also contains a skeletal of a bipedal Scleromochlus (image can be found here). Pycnofibres were added due to proximity to pterosaurs. Any thoughts? El fosilmaníaco (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry for being late, actually I couldn't do the reconstructions (in fact I only did one) because I was busy this week, I hope I can upload them next week. And as for Kiisortoqia, I think I can do it if it is still necessary later, but first I need to finish the hymenocarines. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to criticize you. But since you misinterpreted previous vertebrate reconstructions, are you really able to draw arthropods that have more complex body plans and need to accurately reconstruct segment numbers, leg structure, etc? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Sir, I have improved, and I have developed something called Common Sense. I believe I can do it, don’t underestimate my abilities for a few mistakes. Sorry if I came off in a rude tone. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Then fine, hope you will get good work! P.S. I was just worried because I've seen many good vertebrate paleoartists make mistakes in reconstructing arthropods. Of course it is very difficult for me to draw it accurately as well. I'm sorry if that made you feel bad. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks mostly good. The segmentation on the frontal appendages is not indicated, which it ideally should. The central darker shading (which I assume is supposed to represent relief), should more closely the area bounded by the light grey line in this restoration, meaning that it should be wider, and should be rounded off at the front and not extend to the very front of the head. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks fine, still I agree to add segmentation should be added in appendages. Also I think it is better to draw setae on hindmost appendage as line, not brush-like. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The sources should be cited in the file description. I don't notice anything particularly objectionable about this reconstruction, but the perspective on the neck looks a bit wonky where it curves towards the viewer, and the slope of the back looks somewhat different from Hartman's skeletal. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
New Isisaurus
@Ansh Saxena 7163: I noticed you uploaded an alternative version of this piece and added it to the Isisaurus page. I think the reflection is unnecessary and distracting. Also, the way the shadow has been added under it kind of makes it look like the animal is floating. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@SlvrHwk: Hi Slvrhwk, your suggestions have been duly noted. Would presenting just the animal without any shadows and reflections against a white background do?
And as for Ornithopsis' comment, sorry I didn't respond earlier because for some reason I didn't get notified. I have talked with Prof. Hartman about reconstructing Isisaurus and he says the general posture is fine, especially because we don't have good material of the hind limbs it could vary a little. He did say the neck might look short due to its curve towards the viewers but for that I simply wanted to show what the animal's face would look like from the front. Thank you for your thoughts though, I appreciate them.
I'll fix the shadow and reflection thing and attach a new file by evening today, if there's anything else that may be wrong here with the reconstruction please do inform me of it. Thanks, have a good day.
-Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think the shadow is fine. It should just be positioned underneath the animal a little more realistically. Moving the shadow up a little should help? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@SlvrHwk: I have updated the file to a new one, with the reflection removed and the shadow slightly adjusted upwards. Would this work? - Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 9:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I think it's very clear why this image is a major issue. The eye was seemingly placed in the antorbital fenestra, the tip of the snout is missing, the skull is shrinkwrapped to hell and back, the top of the skull has a weird second bump at the back rather than being flat, two rows of big blade-like osteoderms are unlike anything seen in actual phytosaurs. It seems like whoever made this was completely unaware of phytosaur anatomy or taphonomic factors, and simply traced over a photo of the fossil on novataxa, which shows up at the top of google images. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like user themselves is not used to editing, adding bare references every time... Also, this user looks like uploaded multiple image deleted due to copyvio, and I wonder if two stamps this user uploaded are also copyvio image.[40]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmmmm, @Aaa232355: uploaded new image in Volcanosuchus without review... Also we should see other images from this user, and if inaccurate we should tag. In Indosaurus someone (not Aaa themselves) added reconstruction by Aaa, I think without tag it is hard to see that image is inaccurate or not from editors who are not especially good at paleontology. (that user added Prehistoric Wildlife in reference as well, it is clear that user is not used to paleontology) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Well its objectively an improvement already, at least the eye's in the correct spot now. Tho I don't think they've actually checked the paper and just made the snout longer, as the paper's recon adds a Rutiodon like hook to the tip of the premaxilla. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn’t earlier because it was paywalled, but was able to access it yesterday using the Wikipedia library. I will send my newest revision in a second. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Aaa232355 Did you get it now? Since it is a closed access paper, it would be against Wikipedia's policy to introduce the pdf here. I recommend that you communicate someone via e-mail. (I don't have access, sorry) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
In hindsight I see that the Rajasaurus is shrink wrapped incredibly, I’ll go ahead and fix that, do tell me of any other shortcomings and problems. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Life reconstruction of Jinjuichthys
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've worked on several South Korean Cretaceous fishes, including Wakinoichthys and Jinjuichthys. Especially I finished working on Jinjuichthys based on Kim et al., 2014, the paper which described 2 specimens. The entire reconstruction is actually not based on a single fossil, but the composition of the holotype and paratype, and some missing elements are based on other members from Chuhsiungichthyidae. Tell me if there is anything else to fix. I will ask for the Wakinoichthys next if I finish changing some errors. Thank you.
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Gordodon 2022
Gordodon 2018
Lisowicia 2022
Lisowicia 2018
User:Juandertal has uploaded some updated reconstructions of Gordodon and Lisowicia to replace his originals from 2018 uploaded under User:Juan(-username-). Anatomically, I don't have any points to make and I'm pretty happy with them and have no changes to suggest, I'm mostly adding them to the page posterity. That said, the watermarks might be a problem for some, I don't think they're too egregious myself but they might fall into disruptive territory to others, so I leave the floor open there. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion on the illustrations! I am willing to downsize the signature and put it next to the animal's body if it is too distracting. I saw some signed illustrations and thought there would be no problem with it. Juandertal (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems the Gordodon is missing those spikes on the neural spines that were added to the earlier version. Or, looking closer, they're just very faint? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the skeletal diagram I used as reference, those spipkes are fewer and less notorious on Gordodon than Edaphosaurus. Juandertal (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
They're more subtle in this rendering style for sure, but they're definitely there. They're pretty small on the fossil itself as well, so I'm willing to give them a pass here. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you please stop making repeated platitudes and look at the ANI post on your talk page? You are dangerously close to getting blocked if you don't stop this behavior. Request images of these taxa in separate sections, not already existing sections. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want him to make restorations of Jianchangosaurus yixianensis, Kelenken guillermoi, Propalaeotherium hassiacum, Shenzhoupterus chaoyangensis, Rhomaleosaurus cramptoni, and Wadiasaurus indicus. 24.218.189.104 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
It's already almost 5 m along the spine. Probably actual fossil measurement used. It's not usually possible to get the size exactly as described, and it also depends on how to scale the size. Where is the source of the size "5 m" that you got in the first place? Most news websites describe it as "4.5 m" and the original description doesn't give a detailed size estimate in the first place. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree. That was my biggest concern about it, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Any ideas? Dicynodonts certainly aren't my specialty. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could look at Fabio Manucci's reconstruction of Dinodontosaurus[41] from the paper on kannemeyeriiform footprints and footpads as a reference, seeing as the leading arm is in a similar pose? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Stop it. You don't understand what a measurement is. The length of an animal depends on its posture, and the measured value is not always correct, and it is not uncommon for an error of several tens of centimeters to occur. Is it possible for a 180cm tall person to be 180cm tall even when their backs aren't straight? What if you justify yourself with ANI before being blocked? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
For the last time, stop telling other editors how you want the measurement to be. Look at the ANI post on your talk page, can't you comment there instead of here? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Make a size comparison of Natovenator, the new halszkaraptorine dromaeosaurid. I recommend a swimming pose and the whole background has to be blue, like your Qiqiktania and Kiisotorqia. 24.218.189.104 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The whole Halszkaraptorinae subfamily is optional. Would you like to do a size comparison of Natovenator along with Halszkaraptor, Hulsanpes, and Mahakala? 24.218.189.104 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
What a fucking rude and ungrateful comment. Someone volunteers their spare time to make images for free, and you somehow feel entitled to make demands of them, having the temerity to give them a fucking deadline. Fuck off, your presence is unwanted on this noticeboard, and I will revert all further comments you make here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Reconstruction by Nobu Tamura
Model with fingered foreleg
Original image, Ara ararauna
Original image, modern koala
Original image, modern koala
Original image, "penguin"
Original image, Piliocolobus badius
Original image, aardvark
Original image, Indian elephant
Original image, Hyracodon
Original image, Camelus dromedarius
Archaeopotamus (image caption H. liberiensis adult male)
Original image, Hexaprotodon liberiensis
Original image, cougar (even not being a red panda that is related to)
Original image, brown bear
Original image, Zaglossus bruijni
Original image, Olive Tanager
Original image, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
Original image, modern walrus
Original image, Neohipparion
Original image, Megacerops
Original image, Aceratherium
Original image, giant panda
Original image, giant panda
Original image, Nyctanassa violacea
Original image, Chestnut-vented Conebill
,_Natural_History_Museum,_London,_Mammals_Gallery_2.JPG)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_(14589835638).jpg)
_(5985361932).jpg)
_(6505685715).jpg)
.jpg)
).jpg)
Modified
Original
Modified
Original
Modified
Original, see that some materials are deleted in modified image
Modified
Original, clearly shows shadowed skull material that is not shown in modified one
Modified
Original
Modified
Original
Model of Repenomamus
Original image of B. latifrons size chart...
Current chart
Original reconstruction by NT
Skeletal reconstruction
_(17964807390).jpg)
DiBgd's version
Plotosaurus skeleton initially misidentified as Plesiotylosaurus
Nobu Tamura's version
Pluridens and Halisaurus
Dorsal fin removed
Nobu's reconstruction, which is currently used on the page
New Reconstruction
Ctenacanthus concinnus
Original file
Translated version
.svg){kind=small}
Glyptodon
Ercaicunia
Balhuticaris
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gordodon 2022
Gordodon 2018
Lisowicia 2022
Lisowicia 2018
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrias_davidianus_(white_background).jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AndriasSligoi.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrias.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://i.imgur.com/BSNuah5.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_restoration_(side_view)_by_ObsidianSoul_02.png){kind=link}
![[26]](https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1322559111/asset/9c089449-fecc-4622-a73d-e49acbb9562c/assets/graphic/pnas.1322559111fig05.jpeg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://i.imgur.com/seuS7Y7.jpeg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://i.imgur.com/RECjIA6.jpeg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sharovipteryx-recon588(Peters).jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Glyptodon_clavipes_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/030/813/967/large/fabio-manucci-pentasauropus-dinodonto.jpg?1601735432){kind=link}