Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 9

Thylacine

Hello there! This is a new restoration of mine. Does anyone see something to make it better? Triangulum (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm thinking, since we have actual photos and footage of this animal alive and of stuffed specimens, it isn't actually a palaeontological subject, and there's nothing to restore, since we know how the animal looked in life. There are other extinct species in the genus Thylacinus, though... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha okay. You're right. Ofcourse real footage is better than a reconstruction. I understand. Triangulum (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a good effort in any case. What do you think about making a modified version that could show one of the prehistoric species in the genus? For example Thylacinus potens? The current restoration there looks a bit too much like the modern thylacine... Could be nice with a slightly different pattern... Thylacinus megiriani could also be a possibility. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I can always try ofcourse! Uhm.. So let's say I am going to try to make the Thylacinus potens... Then I should alter the image in such a way that it looks “more robust” and make it have “a shorter and broader skull”. Are there other things I should keep in mind? Seems like there isn't further information known about this animal. Triangulum (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as it matches the bones... You could maybe alter the pattern of stripes a bit, I see some other restorations have made it much stripier[1]... FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! I'll see. Triangulum (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thylacinus potens

This is what I have now. Can I have your opinion? Triangulum (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks very cool! I like that it is not too different from a "normal" thylacine, though still unique... Since only some jaws are known, I think it's as correct as we can get. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Great, good to hear! I like it too. Triangulum (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yingabalanara

This image now graces the page for Yingabalanara. Yingabalanara is known from two molars, with no evidence, physical or by bracketing, that it was a glider. The unsupported speculation in this depiction of a tooth taxon leads me to propose removal of this image. Shuvuuia (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For that level of original research, I think it would be appropriate to directly remove it... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yingabalanara's teethare similar to those of phyllostomid bats. And there's no evidence to suggest that it wasn't a glider.

On an actual serious note, what do you think of Wilaru's legs? - Falconfly

Do note that the article pointedly says "[...] for obvious reasons the animal's overall appearance and morphology are unknown"... it doesn't seem appropriate to me at all that a life reconstruction should even be done in the first place. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am all for images being used in articles. In this case I'd recommend moving it out of the taxonbox, but keeping it in the article as a hypothetical restoration. In all fairness, the overall anatomy is really unidentifiable from the drawing too, Yingabalanara isn't the only focus. IJReid ^discuss 04:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• There has been a massive discussion about this already on Commons[2], I advised the involved parties to take the discussion here (nothing happened). But yes, it doens't matter if there is "no evidence against it being a glider"; if it hasn't been suggested in the literature, its WP:OR, and simply not allowed on Wikipedia. And note there are many similar images now on Commons, all need to be tagged as problematic. It seems like a cetain WP:Fringe POV is being pushed with these images. I'd suggest focusing all this effort on getting the idea validly published, because it doesn't fly on Wikipedia until then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Brontoscorpio

I was thinking of making a reconstruction of Brontoscorpio (I've first seen it in Walking with Monsters), but I can't find any images of fossils of it on the internet. If people know that it existed there should be at least 1 fossil. Does anyone know something? Triangulum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume there are pictures in the description?[3] Seems we have a nice restoration of it already... FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright thank you. Triangulum (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Another consideration for Brontoscorpio is that the genus and species were described from an isolated pedipalp (claw) and the reconstructions that you see of it are all hypothetical beyond the claw.--Kevmin § 01:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That explains a lot... because the only fossil I could find was a claw on the site where FunkMonk referred to. Thanks! Triangulum (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Eventhough the article already has a restoration I wanted to ask if my restoration seems right. Triangulum (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a nice addition, since it also shows a size comparison, but with so little known material, I at least have no idea how accurate it is... I guess as long as it looks like its closest relatives, and the claw matches the fossil, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you. Triangulum (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Long-legged bunting

Hi everyone. I've recently made a restoration of the long-legged bunting (Emberiza alcoveri), an extinct flightless bunting from the Canary Islands. I used the description paper as reference (1). According to it, this bird is a relative of some species of extant buntings, but with longer legs, shorter wings and a different beak shape, which I tried to depict here. The paper also includes a restoration, but it may exaggerate the length of the legs, or so it seems to me. Opinions? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine, I think, perhaps the back of the head could be a bit more rounded? Why do you think the legs are too long in the paper restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Head roundness corrected. Regarding the paper restoration, the tibia looks much longer than the ones of other buntings (which are often barely visible), and they are "only" around ~15-20% longer. However, I know that the visibility of this part of the leg depends on many variables, such as the orientation of the leg parts or the volume of the plumage. Maybe the paper restoration has less amount of plumage in that zone, and that makes the tibia look so long.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks good now. Perhaps the tail feathers are a bit too short, compared to other buntings? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they were a bit shorter, now I've made them longer. I was thinking that if that bird was flightless it may have reduced the tail feathers length, because it wouldn't need them for maneuverability in air, unlike it's relatives. However, I'm not very sure of that thought now, as lots of ground-dwelling birds have long tails, so here's the long-tailed version of this restoration. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, didn't realise it was flightless. But yeah, as one of the few known flightless passerines, the others being wrens, which even have short tails in flighted forms, it might be hard to predict how the feathers would be in this one... FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cooksonia pertoni

Any thoughts? Triangulum (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, don't know much about plants! I see Peter coxhead made another illustration, perhaps he has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The illustration at commons:File:Cooksonia pertoni.png is by Smith609 and, as the description says, reflects the view of Boyce (2008) that the diameter of the axes was too small to support photosynthetic tissue, so the sporophyte must have been dependent on the gametophyte. Boyce's Fig. 3 gives the diameter of C. pertoni axes as from about 0.03 mm to just over 1 mm. So Triangulum's image isn't consistent with Boyce, both in terms of axial diameter (both absolute and in proportion to sporangial diameter), nor in making the axes green. What source was used? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at all the images of cooksonia that popped up in my browser and saw that nearly all of them depict this plant with a green colour. Then I read about the scale. It would have been a few centimeters tall. (Way shorter then I first thought.) I started photoshopping just to make a start and after I had uploaded this start (or call it a beta) I wanted to ask for help here to make it correct. So if I understand you correctly I must change the colour a bit (maybe more yellowish in stead of green) and make sure that the diameter of the stem is correct? Triangulum (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The colour of the axes is unknown, but I find Boyce's argument persuasive, as did Smith609. We just don't know whether the axes were green (photosynthetic) or not. What we do know is the diameter of the axes, which should start at just over 1 mm and go down to about 30 μm. The relative sizes at commons:File:Cooksonia pertoni.png are about right according to the papers I've read but the axes should probably start thicker and get thinner, like yours. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If I want to fix my restoration I should change the scale, so that the base is 1 mm big and the top axes are around 30 μm big. Am I correct? Triangulum (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Triangulum: I have been trying to find out more about the exact dimensions of Cooksonia pertoni from original papers and textbooks. If you have access to JSTOR you could look at p. 205 of this paper. It says of C. pertoni (the type species of the genus): "Most fossils are not very well preserved. This results in difficulties with measurements ... No indisputable specimens of Cooksonia [pertoni] ... show more than one level of branching. Most axes are slender ... Only one specimen shows more robust axes ..." So I think that all reconstructions are very speculative and not based on much evidence.

I think the best thing to do is to reconstruct Cooksonia paranensis instead. This is much, much better preserved. It looks very like your version of C. pertoni. There is a good description and image of a fairly complete fossil in Gerrienne, Philippe; Dilcher, David L.; Bergamaschi, Sérgio; Milagres, Ingrid; Pereira, Egberto; Rodrigues, Maria Antonieta C. (2006), "An exceptional specimen of the early land plant Cooksonia paranensis, and a hypothesis on the life cycle of the earliest eutracheophytes", Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 142 (3–4): 123–130, doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2006.05.005 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). Their reconstruction is about 33 mm tall (i.e. about half the height you have now), with axes from about 1 mm to 0.6 mm in diameter. If you can't access the paper, send me an e-mail through Wikipedia and I'll send you the relevant part. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have created some accounts and was able to see the pages you wrote about. I will take a look at the Cooksonia paranensis. Triangulum (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Embolotherium andrewsi

While working on Cooksonia I also was Photoshopping this Embolotherium restoration. Any thoughts? Triangulum (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems there are some suggestions that there was some soft tissue extension of the snout related to the horn, I'm not sure exactly how, but there are restorations here:[4] I've also seen some restorations that show the nostrils on top of the horns, not sure what's going on. Supposedly it's proposed in this giant paper:[5] Also, where are the ears? FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen those too. I'll check the papers. And.. Oh No! You're right! I forgot the ears! hahaha My mistake. I will fix that. Triangulum (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave it ears. So that is done. I will later take a look at the other restorations and the paper. Triangulum (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. This site seems to be a good reference, but it is best to check the paper anyway:[6] Also, it seems like the back of the skull on your drawing is almost free from the neck like a ceratopsian dinosaur crest, when it should be encased and connected to the neck by flesh? FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that site indeed looks like a good reference. And you're right. I should take a look at the back of the skull too. And I was wondering: Should I try to give it some hair as the restorations on the site you mentioned [7] have.Triangulum (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence for or against, so it's up to you... That site also shows two different versions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay then! I'll see. Maybe I'll find a subtle way in between. Triangulum (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember looking into this a while back... this research appears to have only ever been published in a conference abstract, so I'm not entirely sure if it's wise to jump the gun on this one. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Takes forever to download, but it is actually mentioned in detail a few times in the 2008 paper I linked above, for example: "Like E. andrewsi the lateral walls of the ram are deep and thick, forming a ventral nasal channel that runs to the distal end of the ram. The lateral walls are about the same depth throughout the length of the ram although they become slightly shallower distally. Proximally, the lateral walls are shallower than those of E. andrewsi and they do not constrict the nasal channel. A thin ossified ridge (osteological marker for the cartilaginous nasal septum) runs along the anteroventral surface of the ram and extends to the distal end. As in E. andrewsi, the nasal channel and ossified marker for the nasal septum indicate that the nasal cavity would have extended to the distal end of the ram, although the actual position of the nostrils is uncertain. However, because of the more posterior position of the ram and its shallower angle, the space between the ram and the rostrum is tremendous, suggesting an enormous nasal cavity (Mihlbachler and Solounias, 2004)."[8] FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another quote from the paper, since long quotes are allowed outside article space: "Reconstructions of Embolotherium andrewsi in Osborn (1929a, 1929b) depict the ram as a hornlike process, with the nostrils positioned very low in a normal rhino like position just above the premaxilla. However, the deep channel on the anteroventral surface of the ram and the ossified marker for the nasal septum indicate that the nasal cavity extended to the peak of the ram. Wang (2000) depicted the nostrils as elevated to the peak of this structure although the true position of the nostrils is uncertain." FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see... that seems like a reasonable justification. Of course, the more publications on this subject the better! ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk)

I count only ten new publications about Brontotheriidae since 2008 on Google Scholar (more than half authored by Mihlbachler, who proposed the giant snout), so it doesn't seem there's much going on, and little dissent... FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So, What now. Much has been said. The things I should change are: The back of the skull, maybe add some hair and uhm where should I put the nostrils then? Some people say on the hornlike thing and other people say on the snout, just as a rhino. Triangulum (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The placement of the nostrils is unknown, as the quote above states. I'd put them in the "normal" rhino-like position (on the enlarged snout), as the American Museum of Natural History seems to prefer. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, great! Triangulum (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Explicitly spelling this out in the article might be nice, especially when this image is present. The current formulation notes that the nasal cavity may extend that far upwards, but that this may mean nostrils on the tip of the ram might be unclear. Interesting fact, and useful for qualifying the restoration.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded a newer version. Did I forget anything or is it good as it is now?Triangulum (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to follow the recent restorations, the snout and lips should protrude further out, and the front of the bony structure would be entirely covered in flesh, and not visible:[9] Here's a rough sketch of what I mean, I'm at work, so this was done with a mouse in MS Paint, so it is not so precise:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know that working with Paint is very hard, so nice job! I'll try to Photoshop it that way. Thank you! Triangulum (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, significant parts of the drawing (the head, the front body up to the hump) are based on fig. 12.11, p. 239 of Prothero's and Schoch's book Horns, tusks, and flippers 2003, which in turn is a reprint or redrawing from fig. 796, p. 963 of Osborn's book The Titanotheres of ancient Wyoming, Dakota and Nebraska 1929, so the source must be named in the source code, since not everything is own work. Osborn's reconstruction is almost 90 years old and brings some problems:

• On the Head the bony structure is recognizable, especially on the elongated occipitals. A head of this size, with a massive bony horn, should have such a massive musculature that it remains hidden under muscles and flesh (the drawing lokks like the animal wouldn't have any muscles there).
• The horn rises in my opinion too steep, according to Mihlbachler it rises above the orbits at an angle of 45 °, the shape of the ram can also be discussed. However, such a horn seems to make little functional sense. It is better to reconstruct the fleshy coating already mentioned above, according to Mihlbachler 2004 (SVP abstracts p.313) ... the upper lip may have been extremely deep. The soft-tissue morphology of the nose and upper lip [...] differed radically from other mammals.
• The legs are difficult, Osborn's reconstruction is very imaginative and shows the long legs that are presented here. As far as I know the limb bone skeleton of Embolotherium is not analyzed so far, there is in the SVP abstracts 2010 a short mention, more probably not. An perissodactyl of this size and weight should probably be rhino-like short-legged, since the animal was graviportal and (at least Megacerops) was not able to run fast (comparable to elephants).

That's my opinion about a 90-years old reconstruction, I miss the brontothere research of the past decades here. Sincerely --DagdaMor (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I added some more flesh around the ram and skull. So I now only have to make the ram a bit less steep? Triangulum (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dagdamor also suggests shorter legs. Perhaps we could get an example of what other animal to base the proportions on? FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Embolotherium is a perissodactyl, the next comparison should be in this group. In the skeleton structure the Brontos are similar to rhinos, but an important difference are the limbs. Compared to rhinoceroses, brontotheres have very short lower limb sections, ie forearm and lower limbs or hand and foot bones. (compare Mihlbachler et al. 2004: A New Brontothere (Brontotheriidae, Perissodactyla, Mammalia) from the Eocene of the Ily Basin of Kazakstan and a Phylogeny of Asian ‘‘Horned’’ Brontotheres. American Museum Novitates 3439, 2004, pp. 1–43) There are also differences in detail, such as the construction of the knee joint, etc. Next the limb length is, of course, dependent on the ecotype, for example Aktautitan as a swamp dweller belongs to the Hippo-ecomorph and had extremely short legs. Since the bones of Embolotherium are not examined, we can only guess here... From the perspective chosen here, the embedding of the ram into the soft tissue of the face is not really apparent, possibly a tipping of the ram will help. Sincerely --DagdaMor (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while. I didn't have much time to work on the restoration. But now I have! I made some changes. Any thoughts? Triangulum (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is where my knowledge ends, so I'll let DagdaMor take over. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering. It has been 12 days since my question about if the image is good as it is now. I have made the legs shorter and I have tilted the ram. Can I already add the image to the article or should I wait? I can always change it afterwards when DagdaMor answers. Triangulum (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, a lot of work in the real life leads to little time and forgetfulness, I had seen Funkmonks ping ... As a comparison for the reconstruction of the limbs you can take this link ([11]), already mentioned above. In this original material was used and it should be without doubt. In my opinion, in your reconstruction the lower limb sections, especially on the well-visible forefoot, has to be shortened, as you can see on the pictures in the link. As for the ram, I do not really feel that it is embedded in the soft tissue of the face. There is a bit flesh applied, the official reconstructions look more distinct to yours, wich represents Osborns old reconstruction... Sincerely --DagdaMor (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I will take a look at the limbs and the ram again. I will look at the examples on the site. Triangulum (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Another issue is what to do with the previous restorations by Apokryltaros. They may be outdated for the same reason. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My first plan was to add mine instead of replacing Apokryltaros' restoration. But his image being outdated is important to keep in mind.Triangulum (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I figure just remove and replace as per standard procedure.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and replaced the images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Triangulum (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DagdaMor. I've made the legs more like the restorations on this site [12] and I tried another ram. I used this image as example: [13]. Does it look better or worse than the previous version? Triangulum (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, sorry for the late feedback, I don't watch the site regularly (at moment). In my opinion, the last reconstruction is much better than the previous ones. One point: The brontotheres including Embolotherium are brachyodont, they were more specialized in leaf food or browsing. A rather bushy environment for Embolotherium would be more accurate than the grassy ground presented now. Otherwise thank you for your work and best regards --DagdaMor (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed the habitat. If it needs more correcting, let me know :) Triangulum (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Trias greenfinch

Hi everyone. I've made a restoration of another Canary Islands extinct bird, the Trias greenfinch (Carduelis triasi). It was presumably a descendant of the common greenfinch (C. chloris), but with a more robust beak and shorter wings (the only known remains are a skull and and some wing bones). In the description paper (1, in spanish, abstract in english), it's beak is described as slightly less robust than the one of the Galapagos finch Geospiza magnirostris. What do you think? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My only observation is that the drawing has some pencil lines over the back pf the bird that you could erase, but is not a big thing. It's good for me and you could add it to the article. :-) --Rextron (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I will erase them. Thank you both for the feedback, and sorry for the late response. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Platecarpus

I've got a diagram I made depicting the size and morphology of the scales on different areas of the body of Platecarpus, based on the skin impressions associated with LACM 128319. Initially I made this for Deviantart to help artists with depicting mosasaur scales, but I thought I may as well put it up here to see if it's of a good enough calibre to be put on the page for Platecarpus here. Just as a note, this piece was inked quite a long time ago, so I cannot change anything about it at this point. Based mainly on the descriptions of the scales in Lindgren et al. 2010, the skeletal from said paper, and photographs of the specimen. Originally posted in the Wikiproject Dinosaurs Image Review page, but moved it here when I found out there is a separate page for this. Pryftan (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't see inaccuracies, though it irks me a bit that the various inserts do not seem to be well-aligned with the border of the image. They seem to be stooping. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That was largely due to the fact I had to scan the image with my phone (since it didn't fit in a normal scanner). I've rotated it slightly to the left, hopefully that looks better, though note some of the lines (particularly the upper left insert) are still a bit off and that is my fault in how I drew them. Pryftan (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Platybelodon grangeri

I have been working on this restoration.

First I wanted to know what needs to be changed to make it as good as possible.

Second, I can't find a good reference for the size of this animal. I want to make a size comparison, but to do that I have to know the size. I did find several websites but all didn't seem very professional. Does someone know its size? Think of a book of a website. Triangulum (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It may take some wrangling, but you could try using the cranial measurements given in Wang et al. (2013). Also, which species is this intended to be? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The 2016 Larramendi paper[14] references Osborn 1936 when stating Platybelodon was smaller than Amebelodon. Perhaps look there. Also, what species is this supposed to be? Always important to note, since the different species would have ranged in size and proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going to link Larramendi, but Osborn (1936) seems to be a monograph that is not readily available. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Osborn & Granger (1931) also has measurements of the type specimens belonging to P. danovi & P. grangeri. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think all of Osborn's monograph is online here:[15] I've used it as source a few times already. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good find, thanks for the link. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, this appears to be the second volume only, which doesn't describe Platybelodon in-depth. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Vol. 1, which includes the discussion on Platybelodon, fortunately is also available. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while. But I took a look at the sources. This pdf (Osborn & Granger (1931)) stated that the jaw was between 3 and 4 feet. I took 3.5 feet. That is about 1 m. An average human is about 1,8 meters high. I made the size comparison. How about the animal itself? Does the platybelodon look right or can I make it look better?Triangulum (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh! The species Grangeri. I forgot to mention.Triangulum (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this theory is exactly saying, but it would seem the trunk was maybe longer:[16][17] FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. It sounded easier in my head, but I will take a look at the trunk.Triangulum (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing I'm uncertain about is whether Osborn is measuring the preserved portion or estimated total length. It may be safer to use the length of the symphysis. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point there. I'll try that. ThanksTriangulum (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I extended the trunk a bit and adjusted the scale.Triangulum (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright! If it still needs to be corrected, let me know.Triangulum (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Plesiosaurian tail flukes

Smith (2013) reviews the evidence on plesiosaur tail flukes. Drawing from this paper and others cited therein, I think there are a few illustrations which need to be updated:

• [18] - missing fluke
• [19] - missing fluke
• [20] - fluke morphology different from inferred morphology
• [21] - missing fluke
• [22] - silhouette, missing fluke
• [23] - missing fluke/incorrect morphology

Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Brian Switek at least made the point that some of the examined plesiosaurs did not show tail anatomy suited for fins[24], and Darren Naish also indicates there might have been various fluke morphologies.[25] Only one impression is even known, as far as I recall. That said, there should probably be a fluke of some sort in most restorations, but I'm not sure if they have to be entirely uniform. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, these are valid points. Perhaps consider my comments about fluke morphology a form of "literature-based conservatism"... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

But if anyone gets the time, here's something to do... I may do something to this image:[26] FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Might be apposite to give it trailing edges on the flippers while you're at it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, Elasmosaurus may get the GA/FA treatment soon. Does this one look ok?[27] It's pretty recent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks okay. The flippers could conceivably be passed off as having trailing edges. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

How does this look?[28] FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. The tail can maybe be more conical per Mauriciosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether that maybe only be visible when seen from above, as in the fossil? I looked at this blog post by Mark Witton when I modified the image:[29] FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Looks good overall. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a modifed version[30] of this Elasmosaurus image[31]. Any thoughts, Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pterygotus

I've made a restoration of Pterygotus (I don't know the species (help)). [32] Triangulum (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's E. remipes but there's some synthesis required to reach that conclusion. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't Eurypterus remipes have a pointy tail? When I Google for its fossils I always see the pointy tail [33]. I am no expert though haha.Triangulum (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Doh! That's what I get for not reading carefully. But E. remipes is known from the same quarry. Will keep looking. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, some digging shows that it's actually Acutiramus sp.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha! Okay! Good work! hmm.. So I used the wrong fossil for a restoration of a totally different animal. That's not good. I will adjust some things.Triangulum (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it has to be Acutiramus then, otherwise you should pick a distinct species of Pterygotus. Remember to be sure which species you are depicting before you begin, otherwise there will always be problems like this... FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I do hope that I am not too annoying for you all; with all my errors. Besides that, my native language is Dutch so I have to read very carefully to understand everything. There seems to be some confustion on the internet? On this site[34] there is a photo of a man (the exact same man?) standing next to the exact same fossil. The text above says: "Allan (below) is proudly posing with a cast of a gigantic Pterygotus (Acutiramus). The over seven foot tall fossil is actually a composite that was assembled from three slabs of dolostone(...)". They wrote it down as if Pterygotus is the exact same animal as Acutiramus? They are different right? Triangulum (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's where I got it from. I guess it's treating Acutiramus as a subgenus of Pterygotus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

hmm like that. So, what if we just renamed the restoration. So that it is the restoration of the Acutiramus buffaloensis, instead of the Pterygotus. Is that an idea? Triangulum (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I worry that by assigning a particular species we may be committing WP:OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

So you propose to not assign a specific species. but only the genus or? What do you mean exactly? Triangulum (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's one way out. I'm leaning more strongly, though, towards finding a specimen actually published in the literature.... 16:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that this site [35] is a very trust-worthy source, but at least now I know what the difference is between Acutiramus and Pterygotus. I just wanted to say that I am still looking for a Pterygotus species from whose fossils we have photographs and a scale. Triangulum (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Shringasaurus

Hello, should I'd try contributing some art because I was told it'd be a nice idea. I'm extremely new to this and I usually stick to feathered theropods. Shringasaurus Indicus male based on recent findings. May not be too amazing compared to some other art, and might redraw with proper shading in the future.

Looks pretty good, but seems the eyes are way too big to fit within the sclerotic rings, as reconstructed in the paper?[36] FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, always struggle with eye placement within sclerotic rings. I'll have a look at fixing it sometime this weekend. SaintNevermore

You there, SaintNevermore? FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Since it's a pretty good image otherwise, I'm thinking of shrinking the eyes myself if SaintNevermore doesn't show up again. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've shrunk the eyes, the signature was also too in your face, "watermarks" are discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Gracilisuchus life restoration needs some modifications

File:Gracilisuchus BW.jpg appears to be based on Romer (1972)'s reconstruction, which is way too ornithosuchid-like. My Photoshop skills aren't quite up to par; anyone who is willing to modify the image, please do so. Lecuona et al. has a nice skeletal reconstruction which can be used for this purpose.

On a tangential note - would it be possible to get these images from Flickr (just the lighter-colored ones, which are from Romer's description)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated the Gracilisuchus with your suggestions, flattened osteoderms, fixed posture and hindlimb, less shrinkwrapping. Flickr images can be uploaded with the Flickr Upload bot. IJReid ^discuss 15:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think many of those Flickr journal mass-uploads are a bit dubious... I nominated some of them for deletion on Commons in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Mosasaur Size Comparisons

Warning:This image is actually 8.4 meters long, so please do not try to make a PNG out of it ;).

Skeletal diagram

I was sick for a while in September, and during that time I made some mosasaur size comparisons. I have already uploaded one for Goronyosaurus, are there any inaccuracies? Also, there's a heck of a lot more from where it came from (if I could find a size estimate, I made it). --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Right away I've noticed some issues (I'm the one expanding Goronyosaurus :P). The proportions should be much more similar to Prognathodon than they are right now, so the tail should have a larger globular fluke, and the pectoral region is too "muscular". I'd prefer if you added the scale grid thing, because I'm not certain of the size of it, but it should be about 5.5 meters in a straight line. The front paddle should be more rounded, and the read paddle should be similar to the front paddle. The head should be a neck should be similar to the rear head height, getting a little thicker over the shoulders. I'm making a skeletal of this already, so when it's done you may have a few more tweaks. IJReid ^discuss 15:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll make these changes as soon as I can. I actually created this image right before you expanded the article, so a lot of the inaccuracies mainly bad luck! Also, the article says Goronyosaurus was 6 to 8 meters long, which is why it is so big. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What is meant by "globular" tail fluke? Anyhow, the angle of the tail seems off, take a look at the Platecarpus restorations. For the flippers too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant "globular" as in, the upper lobe of the tail should be much larger and more rounded. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3423/figures/3 this Prognathodon tail would be a good comparison. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The upper edge isn't preserved, though, so the shape isn't known, but based on Platecarpus, it was probably triangular. Also note that the paper states the upper fluke would probably have grown proportionally with age (that specimen is small). FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The flippers and tail should be based on Prognathodon, as it is probably its closest relative. As such, the flippers should be rounder, and the tail should be more angled and have a larger upper lobe (Platecarpus restorations show a good tail). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the stuff about the upper lobe being larger in adults compared to the fossil refers to Porgnathodon itself, not Platecarpus. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Slate Weasel I've finished my Goronyosaurus skeletal, perhaps you'd like to revise your scale chart now. The tail fluke and flippers come from the Prognathodon specimen which preserved them articulated and with soft tissue, so their shape shouldn't be much different in Goronyosaurus. The skull compared to the body size is ok, but the front flipper is too far back. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? Sorry I disappeared for awhile. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it looks good now. I'll add it to the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Platecarpus, another huge image.

Are there any other mosasaurs you guys would like to have? --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe check out {{Mosasauridae}} and find the ones that lack scale diagrams or lack any image. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, since they all lack scale diagrams, lets start out with the most important taxa. Here is my Platecarpus. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Only thing that looks off is the pointyness of the tail. The lobe and tail end should be rounded, like in your Goronyosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? I'm thinking of uploading Tylosaurus next. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah ok. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tylosaurus, the biggest image yet

Here's the Tylosaur I promised. It is of Tylosaurus proriger. Any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Fatten up the body outline? I'm looking at the concavity under the neck. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The ribcage could be deeper also. Most restorations are missing the gastralia. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Still on the shallow side, I'm afraid. Take a look at Hartman's T. pembinensis: [37] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhomaleosaurus thorntoni size chart

I created this chart based on the information in the article. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Should check this skeletal... I think it's too thin... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, going off Mauriciosaurus, the flippers need trailing edges. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? By the way, it now uses R. thorntoni. --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Purely aesthetic, but I'd recommend ditching the blue color scheme. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Better now? (I made it lighter and moved it to the back) --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it should just be black-and-white like some of your other size charts. Or, the silhouette could be blue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Any anatomical problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Forefin needs a trailing edge too. Otherwise it's okay. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it attached correctly? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Patagotitan compared to Giant Mammals Scale Charts

I wasn't sure where to post this but because it contains both a dinosaur and mammals (and potentially extinct mammals) I thought I'd post it here. I have to admit it's a bit of a weird one, I'm not sure where it could go on Wikipedia, maybe somewhere in the Dinosaur size or List of largest mammals articles? A version could be produced that takes out the dinosaur to keep it mammal-centric?
At the moment it just contains four large extant land mammals however I might add in Paraceratherium and Palaeoloxodon as they seem to be the contenders for largest land mammals. I can also produce individual scale charts for these animals as well. The land mammals are scaled to the largest sizes stated in the Wikipedia articles using mostly shoulder height as the gauge.
The exception is the giraffe; the tallest is reported at 5.88m tall. It's unclear to me what posture the animal was in when measured. Unfortunately, I don't have access to many of the primary references because they are books. A secondary source book I was able to preview online called 'Animal Records' states it was measured 'between pegs' which supposedly means you straighten it out as much as it will go, place a peg at the extremes and measure the distance. What's still unclear is whether it was posed with the head level, more like this [38] (were the horns factored in?) or with the head extended upward, more like this [39]. The difference between these interpretations creates, very approximately, ~50cm difference in giraffe height. In Paul's 'Sauropod Maximum Vertical Reach' paper he shows a giraffe with the head extended and it seems to be scaled to ~5.8m. At the moment I have scaled it assuming the head extended in the diagram.

Here is a link that shows potential Paraceratherium and Palaeoloxodon silhouettes (Ignore the layout that's just temporary.) and shows how the height of the giraffe could be interpreted. [40] Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

On a very minor note, it seems the front hooves of the giraffe should be rotated slightly backwards:[41] Now it is just on a straight angle from the rest of the arm, which appears to be unnatural in a walking-pose. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput, I'll look into the hooves. Here is a link to version with Paraceratherium and Palaeoloxodon added. [42] Is it too cluttered? Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks less cluttered than many of our other multiple taxon size comparisons, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the mammals could be given their own size charts and added to their own articles? Just an idea. :) --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Notosuchus life restoration needs some modifications

Notosuchus

Like Gracilisuchus, new research renders our existing restorations inaccurate. No trunk, first of all, larger head too. Papers to reference: [43] [44]. I've mocked up a tentative restoration myself: [45] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We could revert to the old one? I added the snout after someone suggested it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The eye seems too far forward on the old one, and there are too many rows of osteoderms in both, so I think it has to be modified either way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, would the old one be a better starting point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it would. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an attempt, not sure if it does it:[46] Only now noticed you also make restorations yourself, Lythronaxargestes, maybe you want to take a stab? FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That looks okay, maybe the tail could be longer? My artistic abilities are limited to silhouettes, unfortunately... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Enough?[47] Well, silhouettes are useful in size comparisons, for example... FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that looks good. I may take a crack at some silhouettes soon.. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Now updated... FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Daeodon

Skeletal reconstruction of the specimen CM 1594 of Daeodon shoshonensis

Deviant Art user bLAZZE92 uploaded this skeletal diagram that he put together under CC3.0. Wikipedia does not have a skeletal diagram for this animal and I think it would be beneficial to add it to the article. Are there any issues? Paleocolour (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't see any direct inaccuracies on this or the one below, but I'm no "expert" on either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Arctodus

Skeletal drawing of FMNH PM24880, an specimen of Arctodus simus.

Deviant Art user bLAZZE92 uploaded this skeletal diagram that he put together under CC3.0. Wikipedia does not have a skeletal diagram for this animal and I think it would be beneficial to add it to the article. Are there any issues? Paleocolour (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rauisuchus

Full body reconstruction of Rauisuchus tiradentes.

Scale diagram of of Rauisuchus tiradentes.

I am going to revisit my old reconstruction of Rauisuchus tiradentes that I created in the past, but I have some questions about the changes I should be making for this to be more accurate. I currently am planing to revise the overall body shape (the hip looks too large and torso too thin), modify the scutes along the back, reduce the shrinkwrapping on the skull, shorten the legs slightly, and elongate the tail slightly to be more in-line with the skeletal reconstructions. I would also like some feedback on the stance this animal would naturally be standing in. All the skeletal reconstructions I have found show it as quadrpedal (such as this one and this one), however, I realize some Rauisuchidae have also been reconstructed as bipedal animals, such as Postosuchus. Is there a consensus on this at all? I wouldn't have an issue changing the posture of this if new material has demonstrated it being bipedal. I will also be placing the animal on a white background and altering the colours to make it more realistic. Thanks for your feedback. (PS. are we able to use those skeletal photos I linked? I'm having a hard time tracking down the original authors and whether or not they are open to use.) Paleocolour (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, neither of those photos actually show Rauisuchus itself, the first shows Prestosuchus, the second shows Saurosuchus... Can't find a skeletal reconstruction online that shows this genus for certain, perhaps it's this:[48]. What are the size of the fingers based on? Based on crocodiles, the fourth and fifth fingers of archosaurs are usually shown without claws, would be the case here too if that's true for all... This image would fit better at the paleoart review page[49], but it doesn't matter, I think the same users have both pages on their watchlist... FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Looking into it more, I see you are correct in saying the skeleton photos I linked are not Rauisuchus. I only really had to go on the photo descriptions when searching them up. The skeletal drawing found on dinopedia is what I based my reconstruction on, and that has it shown as quadrupedal. I could not find the source of the image outside of dinopedia however. I will revise the claws and finger lengths of the image. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is supposedly a newer reconstruction[50], first I thought it was by David Peters (who is WP:Fringe), since it is also found on his site, but it seems to be from a proper research paper.[51] So it is probably best to follow their reconstruction, though I don't know why the back is so arched, perhaps explained by the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm late to the party but that skeletal is schematic, it's mostly a redrawn from a Saurosuchus reconstruction in Bonaparte (1981), it's hard to gauge how accurate it is as back then most of the vertebral column was unknown, perhaps using the composite skeletals of Batrachotomus might be a better idea. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Lautenschlager and Rauhut's phylogeny has it as a part of an evolutionary grade, with Saurosuchus, Prestosuchus, and Batrachotomus being more basal, and the more derived Polonosuchus and Postosuchus in a self-enclosed "Postosuchidae". It's probably safe to restore the missing portions of its anatomy after the former, given that Postosuchus seems to represent a derived condition. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They restore it as a quadruped, though, but maybe that's not explained in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, confusing wording. By "former" I was referring to Saurosuchus, Prestosuchus, and Batrachotomus, which do appear to really be quadrupedal. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems the osteoderms are quite different in the new reconstruction too. Seems like the paper removes some formerly referred material. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Paleocolour Do you plan to make the fixes? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes IJReid, I do plan on fixing this one at some point before the end of the year. I'm in the middle of finishing the Rajasaurus and then making updates to the other scale diagrams. Paleocolour (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have finished the edits and also created a scale diagram. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Gut instinct perhaps, but the tail looks too long compared to Batrachotomus. Also, I think we should move this to WP:PALEOART. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have updated both images with a shorter tail. I do not know how to move sections over to that page (unless it's a simple cut and paste?). Please let me know if any further edits are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it would just be cut and paste. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this over from the dinosaur image review page. Paleocolour (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there's a problem here that should be discussed. The text of the redescription says that chevron BSPG AS XXV 85b measures 85 millimetres (3.3 in) long. The same chevron is very clearly much longer - about twice the length - in Figure 1, which is the scale diagram. If the text - which I am inclined to trust over the figures - is correct, then the animal should be about half its current size. However, this is very close to WP:OR in my mind. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I should add that, while explicit measurements are not given, other skeletal elements (e.g. the pubis) are evidently off by the same factor as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are my results: [52] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the osteoderms are wrong; they were much flatter. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The scale bar in the 2014 study is obviously wrong. If it were correct, the top of the back would have the height of a man and total length would be close to six metres. But your own reconstruction seems too smallish. It does not take into account that the tibia is lacking its proximal part, so it is too low. As regards total length, we can make a simple calculation. The skull is about forty centimetres long, the neck thirty, back and hip about seventy-five. Should the tail double the length, we arrive at 290 centimetres.--MWAK (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The tibia is based on the reconstructed tibia in Figure 1. I assumed it was meant to represent the complete tibia, because the damage (e.g. broken neural spine of the axis; missing anterior end of nasals) is restored for other bones. It is proportionally very close to the skeletal, albeit with a longer tail. I'm not sure where your numerical estimates come from. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

These are strange creatures. As we are more used to theropods, it's natural to reconstruct them as some tetanuran with very short hindlimbs. A bit like the new Spinosaurus ;o). However, as basal archosaurs, they had a much shorter sacral region and much of the iliac blade and the leg muscles with it, were positioned below the posterior dorsals! This is why the illustrations are too elongated. The estimates were done by the quick and dirty method: you take the number of vertebrae, multiply them with their approximate length taken from the 2014 study and then round up the numbers to allow for some cartilage. Provides a useful reality check.--MWAK (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On second thought (cough, cough), I too hastily presumed the ilium was like that of Poposaurus. But if it resembled that of Postosuchus, thigh muscles should be even shorter from front to rear.--MWAK (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't impact my silhouette, does it? The thigh musculature is basically hidden by the contour of the body. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

True. It should be higher but the snout-vent length is plausible, even when we assume sixteen dorsals and three sacrals. The tail length is a matter of conjecture. If it matches the number of known caudals of Ticinosuchus, fifty-five, the tail would be quite a bit longer. I was trying to figure out where the excess length would be located in the four metres reconstruction. I think ten centimetres in the skull, ten in the neck, ten in the torso, twenty in the sacrum and then again fifty in the matching tail.--MWAK (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll play around with the tail a little bit later and see what I can do. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous tail flukes on aquatic "crocodilioids" - salvageable?

User:Falconfly has uploaded two images, one of the phytosaur Mystriosuchus [53] and another of the choristodere Simoedosaurus [54], which both show a heterocercal bilobus tail as in metriorhynchids. This is not supported by any osteological or soft-tissue evidence whatsoever; in particular, the distal tail is not even known for Simoedosaurus. It's quite a shame, because the Mystriosuchus restoration is decent otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not for Simoedosaurus, granted, but it is for Mystriosuchus, which shows signs of a hypocercal tail much as in ichthyosaurs and "some sauropterygians".talk | contribs) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

WRONG. I quote Renesto & Lombardo (1999):

In specimen MCSNB 10.087, the slanting of the neural spines does not change its direction, and neither is there a tail bend, nor the ventral ends of the haemapophyses are so close to each other. Thus a lobed caudal fin like that of marine crocodiles is not plausible.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

See Renesto & Lombardo 2003, which outright addresses the previous assessment on caudal vertebrae. Perhaps tellingly, you removed it from the article... Falconfly (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, care to quote where "CAUDAL FIN" is said in the 2003 paper? And where it disagrees with the 1999 paper? You think I haven't exercised due diligence? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Specifically:

"The haemal arches are small and show an inverted "T" shape, similar to that of some sauropterygians (Caroll & Gaskill 1985; Sander 1989) and some Jurassic marine crocodilians (Fraas 1902)."

Both lineages in which this feature is correlated to a caudal fin.Falconfly (talk | contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What yoiu're doing there is the very definition of WP:original research. If what you're concluding isn't specifically stated in a given source, it is not valid here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye-ayes have hyperelongated digits, pterosaurs have hyperelongated digits.... do you see where I am going with this...? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Both are false equivalencies since those don't happen to be vertebrae, let alone caudal ones. Also, how the hell is this original research if it is what is expressed in the papers, which outright dictate these features as evidence of caudal fins?

What is the exact quote? FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole paragraph:

Posterior to the 32th caudal vertebra (Fig. 9A-B, Pl. 4B), the centra are small, platycoelous and subrectangular in Ìateral view (roughly twice long than high). The neural arches are very low and bear vestigial pre- and postzygapophyses that do not meet each others. The neural spines are narrow but very long (at least 2 times the length of corresponding centrum) and, in their first halves, they are almost horizontally (craniocaudally) oriented, bending slightly dorsally in their distal portion. As a consequence, the distal end of each neural spine overhangs at least one and sometimes more than one of the following centra. This structure is peculiar and has not been reported for other phytosaurs. Possibly this pattern rendered the posterior portion of the tail rather stiff. The haemal arches are small and show an inverted "T" shape, similar to that one of some sauropterygians (Carroll & Gaskill 1985; Sander 1989) and some Jurassic marine crocodilians (Fraas 1902).

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So at most, it shows similarities to some animals that are inferred to have had caudal fins (without mentioning specific families), but doesn't mention caudal fins at all, or that this animal would have had one. This means that any inference about a caudal fin for Mystriosuchus is pure original research. Images like this conflict with WP:original images: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." And this is no light matter, we have had several editors in the past who wanted to ban all user-created paleoart for being original research. Our defence was that we scrutinise paleoart here to prevent anything improper, so it is a pretty big deal. Either we scrutinise user-made images, or we have no such images. We are not trying to be rule-Nazis, we just don't want to be shut down. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It directly links to texts where caudal fins are identified in these animals and where the features mentioned are key for their identification. For instance, Carroll and Gaskill 1985 are among the earliest studies arguing for a caudal fin in sauropterygians, while the latter study is clearly talking about metriorhynchoids. It's rather disingenous to ignore this, actually.

The article itself doesn't indicate there was a caudal fin. That is your own conclusion. Own conclusion: original research. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

While I could point out how this an argument from semantics, how would you reconstruct the animal? Sure you can't have a normal tail, given that its noted as differing from all other phytosaurs in this regard and very similar to that of animals with caudal fins.

In the image, the lower tail tip doesn't even seem to be down turned, even though this is a feature of most reptiles with bi-lobed tail fins (mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, metriorchyncids). FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention to Julio, granted. In life, you'd see the downturn seen in metriorhynchids and some plesiosaurs, as discussed in the paper/papers it is alluding to.

If this idea of yours is widely accepted, why are there not a single other restoration of Mystriosuchus with a tail-fin? Anyhow, images are only added after review and approval, not before. If you keep edit-warring without gaining consensus, you will be blocked. Also, there is no justification for the weird, flippered Simoedosaurus given here either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And that one has not a shred of supporting evidence ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

First off, argument from authority. Second, how many modern pictures of Mystriosuchus there actually are, let alone ones done with the study I mentioned in mind?

Apparently you have completely ignored the osteological evidence against a heterocercal tail fin. I will nicely repeat it here for you:

"In specimen MCSNB 10.087, the slanting of the neural spines does not change its direction, and neither is there a tail bend, nor the ventral ends of the haemapophyses are so close to each other."

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, contradicted by the younger study, which has precedent. Tautology won't get us anywhere.

Does the younger study say that:

• The slanting of the neural spines changes its direction?
• There is a tail bend?
• The ventral ends of the haemapophyses are close to each other?

UNLESS you can concretely refute any of these, the younger study DOES NOT contradict the older study. I've had enough with this BS. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, you quoted it yourself. It describes the small haemal arches and "t" shape, both of which by nature incompatible with an "unchanging tail bend".

• Falconfly needs to put his uploads up for review here, otherwise they can be removed on grounds of being unreviewed, and possibly original research. And this is not the first time I tell him. FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Now Falconfly is pushing the idea that choristoderes had paddles.[55] This home-cooked theory proliferation has to stop, maybe we should ask for admin advise, what do you say, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Soon he will pass 3RR on both here and Commons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Already responded to this, already offered sources. In any case I recommended you use Hyphalosaurus as the default picture, but someone had to be spiteful...

• STOP THIS CRAP Falconfly you commissioned an image that is not considered accurate at this time, suck it up. If you want to prove they are accurate publish a study yourself instead of starting a massive edit war. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I am most certainly done with your crap. Lythronaxargestes you seem to be getting very worked up about this, it would be best if you step out of the action and let others take over, before you get yourself banned for revertions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, bother to read the conversation.

Good call, I'm tired enough from this anyway... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Then bother to read.

Ok - damn I am not familiar with this debate. I need to digest when I have a few minutes. I just woke up, had coffee and some tabs open of material I had to insert....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll just link some things ...
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Lythronaxargestes_reported_by_User:Falconfly_(Result:_) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:IJReid_reported_by_User:Falconfly_(Result:_) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Falconfly_reported_by_User:IJReid_(Result:_) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And no further addressals. Oh well, guess the conesnsus is fin-tail, then.

Not before you actually shows us a paper that states Mystriosuchus had a tail fin, or that choristoderes were sealion-mimics. And remember to sign your comments.FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Already have, but oh well (Falconfly)

Posterior to the 32th caudal vertebra (Fig. 9A-B, Pl. 4B), the centra are small, platycoelous and subrectangular in Ìateral view (roughly twice long than high). The neural arches are very low and bear vestigial pre- and postzygapophyses that do not meet each others. The neural spines are narrow but very long (at least 2 times the length of corresponding centrum) and, in their first halves, they are almost horizontally (craniocaudally) oriented, bending slightly dorsally in their distal portion. As a consequence, the distal end of each neural spine overhangs at least one and sometimes more than one of the following centra. This structure is peculiar and has not been reported for other phytosaurs. Possibly this pattern rendered the posterior portion of the tail rather stiff. The haemal arches are small and show an inverted "T" shape, similar to that one of some sauropterygians (Carroll & Gaskill 1985; Sander 1989) and some Jurassic marine crocodilians (Fraas 1902).

In regards to choristoderes, very well establlished, but again I recommend most strongly Matsumoto's papers on neochoristodere anatomy and biogreography. Also, more like river dolphins than sea lions, since most were fully aquatic. (Falconfly)

"It describes the small haemal arches and "t" shape, both of which by nature incompatible with an "unchanging tail bend"."

You still haven't explained the reasoning here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So he's gone for now, but I still think that the restoration of Mystriosuchus should be fixed if possible. The hypocercal shape is probably very wrong (the tail was probably just slightly expanded on the bottom edge) but it is still a much better image than others we have. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Now for the "review" portion of palaeoart review: how's this edit [56] ? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty seamless! The best thing would of course be if Falconfly simply made the original artist fix it. But given his behaviour, its unlikely to happen. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I too have made a new version. [57] Since Lythro didn't mind, and his version was a little blurry and noticably edited at full size. But I can't upload it because the file's been protected FunkMonk. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Now unprotected... FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The tail fin has now been removed. May require a hard-purge to display the change. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work User:IJReid, much better than mine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just removed the inacurate paleoart template too. But I think there will be an edit-war over this once Falconfly is back... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: I have just come across the socking history (see here. So I think we need to check a few pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence of additional socks, and I will take this to indicate their absence in good faith (given the previous warning for sockpuppetry and the blocking of the sockpuppet). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, is that a sockpuppet of Falconfly? Seems to have the same habit of making original inferences based on published papers, as well as the habit of not signing comments... FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hyphalosaurus

Let's review this image and finish a great portion of our debate. --Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 00:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that this has already made a pass through here? So, it has been reviewed, even if it was a very short discussion. Still, it doesn't hurt to review it again. --Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's already uncontroversially in-use on the Hyphalosaurus page. I think there was confusion stemming from Falconfly using it? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to see if an image has been reviewed already by looking at where it is linked (including review pages). FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There should be no need of worrying about using this image then, I suppose. I think that we can finally stop this argument. --Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 19:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)