Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments4 people in discussion
I think that for now the Acheronauata page is done, but I think an image is needed. Doesn't need to be overly detailed, but should show the arthropod's unique anatomy.
This is also an animal with about 30 monotonous body segments, so it looks like a lot of work to do. Maybe Jun will be busy with Mieridduryn, and Qohelet still has other requests, I think it's okay to request after a while.
Oh by the way looks like you are overusing one reference in one article? You don't need to split it up like that. Just use it once per paragraph and that will be fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, Mieridduryn looks incredibly difficult to draw, given the total lack of a schematic diagram in the paper. The two individuals depicted in the press-release life restoration (presumably reflecting the two different specimens) also appear to massively differ in morphology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I think now is fine, so @Qohelet12: can you do reconstruction for that? (maybe also good to do Xiazhuangocaris which lacks proper reconstruction as hymenocarine) P.S. I uploaded image of Cascolus which is compared with Acheronauta,[2] hopefully that helps. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Xiazhuangocaris is quite difficult to reconstruct, given that only diagrams for specimens flattened in dorsal viewed have been made. When making requests of Qohelet12, I always tried to pick taxa that had decent diagrams and life restorations available as reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Acheronauta (morph B) Done, is it ok?. By the way, I was inactive because I was busy this week (and maybe next week will be too), but maybe I can do more reconstructions later. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Qohelet12 That looks great!, you did a good job, especially on the (morph b) specimens. Comparing your reconstruction to the one in the paper, it looks pretty spot on. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Overall looks fantastic. I'm not sure what the angle the tail flukes are being viewed at, obviously the width of the tail flukes varies depending on viewing angle. In the dorsal view illustration the tail forks are quite wide, which is supported by the counterpart of one of the fossils (fig c). Also, the outer edges of the tail flukes are clearly missing the short setae figured in the lateral diagram (labelled st). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I assume aside than other Pectocaris species, that you are also thinking about doing Odaraia? The ROM, as usual, has great visual references [3]. Like the drawing, I think it should ideally be restored upside down, as it likely swam in life. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for not commenting on this earlier, I think this looks really good and I have no accuracy objections. Given that you're drawn pretty much all of the hymenocarines at this point, so would you be interested in drawing Erratus? A free link to the paper is here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought I would add the rest of your unreviewed restorations to this section. I think the Loricicaris looks accurate to the fossils, given that no other life restoration has been created of it. The Molaria also looks morphologically accurate. The P. spatiosa also looks good, given how little is known of its anatomy. Pectocaris eurypetala looks mostly good, but I don't see the evidence for serrations on the margins of the tail flukes, most figures in Hou (2004) show that the flukes have smooth edges, with three distinct grooves rather than serrations, and it seems likely that broken edges visible on fig 2 (2) are just taphonomic artifacts rather than serrations. Hou (2004) mentions setae, but honestly I can't actually see any of the supposed setae and the figures given no clear idea of where they would be placed, so I think it's okay that they're not present. Reconstructing animals solely from the fossils and without any expert guidance is quite difficult and I appreciate the effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
These are unreviewed eurypterid reconstructions, which do not have other reconstructions. In addition Opabinia looks like updated to life reconstruction, I think it needs gills on fins but other than that is that good? @Junnn11: and @Super Dromaeosaurus:, do you have comments? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Opabinia needs to have gills on all of the 15 flap pairs. I think it should be visible in this resolution.
All of the eurypterids have correct dorsal segment number (12 tergites). But in Drepanopterus the 1st one should be more much shorter and lacking tubercles. In Rhenopterus, at least the first 2 visible limb pairs have spines like this (after Størmer 1936 according to Hughes & Lamsdell 2020, unfortunately I have no access to the former). Junnn11 (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Megalocephalosaurus eulerti
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Restoration
Stemming from my suggestion on SpinoDragon145's paleoart review section, I tried out adapting the Megacephalosaurus restoration, with much of the pliosaur's form remaining faithful to the original drawing while fixing some anatomical inaccuracies (i.e. dentition). SpinoDragon is shared author credit for their original drawing because although that upload is CC, it wouldn't feel right to take most of the credit. Macrophyseter | talk08:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Can't say much about accuracy, but the original file should be linked under source. Also, it seems the perspective is somewhat off in the hindflipper at the back, would be less visible unless the body is very twisted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for responding back so long; I've removed the hindflipper so that the body covers it. It should take a while for Wikipedia to update the reupload. Macrophyseter | talk04:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Superior works by @Qohelet12: again. Looks like started to make 3D reconstructions. I think these reconstructions are enough accurate according to formally published papers, what do you think @Junnn11: and @PaleoEquii:? Also, I wonder if Qohelet can do life reconstruction of Arthropleura based on accurate morphology known from studies? There are already excellent diagrams by Junnn11 on page, however, as they are diagrams, it looks like that it does not come to top of the result of image search instead of most of inaccurate one. When searched Arthropleura on google, this completely inaccurate, isopod-like reconstruction[4] comes to the top. To avoid that, I think it is needed to have life reconstruction of Arthropleura on Wikipedia page. I think leg number is safe to have like modern millipedes, first 3 segments with one pair of legs and other segments with 2 pairs of legs. For head, anatomy based on Microdecemplex with antennae like modern millipede is fine for that I think, but have to get other opinions, I think @Sclerotized: is good for that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Excellent works as always @Qohelet12! I'm not familiar with Primicaris and Amiskwia, the only thing I will point out is the lobopods of Xenusion, which have denser annulation and additional row of longitudinal striations in each annulus (see Liu & Dunlop 2013). For Arthropleura I'll say no pressure, since this taxa need lots of effort to work on. The highly inaccurate reconstruction still used by lots of wikipedia articles, Perhaps that's the reason why it still showed on the top of a quick search. I think the solution is replacing all of them, but unfortunately I'm not familiar with wikipedia platforms outside of English and Japanese... Junnn11 (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, as long as the commons file name is "Arthropleura.png", there is a possibility that it will continue to be displayed even if it is deleted from the Wiki of another language... However, I will try to remove them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh and as you expected, that isopod-like reconstruction is at least disappeared from normal search result of Arthropleura in google, sadly still appears some in image search, because "fact" websites use that image. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
On the topic of Arthropleura, I would love to see a more modern 3D interpretation of Arthropleura and I am certainly available for discussion on its morphology, however, as Junnn11 stated, at this juncture it remains difficult to atribute a definitive and single look to the genus. Sclerotized (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would be very difficult to reconstruct it. However, I consider this illustration by Vitor Silva[5] to be fairly accurate at this point. Of course, I don't force it either, I would like to ask if it is possible though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing my reconstructions!. Is Xenusion correct now? Oh and, as for Arthropleura, I think I can try it :), although first I have to finish other reconstructions I am still working on. Qohelet12 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The Xenusion looks excellent! I personally like to see how feathery the lobopods looks like. Althought it still lack of longitudinal striations, I think that's negligible under such density of annuli and image resolution. Also glad to hear that you're in Arthropleura, of course just take your time. Junnn11 (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I have finished all the pending reconstructions, now I can concentrate more on Arthropleura. But I would like to know if these are also correct.--Qohelet12 (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Awesome works! I think the morphology of Branchiocaris is almost unchange even after Aria & Caron 2017a. The paper provide new informations on the structure of labrum/hypostome and segmental affinity of the claw-like appendages, which is out of view and neglectable in this illustration. Junnn11 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The Tuzoia restoration is a bit dark which makes it difficult to make out the edges of the carpaces in thumbnail view. Could it be brightened somewhat? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
That's definitely better. As a note, Caron et al. 2010 [6] notes specimens of Tuzoia with a pair of segmented frontal appenages. (images in the supplemental material here), which may be worthy of inclusion. However, as far as I can tell these claims have never been mentioned in subsequent papers about Tuzoia, other than on ROM's website. Wen et al. 2019 also shows some of the trunk limbs, though they are badly preserved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
They look accurate given the poor resolution of the photos available of the appendages, but ideally the appendages should be curling upwards like the frontal appendages of other early diverging deuteropods such as Isoxys (to which Tuzoia is usually thought to be closely related) and Kylinxia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Disappointingly low on details, all it has to say is we discuss a new reconstruction of Tuzoia, one of the most common bivalved arthropods of the Cambrian, previously known almost entirely from carapaces based on new specimens preserving soft tissues. I hope this gets published soon. I've seen some stuff from SVP abstracts that still haven't been published over a decade later, though I doubt the wait for this will be anywhere near that long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hallipterus is missing three pairs of limbs. Eurypterids had six pairs, but only three in Hallipterus are known. A solution could be to add the other three pairs to the restoration as long as they look more or less similar to the others. The fourth to second pair are not generally distinctive among eurypterids, it is usually the sixth and first pairs the ones with the strange features. The rest seems good. SuperΨDro10:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Seems good in general! I like how the Innovatiocaris was done. Here're some suggestions:
The last 2 tergites (T10 and T11) of Aglaspis barrandei are a bit too short, without a closer look it seems to have only 9 tergites. Based on UW4002/7 (Hesselbo 1992, Fig. 3) their lengths seems to be subequal to T8-9.
As noted by @Super Dromaeosaurus, Hallipterus seemly missing 3 limb pairs (I, III and IV). While it was reconstructed as such in Tetlie 2008, appendage III-IV are quite visible among eurypterids. A resolution will be reconstructing them like appendage V but shorter. Appendage I (chelicerae) are neglectable if they're as tiny as other non-pterygotoids.
Compare to Zhai et al. 2019, Fig. 3, the anterior and posterior appendages of Kunmingella douvillei seems to be a bit too spiny.
To be honest, I didn't know about legs of Hallipterus, I hadn't read the paper itself so I thought that the other pairs of legs were hidden under the carapace. Also forgot to ping @Qohelet12:. Anyway these are nice adivices! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I just re-check the original description (detailed description all in supplementary information), and the condition is more much complex than I previously though.
They state that the outer finger (those with bifurcate tip) is podomere 7 and the inner finger (those with 4 small teeth) is podomere 8 (terminal). So the whole chela would have 3 podomeres (palm-like p6+claw-like p7 and 8), with the basal region of p7 being incomplete half-ring (the inner half being interrupted by the boundaries between p6 and p8). This structure is very unusual but not impossible for arthropod appendages (e.g. the forcipules of Epimorpha centipedes have half-ring podomeres). Making the lateral region of p8 base slightly overlapped by those of p7 (just like Fig. 3 of the original description if you take a closer look) will be accurate enough to represent this interpretation. But they also state the boundary between p6 and p7 is fixed (based on the consistent position of p7 in all specimen), so p6 and p7 function like a single unit, similar to the manus and fixed finger (extension of manus) of a normal chela. Junnn11 (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the diagram of Tokummia in the nature paper [8] the antennulae (labelled "an" on the diagram) become much thinner towards their ends, while the ones in Qohelet12's only slightly thin along their length. The nature diagram also has them habitually curved like a ram's horn, but that may be artistic license on the authors part. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what's going on with the head? I assume the head is supposed to be obscured? But what is there looks inconsistent with previous reconstructions. There's a better head-on view of the 3d model in a video this phys.org article. Having had a look at the model, I'm not sure what the triangle thing is supposed to be either. Hemiauchenia (talk)
Sorry fot the late reply! Seems like I did't point out the details in words very well. It should be something like this (this structure is most evident in Extended Data Figure 3b). Junnn11 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Hemiauchenia, I think I can start with Jugatacaris. By the way, I can do new reconstructions of Synophalos if you want. Qohelet12 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Honestly the current reconstructions of Synophalos are fine, given how little of its anatomy is known beyond basic carapace morphology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Pauloterminus by Qohelet12 Another great life restoration by Qohelet12, this time of Pauloterminus. It looks accurate to the life restoration published in Taylor (2003) [9], the antennae are poorly known in this taxon so I don't have any issues with Qohelet12's interpretation of them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Jugatacaris
Canadaspis perfecta
Branchiocaris
Ok, for the moment I only did Jugatacaris plus Canadaspis perfecta, and I also fixed Branchiocaris to make it more similar to the ROM reconstruction. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Having a looks at the Jugatacaris description, overall it looks superb. I think it could maybe be better indicated that the dumbbell-shaped medial eye is in fact a single eye, rather than merely two closely spaced eyes. Also, per figure 14 of the paper, the setae/filaments should really extend all the way to the top of the exopod. I think they don't in the black-and white restoration in the paper because they're supposed to be in shadow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Any thoughts/criticisms on my edits on the tail of Bogdanov's Tylosaurus? Is there anything else that needs to be edited? BTW, I am aware of the artefacts around the tail. Monsieur X (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
A bit hard to see it's supposed to be a fluke, and that part of the tail shouldn't be that bendy anyway (which is why I never bothered to correct it, it's hard to fix). But if the image is needed, I can try to give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I've shaped the tail[10], now the "seams" between the parts just need to merge better, which I'll do next, Monsieur X. I wonder if the fingers in the paddle should look this divided? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The flippers definitely should not be webbed like that, also the second to rightmost fingers should be flipped so they're like the left three (unless this fellow has two thumbs). Dimension-wise the flippers could otherwise be refined, the Osborn and Williston skeletals on the article should be good references for this species. FunkMonk's tail looks very promising; just needs some refinement like broadening the downturn and narrowing the stalk as appropriate, plus the seams you mention. Macrophyseter | talk05:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but from what I have seen, the first four fingers on both sets of flippers should be a little closer to one another, but the positions of the "thumbs" might be fine. I also think the flippers should be rounder as well, with the fingers also being hidden. (BTW, I'm kicking myself for not noticing the problems with the flippers) Monsieur X (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Flippers look great! The tail appears to have been shortened from the previous edit, but you can get away with it by assuming it's at an angle. Otherwise, maybe elongating the fluke and downturn so that its similar to the previous edit while maintaining the improved thickness could help? It's a nitpick. Macrophyseter | talk00:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Awesome, I love how it turns out! Maybe one last thing is to center the mosasaur if the right end is too much of an eyesore. Otherwise, expect this to be used by everyone everywhere like the Mosasaurus beaugei restoration! Macrophyseter | talk01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Here it is. Sadly there are no pictures to be found of the full skeleton. Anyway I based the body on large culpeo foxes. The pelage too, and also on what is known about Dusicyon australis (white tail tip for example). The snout is larger than I expected, starts to resemble a wolf more than a fox IMO.
Absolutely beautiful! And thank you for putting phylogenetic bracketing into practice by using culpeos as a reference. You're right about the snout, it's very distinctive. All the more reason why a reconstruction was necessary. Thank you again Mariomassone (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I love Juan’s paleoart, and I think he should do more.
Juan, will you make updated versions of your Thanos, Vespersaurus, Kwanasaurus, Vallibonavenatrix, and Gnathovorax, plus reconstructions of Kelenken, Rhomaleosaurus, Shenzhoupterus and Jianchangosaurus? 24.218.189.104 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Very nice that the page works for requests, but we should really focus on taxa that do not have accurate reconstructions already, not waste work. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, they already have accurate restorations, we'd be better off requesting taxa that have none. Requests should benefit the wider Wikipedia project, not personal whims. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but make new sections for them, or list them here, same for size diagrams:[12] This section should only be about this particular image, not all sorts of unrelated images. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Small-sized image that is in use in page, I think user did not know how to show image smaller
Added to the page by @Caz41985: without review. This user only worked for that. Even through it is footprint fossil but is that accurate as interpreted animal? Same image can be seen in DeviantArt[13] but I am not sure that user is artist themselves, I will ask for that. (P.S. Yes, uploader is author themselves.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
With something based on tracks alone, a restoration would have to be closely based on conclusions found in a published paper, such as identification of a similar animal which is known from body fossils or a published restoration. Can't say if that's the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Reconstructing a track as if its an animal makes zero sense, especialy given that the image itself contains no tracks. Just strange really. I don't see a reason to include the image, given that it effectively conveys no information about the footprints themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments6 people in discussion
A very old work (2006) by Nobu Tamura, but still used without any changes. The overdeveloped ears make it look too derivative for a Mesozoic mammal, while the cleft mouth is too un-mammal. Various other points look unnatural, but how is it actually? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think someone should make a revised paleoartwork of Volaticotherium. That restoration reminds me of the beaver from Dougal Dixon’s speculative evolution book After Man. 24.218.189.104 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Ahhhh... That restoration looks like Dougal's needle-mongoose thing, sans needles. Is there a reconstruction of the skeleton?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
A couple of images added to pages without review. They have some strange anatomical features. Also potential shrink-wrapping issues? -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I created this scale diagram prompted by a discussion on the Wikimedia Commons discord channel, but the outdated image it was intended to update was already replaced by a better one by the time it was finished. My version felt both unnecessary and potentially misleading because I retained the bipedal posture from the original. I've since been asked to upload it nonetheless, so I leave it to you to decide its fate. Mettiina (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I got the height estimate by reconstructing the animal. I used scaled photos of a fossil mandible as a basis and took the general proportions for the rest of the body from an orangutan skeleton. I also double-checked things against a orangutan skeletal mount and the reconstructed Gigantopithecus mandible from the Natural History Museum, London, to make sure everything made sense as a whole. Mettiina (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not one to dispute that, being neither a primatologist nor a trained paleontologist. I have shared this work with friends and colleagues for critique, but though some of them are academics in the field, I don't know that any of them has specialist knowledge of primates either extant or extinct, so I have no-one authoritative to vouch for its accuracy. If it is of no value for the purposes of Wikipedia, please let me know how I should proceed. Mettiina (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reconstruction of the skull2007 restoration of Necrolestes by Mr. Fink
Just created a skull diagram for Necrolestes, largely based on those from [14] (warning, the paper is nearly 100 MB). The paper also includes a life restoration direct link, which I thought might be worth comparing to Mr. Fink's version, which by comparison doesn't seem to have major issues Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Request ideas: Waukesha Butterfly Animal, or Thaleops
Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments5 people in discussion
Now I know I have mentioned the Butterfly animal a lot (and it might be a little annoying), but I think that a reconstruction of it might be useful for the main page on the Waukesha biota. The only problem I see is how enigmatic the creature is, so that may be a problem. There are pictures of fossils online, and a reconstruction from Deviantart, so that may be useful.
If that doesn't work I have another suggestion, Thaleops. I don't see many life reconstructions of trilobites, and having some would probably help readers get a good grasp on their life appearance.Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree to let someone do unnamed and yet not well studied animal before study. Hopefully study about Marrellomorph release soon and may describe about that well. Reconstruction in DeviantArt looks inaccurate as arthropod so probably not reliable. For trilobite it is possible though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Also as a note, we really should be avoiding using the "butterfly" descriptor for this organism, as its highly inaccurate and misleading. If anythin we should refer to it by specimen numbers to avoid the insinuation of Butterfly affinity.-Kevmin§16:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, as far as I know, there is no instance of the word "Waukesha Butterfly Animal" explicitly used in a paper, at least via a scholar. Some introductory articles only have the name "Butterfly Animal". Apparently "Butterflied" is a designation used for compressed bivalved arthropods.[15]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Also I didn't realise this, but Briggs 1976 has a great reconstruction of Protocaris in both dorsal and lateral views (page 4), in case Qohelet12 is interested in doing that. (should be relatively easy to draw, as only its carapace and trunk morphology is known). Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Qohelet12 once again delivers, the reconstruction of Protocaris looks accurate to the Briggs reconstruction. Also cool to see a reconstruction of a euthycarcinoid. It looks faithful to the reconstruction in the nature paper, so I have no issues with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
So only remaining hymenocarines are Nereocaris briggsi and Clypecaris pteroidea as I see? (Since Vermontcaris (from CC-able paper) and Pseudoarctolepis are not sure about being hymenocarine, and Chengjiang Branchiocaris are only known from carapaces) Also @PaleoEquii:, I remember you did excellent work for Pseudoarctolepis, if possible can you upload that? If not possible it is ok though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Ta-tea-two-te-to, when you ping people, you need to include the ping in the same edit as you include your signature, otherwise it doesn't work. Moving beyond just hymenocarines, I noticed that the ROM/Marianne Collins have done a cool reconstruction of Surusicaris, if Qohelet12 is interested in drawing that taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I have a reconstruction of Pseudoarctolepis, but there would be no page to for that illustration to accompany? Should it only be uploaded to complete the tentative hymenocarine set? PaleoEquii (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a drawing of Pseudoarctolepis in both top down (based on a figured fossil) and in cross-sectional view. Honestly, trying to actually reconstruct the 3d profile of the caparace seems to be quite challenging due to the extensive crushing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Is anyone still considering doing a piece on Thaleops?, prehaps Qohelet12, but I think they are potentially busy with the new Ordovician Marrellomorph. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Leakeyornis material
A quick showcase of the cranial material assigned to Leakeyornis (Phoenicopterus) aethiopicus. Grey area is covered in matrix in the fossil to a degree where you can't really tell what the underlying structure should look like. The nares are kept free tho since their appearance is pretty obvious in the fossil. Armin Reindl (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
"Reconstruction of fossil soils and their biota in the Mistaken Point Formation of Newfoundland"
"Reconstruction of Ediacaran biota and their soils in the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia"
These images have been continuously used on the Ediacaran Biota page since they were added by Retallack in 2018. Gregory Retallack is famous for its not-so-widely accepted studies that interpret the Ediacaran biota as a lichen. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about geology, but do these images just support his lichen hypothesis? If so, should it be removed from the page? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because his lichen hypothesis requires the environment to be terrestiral. The environmental interpretation is certainly WP:FRINGE. The vast majority of Ediacaran workers consider the environment of deposition to marine, not a terrestrial environment. Retallack needs to accept that Wikipeda must present the mainstream consensus, regardless of his views on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anybody on Wikipedia except Alnagov actually has expertise on Ediacaran biota. I'll probably get around to rewriting it at some point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The page on T. atrox is looking pretty good, it is just missing a reconstruction. There is one on wiki commons, but I removed it because it has a few issues (lighting problems, etc). Anyone here good at drawing marine reptiles?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
glyptodon
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hybodus hauffianus
Since the genus Hybodus has been split up, and the wiki article has been changed to reflect that, I've decided to draw a life restoration of H. hauffianus to go in place of those that were based on other genera. I've included a male and female morph, as well as a scale bar. Please let me known if there are any issues with these reconstructions. Gasmasque (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The horns seem to be fine. Per [16], it appears that the Klug et al reconstruction is incorrect with regard to the placement of the cephalic spines for H. hauffianus, and the Nix Illustration reconstruction does not specify the species. Overall a nice reconstruction and there aren't any errors I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
These images are uploaded by A. C. Tatarinov and for one of Kyptoceras, it was added to the page without review. Are these diagram showing exact skull anatomy? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be honest, given the highly problematic nature of @A. C. Tatarinov:s uploads, I have actively taken a WP:Deny approach, and revert all of their uploads that I see in my watchlist now. They are aiming for a ban from Commons with the behaviour they show and if it happens likely a good portion of the uploads they do will be rev/del removed from commons as ell.--Kevmin§16:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
In terms of anatomical accuracy, I can vouch for Megacephalosaurus, Gnathomortis, Gavialimimus and maybe Sachiasaurus based on my familiarity with those groups, but nearly all artworks have serious lighting and coloring issues that would make them not very suitable for article use. Cleaner pictures of the drawings could help for some, but maybe a tracing and recoloration on a digital platform could be best? Macrophyseter | talk23:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
A bit belated, but I can provide comments on the ichthyosaurs:
Cymbospondylus youngorum seems to have too short and tall of a snout, with the teeth too large and few in number. The neck should also probably be longer, as C. youngorum seems to have had 10 cervicals like C. petrinus. (Sander et al., 2021)
The tail seems a bit stubby on Mixosaurus, the postflexural segment (forming the fin) of the tail should be much long than the preflexural segment. (Renesto et al., 2020)
Guizhouichthyosaurus: The flippers of Guizhouichthyosaurus were gigantic, about as long or longer than the skull. I might also be misinterpreting perspective, but the head should also be much shorter than the trunk (Shang & Li, 2009, Wang et al., 2008)
Thank you very much for letting me know, I'll keep this in mind the next time I make a Triassic Ichthyosaur. And to reply on the perspective for Guizhouichthyosaurus, I was aiming for a 3D angle. Although considering the time it was made, the perspective does look a little awkward. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I've just seen Euchambersia liuyudongi here and I figure I should chime in. The setting is a little suspect. The Naobaoguo Formation, from where it is known, was a fluvial/lacustrine deposit and I'm not aware of any evidence for the meme volcano in the background. Burrowing might be reasonable, though. I can't tell at the level of artistic resolution, but if the canine is visible then so should at least the first incisor in front of it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
A bunch of paleoart by Nobu Tamura.
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Here's a bunch of relatively recent reconstructions by Tamura, most of which are of marine animals. Any thoughts or criticisms? Speaking of which, the Cloudina reconstruction might need that "speculative paleoart" template. Monsieur X (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
By analogy with other ichthyopterygians, I'm not sure that Eretmorhipis should have visible digits in its flippers. I don't know whether the "body tube" would've been visible but I think at least some texture differentiation might be warranted. Also the tail should flex from the hip because the haemal arches obstruct movement further back. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the visible digits. I'm not familiar enough with ichthyopterygian anatomy. Though I did look around some blogs & papers & it seems the tails were rather stiff due to the "bony body tubes". Monsieur X (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Done & Done. I think I may have misremembered or misconstrued that rule. Anyway, I keep an eye for any other images with watermarks. Monsieur X (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Correct restoration of the frontal appendages of Yawunik by Junn
While improving the Megacheira article today, I noticed this life restoration by Nobu Tamura has a number of issues with the great appendages. Notably
There isn't a strong distinction between the flexible flagellate sections and the proximal fixed shape spine, with some of the fixed spine segments appearing erroneously curved.
The serration between two pairs of spines is not present
The small curved claw at the end of the appendage appears to be absent
Latest comment: 1 year ago36 comments4 people in discussion
Following my recent expansion, I'm thinking it might be nice to have a skeletal or life reconstruction for the skull of this genus. I'm waiting on a paper from WP:RX that describes tooth occlusion but here's the skull of the holotype from the original paper: [20]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Here, how does this look. I made this in like, what?, 50 minutes. My style is usually charcoal pencils, and I am new to paleoart. I based my reconstruction off this one, https://www.pteros.com/pterosaurs/forfexopterus.html. The only problems that may be present are the thickness off the neck and tail, but I think that can be chalked up to just how many pycnofibers I gave this guy. Probably not best to take this serious though, as I am testing as to how things will go. Fossiladder13 (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Substantial changes may be required. In general, reference measurements from the paper ([21], pages 7 and 9) where possible. Compared to other ctenochasmatids the neck looks probably a little too thick, the torso too large relative to the limbs, the legs not long enough, the tail too long (even with pycnofibres). Gegepterus[22][23] is probably a good reference point. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes Got it, I also just uploaded another version. I slimmed down the neck and tail, and increased the size of the wings. If there is anything wrong with this version, I will make another with the references you linked. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the biggest outstanding issue right now is the teeth. Ctenochasmatids have very narrow, pointed teeth and I'd like this to be reflected if possible because the article doesn't have an illustration of that right now. That might mean redrawing the picture to be larger if necessary. I'm working on a redline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless my understanding of pterosaur anatomy is horribly wrong, this is what I think the proportions of Forfexopterus would be (others, please review this): [24] I was going to draw over your reconstruction to point out what to tweak, but I think the proportions are different enough (scaled to the same skull and stride length) that there's not much of a point: [25]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Better (especially the first one), but not what I meant by larger. I was suggesting drawing the overall animal larger so that you could accommodate 30 teeth in the upper jaw and 28 in the lower. See the reference image for what the teeth should look like. Also, the head is still a bit too large, the neck is too short, the limbs too short, the eye too large, and the nostril too far forward: [26]. Draw over the reference if you can. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes These two new ones are probably the best ones yet!. I made two because I couldn't decide on how far spaced the teeth should be. The only other thing I see may be the limbs, but they are definitely longer than the others ( and maybe head size). Pretty much every other inaccuracy that was left has been dealt with. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Quick comparison against the skeletal suggests that the main outstanding issue is actually the neck, which is still too short. Also, the nostril remains in the wrong position. Lastly, I don't know how feasible this is, but the teeth are also incorrect. They are actually restricted to the front third of the jaw, and should be more pointed. The skeletal includes indications of tooth sockets that you can follow. If space prohibits you from drawing this many teeth in that space, consider drawing larger as I suggested. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Version 1 is probably closest anatomically. Minor tweaks: upper jaw is too thick, feet can be longer, wings are a little too long: [27] Also, for the next version, it would be best if you could close the mouth to the point that the teeth are interlocking (but not completely closed). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, a little too long, but otherwise largely proportionally accurate. If you can slim down the lower jaw and teeth a little more (the teeth still look more like Pterodactylus than Forfexopterus), then it should be good. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes the wing has been slightly changed, the lower jaw is now more slim, and I did my best trying to remodel the teeth based on those Forfexopterus. I totally get what you mean about the teeth looking more like those of Pterodactylus. Fossiladder13 (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The back of the skull is largely unknown asides from the occiput in Forfexopterus. It also, unlike some other ctenochasmatids, lacks any visible signs of snout crests. The conservative option is to not give it a crest, lappet or otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I have to comment that art by Teratophoneus is always not best source for cartilaginous fish, like he still continues to add eugeneodonts fin spines which is absent. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Well just I meant using that artist as ref is bad and still ctenacanthid are ok to have fin spines. Looks like body shape being bit too long? Though I am not specialist at cartilaginous fish so better to get review other than me I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As it is currently drawn, the picture looks like a very close trace of an illustration done by HodariNundu ( https://www.deviantart.com/hodarinundu/art/Diving-with-Saivodus-866556765). With that aside, it is worth mentioning Saivodus is known only from teeth and, I believe, fragments of jaw. The teeth of Saivodus would not have had this exaggerated, 3-pronged trident-like shape like those of many other cladodonts, and would have instead had an extremely long, needle-like cusp protruding from the middle with much shorter cusplets near the root. I really do want to stress that my biggest concern here is how similar this looks to an existing image, especially since the anatomy of the animal is so speculative. I would also like to clarify I am not by any means a Chondrichthyes "expert" or "specialist" and it would be better to hear what Carnoferox has to say on the matter. Gasmasque (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Gasmasque's concerns over basically redrawing other people's paleoart. That's maybe okay for skeletal diagrams, but not okay for paleoart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
As the others have said, it's a blatant trace of Hodari's art. It's not even worth discussing the accuracy when it can be rejected for the plagiarism. The attempt to pretend that it was based on other material is especially egregious. Carnoferox (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pectocaris eurypetala
Pectocaris spatiosa
Hallucigenia sparsa
Tuzoia canadensis
Aglaspis barrandei
Canadaspis laevigata
Older version
Update by Arlo Barnes
"Reconstruction of fossil soils and their biota in the Mistaken Point Formation of Newfoundland"
"Reconstruction of Ediacaran biota and their soils in the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia"
Cymbospondylus youngorum and Thalattoarchon
Tylosaurus saskatchewanensis
Megacephalosaurus eulerti
Oculudentavis khaungraae
Oculudentavis naga
Tiktaalik and Qikiqtania
unnamed Kem Kem Group Leptocleidid and Axelrodichthys lavocati
Epapatelo and Cardiocorax
Pezopallichthys
Parvicornus
Ankitokazocaris
Albalimulus
Life restoration of Yawunik by Nobu Tamura
Correct restoration of the frontal appendages of Yawunik by Junn
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Body_of_Mieridduryn.webp){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cascolus_ravitis_holotype.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthropleura.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature22080/MediaObjects/41586_2017_Article_BFnature22080_Fig3_HTML.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://i.imgur.com/7xxIgs9.jpeg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://i.imgur.com/EMC30OC.jpeg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/929002340940382248/1060625838913101895/image.png?width=1440&height=426){kind=link}
![[23]](https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/archive/research_archive/rp2011/201502/W020150217514306204034.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://i.imgur.com/MwhMdAL.png){kind=link}
![[25]](https://i.imgur.com/VWOh6RU.png){kind=link}
![[26]](https://i.imgur.com/OCZiz4K.png){kind=link}
![[27]](https://i.imgur.com/QWXNT3z.png){kind=link}
![[28]](https://i.imgur.com/7n7L7f5.png){kind=link}
![[29]](https://i.imgur.com/Ckfyi7d.png){kind=link}
![[30]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308091099/figure/fig4/AS:668789490319372@1536463248900/The-upper-and-lower-jaws-of-Forfexopterus-jeholensis-gen-et-sp-nov-HM-V20.png){kind=link}
