Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Restorations of Ichthyotitan severnensis
Illustration by SeismicShrimp
SeismicShrimp (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The dorsal fin is a little more posterior than they are normally reconstructed as, no? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought (but I also know very little about ichthyosaurs). Was there any specific reasoning behind that particular fin placement? -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, not really besides that whales of similar sizes seem to have if slightly further back, I know it’s a bit speculative but maybe there’s a purpose for that. SeismicShrimp (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- If it’s preferred I move it up, I can. SeismicShrimp (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Between that and the large tail fluke, I think it's much better to stick to the anatomy of known shastasaurids than inventing something new for an animal known from mandibles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Give me an hour or so and I can fix them and any other problems with it SeismicShrimp (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is this good to add to the page? SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, when I said large, it's the entire thing - even the upper lobe is massive compared to the head (see the size comparison below). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The proportions look like a mix of Guanlingsaurus and Shonisaurus (based on head size and trunk depth), but some features seem to fall outside of known variation among "shastasaurs". The forelimb length in particular seems pretty excessive, nearly as long as the trunk; they are significantly shorter even in the long-limbed Guizhouichthyosaurus. The hip region and preflexural tail seem excessively deep; shastasaurs were typically fairly slender animals (Shonisaurus is a bit of an exception), and even the thunnioform ichthyosaurs like Stenopterygius seem to have skinnier tails. Additionally, the tail fin seems quite short, in Guizhouichthyosaurus and Shonisaurus, it seems like they take up half the length of the tail. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, when I said large, it's the entire thing - even the upper lobe is massive compared to the head (see the size comparison below). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Between that and the large tail fluke, I think it's much better to stick to the anatomy of known shastasaurids than inventing something new for an animal known from mandibles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I had a similar thought (but I also know very little about ichthyosaurs). Was there any specific reasoning behind that particular fin placement? -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Ichthyotitan size comparison diagram
Trying to keep things together here for future reference so I'm posting this as a subsection of the above.
What an animal... The silhouette is mostly just a very large Shonisaurus. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to follow the proportions of Shonisaurus popularis fairly closely, though it looks like the tail fin is a bit small relative to the preflexural tail compared to this species and Guizhouichthyosaurus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if I understood you correctly, but does this look any better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- The preflexural tail (the part between the hips and the tail fin, basically the part of the tail before the bend; my apologies, I probably should have explained that) still seems kind of long relative to the postflexural (fin) portion. Some other thoughts: Hartman's Shonisaurus has quite a steep tailbend, steeper than Kosch's 1990 reconstruction that McGowan & Motani (1999) described as "far too steep", so making it shallower might be warranted. Additionally, since we have almost no information to go on regarding what Ichthyotitan looked like in life, I wonder if putting a question mark in the silhouette might be warranted. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I made some further adjustments to the caudal region and added a question mark. Let me know if any further fixes are needed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The preflexural tail (the part between the hips and the tail fin, basically the part of the tail before the bend; my apologies, I probably should have explained that) still seems kind of long relative to the postflexural (fin) portion. Some other thoughts: Hartman's Shonisaurus has quite a steep tailbend, steeper than Kosch's 1990 reconstruction that McGowan & Motani (1999) described as "far too steep", so making it shallower might be warranted. Additionally, since we have almost no information to go on regarding what Ichthyotitan looked like in life, I wonder if putting a question mark in the silhouette might be warranted. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if I understood you correctly, but does this look any better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ichthyotitan & Gamatavus (by SpinoDragon145)
-
Ichthyotitan severnensis -
Gamatavus antiquus
Here is my latest art released, a sketch for the new and colossal Ichthyotitan! I also have a piece for Gamatavus that I've had sitting around on Wikimedia for about a year now, and I never got the time to also share it. With that said, please let me know your thoughts on these two! SpinoDragon145 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't speak much for ichthyosaurs, and of course there is a lot we don't know with Ichthyotitan, but based on other reconstructions (including the "official" commissioned illustrations) the dorsal fin (if it had one) should maybe be less prominent and more posteriorly placed. Maybe the torso should be deeper, too?
- The Gamatavus pieces looks nice but is very dark, making it difficult to clearly see the animal in the landscape. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since Ichthyotitan is only known from lower jaw bone fragments, a lot of whats in the sketch is speculation. The overall anatomy is referenced from mostly Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus just slightly for the head shape, and the dorsal fin is based off of a Mixosaurus specimen that preserves a dorsal fin. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do about the mass of the torso and size of the dorsal fin.
- As for Gamatavus, it's time I made this piece brighter anyway since that's the main critique I get from this one, lol. Thanks for the advice! SpinoDragon145 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can necessarily consider the dorsal fin placement as inaccurate, currently all we can really say about "shastasaur" dorsal fins is that they probably existed. I haven't done a detailed check, but I'm not sure if the torso here is necessarily too shallow either; Shonisaurus popularis is actually pretty unusual among large "shastasaurs", which more typically have shallower bodies. If anything, given how poor the Ichthyotitan material is I think it would be better to show a variety of interpretations, rather than just make everything a giant Shonisaurus popularis. I'll see if I can do a more detailed review of all the Ichthyotitan restorations here in the coming week. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Based on other "shastasaurs" (and most ichthyosaurs in general), the nostrils probably should be lower on the skull and oriented more laterally; they are higher up in Shonisaurus popularis but in that taxon they're closer to the eyes, and once again that species is an exception to the typical rule. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can necessarily consider the dorsal fin placement as inaccurate, currently all we can really say about "shastasaur" dorsal fins is that they probably existed. I haven't done a detailed check, but I'm not sure if the torso here is necessarily too shallow either; Shonisaurus popularis is actually pretty unusual among large "shastasaurs", which more typically have shallower bodies. If anything, given how poor the Ichthyotitan material is I think it would be better to show a variety of interpretations, rather than just make everything a giant Shonisaurus popularis. I'll see if I can do a more detailed review of all the Ichthyotitan restorations here in the coming week. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Illustration by Ansh Saxena 7163
Hi, wanna put this Ichthyotitan restoration up for review, since the remains aren't that good I based some of it off related Ichthyosaurs like Shonisaurus, though I don't usually make artwork of Ichthyosaurs so I've very little idea how much I got it right... Please check it out and let me know if there's any problem with it, thanks! :) Edit: I should also probably mention all the art references I've used for this, I used the size comparison on its page by SlvrHwk based on Shonisaurus, the artwork by Sergey Krasovskiy and one by Gabriel Ugueto Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Judging by Shonisaurus popularis, which this restoration seems to be very similar to, the nostrils should probably be further back, the preflexural tail shorter and the tail fin longer. I almost wonder though if this might work better repurposed as a life restoration of Shonisaurus? For future reference, I would recommend using fossils and skeletal diagrams as references for life restorations, rather than other life restorations. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late response, and thank you for the review... I will make the changes that you mentioned as soon as I get more time for this. Though since there's very little material that gives a good clue about this thing's life appearance, I didn't think it'd be wise to stray from other related ichthyosaurs, at least until better material is assigned to it.. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Illustration by Stegotyranno
Please check if it could be applicable and if it is accurate. Stegotyranno (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is too dark. I would at the very least remove the background. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is this better. Check for accuracy
- https://postimg.cc/XB91zTq4
- Stegotyranno (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The anatomy seems pretty similar to Shonisaurus popularis, which makes the apparent lack of teeth seem odd; the toothless shastasaurs seem to typically have shorter snouts, where the more longirostrine ones (Shonisaurus, Guizhouichthyosaurus, and Besanosaurus) all have teeth of some sort. The eye looks too low on the head. The postcranium looks kind of odd as well; there seems to be a sort of hump immediately behind the hips that makes it look like the body is bent pretty sharply dorsoventrally; additionally, the shading on the flippers and the way that they attach to the body makes them look almost conical rather than flat. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Works by User:Fridge Eater
Those arts are added by @Fridge Eater: without review. Are there any anatomical issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The backgrounds of the two coloured ones look like manipulated photographs. Are they free? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Plumulites bengstoni
Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the annelid worm, Plumulites bengstoni. PaleoEquii (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks pretty good based on fossil images and a model I found from the Yale Peabody museum, but I am very unfamiliar with the specifics on these worms. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me! This is close to what 10 Tons reconstructed.[1] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@PaleoEquii: also created reconstruction of Pambdelurion (originally created as Omnidens and posted to Twitter but I recommended him to upload this as Pambdelurion). Spines on frontal appendage looks like different from reconstruction by @Junnn11:, but I think spine numbers are uncertain? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. Some specimens seems to show a bit more of them. In my opinion, Even the size of frontal appendage itself seems to be somewhat variable (flexible?) as well. Junnn11 (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure its related but yes the appendages are extremely flexible. The appendage and head anatomy here was based on Supplementary Figure 9 of Young & Vinther (2016), MGUH 31551. This one shows the many thin elongate spines well, as well as the cephalic spines, and the extreme flexure of one of the appendages. PaleoEquii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Pliodetes nigeriensis
Created life restoration of Pliodetes, lepisosteiform from Elrhaz Formation. Proportion and fin placement are based on Wenz (1999) (inaccessible, I obtained from resource exchange and shared that in discord server), and head anatomy is based on Cavin and Suteethorn (2006).[2] I already got review by User:Orthocormus but any opinions from others? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)