Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 8

Proborhyaena

Lastly I've made some images of skulls of South American mammals. First, this is the recreation of Proborhyaena [2] I known that we don't have still an article about this animal, but the image could be included in Proborhyaenidae. Any thoughts? --Rextron (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's it based on? And I guess an article could be made... FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is based in the most complete specimens assigned to this animal, the holotype that is a lower jaw, a piece of maxilla refered and a rear portion of mandible assigned as Proborhyaena sp., meanwhile the general shape of the skull is based in the most complete near relative, Callistoe vincei. Is based in these articles:

Babot, M. J., Powell, J. E., & de Muizon, C. (2002). Callistoe vincei, a new Proborhyaenidae (Borhyaenoidea, Metatheria, Mammalia) from the early Eocene of Argentina. Geobios, 35(5), 615-629.
Bond, M., & Rosendo, P. (1983). Nuevos y elocuentes restos craneanos de Proborhyaena gigantea Ameghino, 1897 (Marsupialia, Borhyaenidae, Proborhyaeninae) de la Edad Deseadense. Un ejemplo de coevolución. Ameghiniana, 20(1-2), 47-60.
Marshall, L. G. (1977). Evolution of the carnivorous adaptive zone in South America. In Major patterns in vertebrate evolution (pp. 709-721). Springer US.
Mones, A., & Ubilla M. (1978). La edad Deseadense (Oligoceno inferior) de la formación Fray Bentos y su contenido paleontológico, con especial referencia a la presencia de Proborhyaena cf. gigantea Ameghino (Marsupialia: Borhyaenidae) en el Uruguay. Nota preliminar. Comunicaciones Paleontológicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo. 7 (1), 151-158.

Of course, these material could be useful to make an article, at leasts a stub.--Rextron (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eocene birds

Hello everybody. Recently I've made some drawings of Eocene birds. Here are Strigogyps, Messelirrisor, Masillaraptor and Gastornis. Do you think they are accurate enough to include them in their articles? Strigogyps' head is based on the skeletal restoration of the Senckenberg Museum of Frankfurt 1, although I'm not sure about it's accuracy--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the museum skeleton, Strigogyps does not appear to have a seriema-like sickle-claw, so the feet should probably be changed. The head and beak of of Gastornis don't seem to entirely match the skulls? FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix the claws on Strigogyps. The Gastornis drawing is based on this skeleton 2. Maybe the beak should have a more round shape? The head may not match the skeleton's shape due to the plumage, perhaps I could reduce the height of these feathers. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claws fixed.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this time without any new comments, can I assume that at least the 3 first pictures are accurate enough?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll see if I can change something in the Gastornis picture as soon as I can. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I managed to redo Gastornis (sorry for the huge delay). I've changed the beak shape and the location of the nasal opening, as well as eliminated some background elements. What do you think? I've also noticed the new Gastornis restoration in the article. Could both be added there, or is this drawing not necessary anymore? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think having two is fine. Though I regret I didn't noted it before (I mentioned it in an edit summary about the other image), but it would probably have more of a horizontal posture... FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done:). Is there anything else I should change?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine now. In other images, the legs seem thicker, but I'm not sure if the bones support this... FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at skeletons, leg bones seem to be thiner than usually depicted. Nevertheless, I've made the legs a bit thicker. Thank you for your feedback! Maybe I return soon with more birds to review. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Yeah, restoring birds is both trickier and "easier" than restoring dinosaurs, because you have modern birds you can look at, but those also creates constraints. If they have modern relatives, they should not look too different from them... FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus blacki as appeared in the 2014 exhibition in the Czech Republic [1]

How to deal with such restorations, if only jaws are available? The first is gorilla like, the second is chimpanzee or orangutan like. The first is quadrupedal, the second bipedal. Should both images be included in the article as possible appearance or non of them? --Snek01 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only restorations that conform with current thought about its appearance should be used. It is thought to be an orangurang relative, therefore th rest are unlikely. Another problem though is that according to US copyright law, a picture of a sculpture like that in the US can only be released into the public domain by the artist or other copyright owner. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paraceratherium

Here is the edited version of the Paraceratherium I was asked for. Do I have to adjust things or is this okay? Triangulum (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much much better now! A little pixelated around the ear, but hey, I guess that's the price of enlarging parts! Perhaps use a bit of blur there? FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I see now. I think that I know a way to fix that. I'll do that. I'm glad, however, that it's better than the previous version. Triangulum (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo-manipulation! I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Indricotheres but from what I have read is that they are flexed limbed like horses and rhinos, not straighter limbed like elephants. Have a look at the figure halfway down, labeled 'Paul 1997' [3]. It looks like you have used an elephant forelimb which is probably too straight, maybe it could be cut up or warped to have a bit more bend at the elbow.

Regarding the blending of different photos together, what can help is overlaying a subtle grain or noise over all the image, it helps give all the elements a similar unifying texture. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will take a look at the legs too. And also thanks for the blending tip. Triangulum (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a newer version Triangulum (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I've made a little mistake. I accidentally deleted a part of the grass at its front leg. I'll fix that soon. Anything else? Triangulum (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems like the hair on the ear were cut shorter, seems very straight? FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.. I will correct it in the newer version Triangulum (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grass and ear hairs are fixed Triangulum (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me then. One annoying question, what kind of photos have you used as basis? Because there has been cases in the past where some considered use of photos in such "collages" as copyright infringements... FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First I started painting the body around a skeleton. Afterwards it needed a texture. I used images of elephants and rhinos that I found on the web, but because I only used very small parts of each picture I guessed it wouldn't be a big problem. The head of this paraceratherium for instance is made of 3 different photos Triangulum (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but always good to be prepared. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Thanks for warning me Triangulum (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longipteryx

Hi everyone. I've made a restoration of Longipteryx chaoyangensis, the cretaceous chinese enantiornithine. The restoration is mostly based on the fossil photo shown on the article. The bird is also holding a small fish of the genus Lycoptera. I noticed that, although not labelled as inaccurate, the restoration made by N. Tamura years ago was removed from the page, so I thought that another restoration could be made. Any thoughts? Thanks for the feedback. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Dinoguy2 has some comments on this? FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't notice any obvious errors and overall it looks in line with other modern restorations. The only thing I might adjust in light of recent discoveries is the visibility of the wing claws. The amber specimens seem to suggest these might normally be hidden within the plumage. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, claws out. Those birds in amber were a very lucky finding for our understanding of enantiornithines ;) Is there anything else which should be modified? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kairuku

What do you think? Do I need to change anything? (I'm going to be honest: I forgot to upload it here first so it is already in its article.) Triangulum (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that from this angle, the tail wouldn't point that much to the side, but would be directed more backwards? Also, this illustration seems to make the upper legs a bit more distinct:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some corrections. I now see that I forgot to change the Kairuku in the size comparison, but I will change that later this week. Are there other things I can do to make it look better? Triangulum (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not form what I can see right now, but I'm not really a penguin expert, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no problem! Neither am I. Triangulum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koolasuchus

Hello! A new creation of mine. Any thoughts? Triangulum (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about this group either, but I'd at least thing the border between the tail and the "crest/fin" would be less sharp, based on salamanders? FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the tip... Done! I've uploaded the newer version. Triangulum (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, pinging Petter Bøckman (if he's still active), since he knows more about these creatures than I... FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(and, as by magic he appears) Hi Gents! The tail fin looks fine to me. Unless there's fossil imprints to show it was otherwise, I see no reason to change it. Also, I think the Andrias type look of the head and body works very well, particularly since it probably had a similar ecology. I'm not sure about the hindfoot though. The temnospondyls usually have a five toed foot, like modern amphibians. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appearing! The tail was "fixed" a while ago, but yeah, the correct number of toes is quite important! Had a similar problem with Eryops, for some reason, most skeletal mounts in museums have five fingers on the frontlegs instead of four... FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the only thing we can now say about this picture is that the Koolasuchus most likely would have had five toes on each paw. (Correct me if I’m wrong though) I’ll change that soon and if any new information is known about it, please tell me, because I'd like to update the picture. Triangulum (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Petter meant five fingers on the hindlegs and four on the frontlegs. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohw.. oops. I'm going change that right now. My mistake.. Triangulum (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think it's ready to go! FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Any suggestions on where to place it in the article? Triangulum (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the taxobox, the other image shows behaviour and obscures the animal under water, so it fits better elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Triangulum (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I don't know if this is possible, but in my opinion the very useful size comparison should better be placed in the upper left corner because every time I see that picture the smaller version looks like a shadow to me. Maybe the size comparision can be made slightly smaller and the human body can be placed in front of the animal body. --TomCatX (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... I haven't been logged in for a while... Sure! I can do that, but The human is already standing in front of the Koolasuchus. I even made a shadow to make that clear, but I might change it a bit to make it better. Thanks! Triangulum (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffstetterius

Hi, I've recently working in an article about Hoffstetterius, a interesting toxodontid, and also in some images to illustrate the animal. So, there is a diagram of the skull of the juvenile: [5], the adult skull [6] and finally, a life reconstruction: [7] The skull images are based in photographs of the fossils of the original description, and a image from a thesis. What do you think? --Rextron (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about these guys, and can't compare with the skeletal since I don't have it... But looks nice! Remember to add citations on the file page when images are based closely on published ones... FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the animal is based in Toxodon, there is a image of the skeletal in which I based the reconstruction: [8]. Ok, I'll add the citation when I upload the images, if there is not another comment.--Rextron (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case, I'm thinking the ears are too low? I'm pretty sure you can see where the ear begins in mammal skulls... FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed that the ears looks low due to how tall is the sagital crest, but in that case, how much I must rise the ear? --Rextron (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "base" would be at the hole right above the mandible hinge:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is how I've modified the ear: [10], I hope that it is better now. --Rextron (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! Looked like it was coming out the mandible before... FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I need to be more careful in the future! now I think that only remains for me to upload the images.--Rextron (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's finally done.--Rextron (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me! By the way, just noticed your Proborhyaena above was never made. Still WIP? FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Proborhyaena... yes, it's still a WIP, and I'm unsure it continue with the present image: [11] (although two skull diagrams are ready). In any case, still would be ideal have an article for this animal, but just recently I've found enough sources to make it.--Rextron (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, go for it! FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then! :-) --Rextron (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgonopsids

Hi everyone! I'm new to wikipedia but I joined because I felt a lot of the paleoart needs updating. So far, I have made reconstructions of two very famous gorgonopsians; lycaenops and inostrancevia. I have used various skeletals for reference and decided to give them fur coats based on the evidence of hair being found in permian coprolites. I have tried hard to avoid any shrink wrapping. AnnieI (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice style! A while ago, Petter Bøckman commented on a gorgonopsian restoration I was working on, and stated it was unlikely they would have been furry.[12] Perhaps he has some observations? FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason I doubt the gorgonopsids had fur, is the lack of any harderian gland, and now also a new article pointing out that the genes controlling the developmental closing of the pineal eye is also fundamental to fur growth, see Palaeoneurological clues to the evolution of defining mammalian soft tissue traits. Since even Thrinaxodon have a well developed foramen, the chances that Lycaenops and Inostrancevia had fur is slim. Whether they had whiskers is another mater. Fur did evolve from something, but well developed whiskers like in the drawing are really only likely on nocturnal animals (or those suffering from a prolonged nocturnal bottleneck). I'm not an expert, but I don't think the gorgonopsids evolved from small, nocturnal forefathers. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting information. So evidence points towards even gorgonopsids, who are always thought of as active predators, to being cold blooded. Would you suggest glandular skin for all non-cynodont synapsids? Where in the cynodont line did features such as warm bloodedness and pelage appear? And what do you think, other than hair, was possibly in those permian coprolites? AnnieI (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daptocephalus

Okay, I thought I'd test myself.This is my first time contributing to a stub article and I had very little evidence and skeletals to go by. Daptocephalus may have been semi-aquatic, due to evidence that its septomaxilla may have supported a nostril closing valve [13] Reconstructing a more obscure animal was an interesting experience. If anyone, has more knowledge than me, feel free to correct anything. AnnieI (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As above, not sure about the presence of hair, but I think it should definitely have a keratinous beak? Now the mouth seems to be fully covered in skin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagornis

I had forgotten that five years ago I made a restoration of Pelagornis chilensis, although it never got finished. Now I have made an updated version. Although I tried to make it look like P. chilensis, I guess it could represent any species of the genus. Any thoughts? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wings seem a bit misaligned to each other? Seems like they are not attached at the same level of the body. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I see it. Perhaps the lower wing should be moved a bit forward?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that would help. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the right wing is moved forward. Is it enough, or maybe too much? Any other issues detected? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wings look fine now, but the head seems a little small in relation to the body compared to other restorations? Not sure if the correct size is even known, though.... FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, I made the head a bit smaller than it actually is. Some skulls of Pelagornis are known, at least of P. mauretanicus and P. chilensis (in this one, an incomplete skull is described with other remains in the original description of the species, which can be used for checking relative size). Now I have made the head a bit bigger. I hope I've not made it too big. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks fine! FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you for your feedback! I'll add it to the article. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ixalerpeton

I almost did not contribute this year in this section, but I would like to contribute with a Dinosauriform. Of which there are not many illustrations in this encyclopedia. And this time I have one recently published, Ixalerpethon. I see that there are already photographs of models in the article, but the article is broad and I think an additional illustration could be added. Any correction? [14] Levi bernardo (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is also a chance of the existing images being deleted because of some Flickr technicality, so it is welcome! Looks good generally, but the fingers seema bit too stumpy? Look more ~long and slender in the Hartman skeletal, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]