Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 2016

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[7], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Reconstructions in Plos One

I have come across multiple dinosaur reconstructions in a Plos paper [8], that might be of some use to us. They include Dilophosaurus, Velociraptor, Caudipteryx sp., Plateosaurus, Thescelosaurus, and Parasaurolophus. The article itself is on the scapular orientation among a variety of dinosaurs, so the reconstructions should be fairly accurate. Before uploading them however, which ones are both accurate and useful enough. Thoughts in them (fig. 5)? IJReid ^discuss 03:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw them, but I'm a bit unsure exactly what license this means: " All images in this figure are reprinted from original, previously-unpublished artwork by Leandra Walters under a CC BY license, with permission from Leandra Walters, original copyright 2015." FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I know Leandra. If we really want to use them I could just ask her. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tomopteryx, I guess you could ask if they have the same license as the rest of the paper? It is almost certain, but probably good to be sure... FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, she says they are on the same licence as the rest of the paper and that we are free to use them as we wish. Tomopteryx (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Already added a few some days ago... FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since we now seem to have two Saurian affiliates here, and the Thescelosaurus in that paper seems to have identical integument to the one in Saurian, can anyone (Tomopteryx, RJPalmerArt?) explain where that leaves this MOR specimen[9] with skin impressions on its side? Does it have scales, or does it have anything to do with an impression mentioned in this DML post[10] that appears to have a texture similar to the skin of a plucked chickenFunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the MOR specimen, this is the first time I've seen it. At Saurian we've been in contact with Clint Boyd (a prominent researcher who focuses a lot on Thescelosaurus) about this animal, I can ask him if he is aware of it. I should say, he did direct us to use a Kulindadromeus-like integument. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been published on either... But well, now you know! FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Irritator Reconstruction

It's been a while but I finally got around to making the Irritator reconstruction I promised. Please let me know of any corrections that are needed in the drawing. Also, I would like to add some illustrations to Allosaurus' page, if possible. If anyone has any ideas of what exactly could I illustrate it would be great, maybe speculative behaviors, hatchlings, evidence-based behaviors, etc. Fred Wierum (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Full body life reconstruction of Irritator

Looks good, have you considered giving it four forwards pointing toes (where the dewclaw apparently touches the ground) as recently proposed for Spinosaurus? I don't think other spinosaurid feet are known that well. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not considered that actually. Do you think it's best if I add it? (Fred Wierum (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

I don't think it's a requirement, as the feet of this particular genus aren't known, but being the only such feet known for the family, it might be the "safest" way to go... Just in case, here's what seems to be a recently mounted Spinosaurus foot reconstruction:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Should I flatten the feet and claws aswell? (Fred Wierum (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

I think it would be the most parsimonious, as it appears most spinosaurs were semi-aquatic based on isotope analysis, and those kinds of feet were suggested to help in aquatic movement I think... But maybe others will chime in? FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Made the foot change as suggested and depending on what side of the page the image falls under I will flip it horizontally. If there are any other irritations, let me know! (Fred Wierum (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

Okay, so in addition to the data from Spinosaurus, there is also a trackway from Spain attributed to a baryonychine spinosaurid that show flat feet with the hallux touching the ground and webbing between the second, third and fourth digits. The webbing extends about halfway up the length of the digits. You can see a diagram of the footprints here: http://orig14.deviantart.net/9c8a/f/2015/235/8/e/baryonyx_footprints_by_yutyrannus-d96v10b.jpg With evidence from probable baryonychines and spinosaurines, this was probably the basal condition for spinosaurids. Artwork is great otherwise. Tomopteryx (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed! (Fred Wierum (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Good to go, I think. Tomopteryx (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice, with those changes, this is probably the most up to date restoration of Irritator anywhere! I've replaced the old restoration, which was rather amorphous. On Allosaurus images, perhaps an image of a juvenile could be interesting? I think a few such fossils are known? With down could be cool, hehe... Could be used under "Life history". FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man,I'll try to make as many up to date restorations for you guys as possible! I'll see what I can do with the juvenile Allosaurus. (108.178.113.160 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Cool. Can you do spinosaurus?Dinoboy

Might be a bit early for that one, there's quite some controversy now about its proportions... Should probably wait until it's somehow settled. Until then, the one we have already should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus adult

Gorgosaurus adult.

Hi guys. After all this time I have concluded Gorgosaurus image adult, very feathered, as I was asked. [12] I had many complications, and I had lots of help from 4 persons including one who works in Eofauna. And two versions. The color is based on the Dhole and bears[13],but not if you want to have it on. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems the image could need a little "cleanup"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'll do that when you have approval here, no problem with it?, and about Does the tongue?--Levi bernardo (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I think the hind foot and leg looks a bit "fatter" than the one in the front? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

corrected, later I completely clean, Any other anatomical problem? Anything? [14]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The hind toe and hallux still look a bit too robust, but looks good to me otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We have skin impressions directly from Gorgosaurus showing it had scales on it's tail. "Traces of SKIN impression are known for a specimen of Gorgosaurus libratus (Day, personal communication). These show small rounded or hexagonal scales on the tail. The pattern on the rest of the body is unknown..." - Currie 1997, The Encyclpedia of Dinosaurs. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But it is of note that the presence of scales does not mean feathers are lacking, after all, scales may be preserved where feathers may not. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

On the same animal, I completely agree, but not literally exactly the same spot. Especially when we now know of multiple animals that have feathered bodies but scaly tails (Juravenator, Scansoriopteryx, Kulindadromeus, possibly Concavenator). To completely cover the tail in feathers is handwaving the evidence and needlessly speculative. This is an encyclopedia and to give the reader the most accurate depiction of the known data, the tail should be at least partially scaly. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing the image, exactly where in the queue are the impressions of skin?. To select the area where I will put..--Levi bernardo (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For Gorgosaurus unfortunately we do not know beyond "on the tail", but we know those from the Tyrannosaurus specimen Wyrex must come from the proximal third of the caudal series (as this is all that is preserved) so we can infer it must have been most of the tail. Juravenator has scales on the proximal third as well. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Research on the subject of the scales in queues and I think it must have had them as some ostriches[15] [16], and I think he should leave some feathers on the top of the line ... Is that all right?.--Levi bernardo (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Juravenator has a few sparse filiments on the tail dorsal to the scales to that should be reasonable. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

He left tail well, or with a few scales on the tail?.--Levi bernardo (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dracoraptor

This guy was just released today, I don't think it even has an article yet, but heads up I am working on an illustration. Hoping to bang it out today. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope it fits excellent, see when they create their respective article.--Levi bernardo (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The paper[17] has a free life restoration, though (fig 29[18]), so might be a wasted effort... FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Skorpiovenator

• 
  Skorpiovenator
• 
  Skorpiovenator pencil version.

One month I did a simple sketch of Skorpiovenator and did not check here and I had time to make a physical version in pencil ago. Any problems or detail? How far the least?.--Levi bernardo (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to need teeth. IJReid ^discuss 04:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the claws should be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, I knew you were going to say that. Not add teeth because the image is for miniature wikipedia and images are used so decided not to fight and not to put them. Not because if they had claws, and not have them under layers of skin.--Levi bernardo (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Allosaurus

Made the juvenile as requested and also redid the adult completely for a much more natural look. Added Concavenator-like tail scales on both individuals which was suggested by Tomozaurus. Fred Wierum (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Allosaurus Fragilis Reconstruction by Fred Wierum

Allosaurus Juvenile Reconstruction by Fred Wierum

Looks good! Have you considered something like slight down on the juvenile? No proof of it, of course... Also, might be a perspective thing, but the hind arm of the adult seems a bit thicker than the front one? The nostrils also seem a bit mammalian compared to those proposed by Witmer[19] (rounder and placed at the extreme front low in the nares)... FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been told that if the adult has a certain integument set up then the infant should be the same. It's a perspective thing for the arms,I measured them, no distortions. Nostril shapes have been changed. As for their position, the nares on Allosaurus' skull are quite high on the snout compared to others like Rex, so I don't see any reason to lower them any more. (Fred Wierum (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

Hmmm, who told you that? Both in birds and mammals, integument distribution can change, see for example this juvenile ibis which has a feathered head, while the adult is bald:[20] Same with for example ostriches[21], turkeys[22], and cassowaries[23], probably many others. Likewise, baby elephants can look almost like mammoths[24] compared to the adults... In any case, I think there is wiggle room to do whatever you want there, and I've added them to the article... James Gurney drew fluffy Allosaurus hatchlings[25] for National Geographic I think, maybe Gregory Paul drew feathered juveniles and naked adults too... FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Another thing, perhaps the extra "brow" structure above the orbit makes it look like the eye is a bit far down in the orbit, but you can have a look at fig. 2 in this paper just to be sure about sclerotic ring placement:[26] FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The examples you listed are for animals that go from feathered/furry to more exposed bare skin, the Allosaurus here is covered in scales. Scaly baby, scaly adult. Feathered baby, feathered adult. Tomozaurus has more information on this subject. I just checked the placement of the eye on the image with Hartman's Fragilis skeletal and apparently it's not off, Fragilis has thick "brows" (postorbital). (Fred Wierum (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC))

Hehe, I'll ping Tomopteryx and see if he can elaborate, I don't think it is possible to make such a blanket statement when we have no proof. Some modern birds have feathers and skin on the same patches of skin (note feathers between scales on this owl[27]), and I think bird scales and feathers are developmentally linked somehow, perhaps Dinoguy2 can elaborate. But yeah, the images are fine for use now I think. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, FunkMonk. I think your statements have the opposite effect of what you intended. We have quite literally no examples of dinosaurs or anything else going from one developmental integument type to another (scales to feathers), zero whatsoever from nature. And yes, the two are developmentally linked, but this is the main part of the problem. They are so tied to one another that whatever one does, the other does too, this is why featherless chickens also lack scales. I'm not going to chastise anyone for putting feathers on the offspring of a scaly animal, but to go around doing the same to scaly animals being shown with scaly offspring (as Fred has done here) should also be left alone. Speculation is absolutely fine, but my point is that until evidence appears showing it to even be possible, animals maintaining the same integument type throughout their life should be the default assumption. The idea of dinosaurs with feathered offspring and scaly adults is a myth, plain and simple. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you seem to take for granted that the feathers would be replaced by scales, but that is not necessarily the case, as can be seen on the feet of for example the modern barn owl (as mentioned above), which has scales and feathers interspersed.[28][29][30] So I'd rather say it's a myth that scales and feathers can't exist on the same patches of skin. Furthermore, feathered juvenile Tyrannosaurus (and naked adults) have been informally suggested by palaeontologists[31], at least Mary Schweitzer[32] and Brian Switek[33] (and in artwork accompanying writings by professional palaeontologists[34]), whereas I have never seen the possibility refuted anywhere in the scientific literature, or even informally by any authority. And if this hasn't happened, it simply isn't an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the adult reconstruction is fine as is. The juvie may or may not have feathers, but I don't think that matters based on all the discussions around it coming to no consensus. But the juvie might need a longer tail to fit the proportions of known specimens, not much but slightly.

Side note: Scott Hartman posted on DeviantArt that the comprehensive description of the Lori troodontid is soon to be published in O.A., and posted a skeletal of known material. I plan on making a illustration, anyone have a suggested pose that would be interesting? IJReid ^discuss 18:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The specimen actually has an article already: WDC DML 001 So I guess an image could already be placed there... Got a link for the skeletal? FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Whole post is http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/journal/You-can-help-finish-the-Lori-project-597181958 IJReid ^discuss 22:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Padillasaurus

File:Padillasaurus leivaensis skeletal by bricksmashtv-da038as.jpg

Recently, the user ‎Bricksmashtv4 has upload some images of skeletal restoration of some sauropods... I've seen this and I think that is ok, although could be more defined (and write better the scientific name). Any thoughts? --Rextron (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems they might be traced after other skeletals? Not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The presentation is identical to Nima Sassani's work but he hasn't made any Padillasaurus skeletal, the body outline and pose are in the style of Sassani's brachiosaur skeletals but I don't think it's a direct trace. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of Paleoking. But if it isn't an exact match, it should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that the image as based in the recosntruction that was made for this blog article (precissely about Padillasaurus) [35] The skeletal is not of Gregory S. Paul? --Rextron (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's problematic then... Definitely Paul's outline. Should probably be nominated for deletion as a copyvio. Maybe the other images have this problem too? FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Titanosaur Armour

I'm in the process of updating my Rinconsaurus image to include armour. It seems to be common in Titanosaurs. [36]

There is a PlosOne Article by Vidal et al 2014, they suggest armour may be the basal condition for titanosaurs. On Scott Hartmans' Facebook Page he has some illustrations showing one possible interpretation. [37] [38] Based on the comments on the facebook page the interpretation shown here is not 100% certain. It seems that many different Titanosaurs had this sort of bulb and root armour, with the exception being Saltasaurs which seem to have a more derived scute like armour.

I haven't had a chance to properly look in to it but it might be that illustrations of Ampelosaurus showing a dense coating of amour might be wrong. In one of the facebook comments Vidal states that Ampelosaurus had the same kind of Amour that other titanosaurs had. The common view is that Titanosaur armour is probably quite sparse.

I'm going to go with the Hartman Interpretation for the time being but it's by no means the only one possible. It might make sense to update other titanosaur reconstructions to include evidence of amour. It's not clear yet what arrangement the Amour should be so artists are free to experiment. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess we have no idea how the armour would e distributed on the body? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunitly not at the moment. If I remember correctly, Videl argue that the basal condition is that archosaur armour is focused along the top of the back. Titanosaur embroyo skin impressions might support this. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why it has been depicted as only covering the tail? On this note, I think I mentioned it before, but DB's massively armoured Ampelosaurus restoration (which I've modified a bit since, though it still looks like a monster) was apparently the basis of a toy:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hartman and Vidals reconstruction has them starting on the dorsal region ending half way down the tail. I don't know why they havn't placed them on the neck and distal tail. Maybe they think armour would reduce flexibilty of those regions?? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems somehow intuitive to also include them on the back, but well, seems you have a lot of wiggle room, as long as they have the right shape... I've drawn a couple of titanosaurs, including Opisthocoelicaudia, not sure if it should have armour... The Quaesitosaurus I drew may have too much? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The osteoderms that most titanosaurs seem to have ranges from having a rounded root with an off center bulb to an elonged root with the bulb pointing out the end at an angle. Quaesitosaurus is not far from Rapetosaurus which has osteoderms, so I'd suspect it to have armour like this. Opisthocoelicaudia might be closley related to Alamosaurus which also has this type of armour. One thing to think about is that the root of the osteoderms is quite large and might have been slightly visible though the skin. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A while ago I did a mini study, seeing where what armour was positioned relatively. Hartman seems to have got it pretty good, probably not as large spines, and slightly higher along the back, but of note is that osteoderms have only been found in Europe, South America, and India, more or less in distribution with abelisaurids. Thus I would recommend a Hartman-style armouring for any titanosaur (preferably lithostrotian) found in the same region as an abelisaur. IJReid ^discuss 23:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Titanosaurs did not have armor. They had osteoderms. This is an important difference, because titanosaur osteoderms were sparsely distributed and probably served little role, if any, in defense. Titanosaur osteoderms were not particularly correlated with the distribution of abelisaurids, either. Europe did not have nearly as rich an abelisaurid fauna as its titanosaur fauna, and Alamosaurus definitely not co-exist with any known abelisaurid. As for distribution, Vidal et al. may not be certain of the exact details, but they are quire certain that osteoderms were sparse, and in many taxa, were not midline elements. Most known titanosaur osteoderms are clearly asymmetrical. Opisthocoelicaudia is known from a nearly complete skeleton except for the head and neck, and no titanosaur osteoderms are known from the Nemegt Formation, so it, its possible senior synonym Nemegtosaurus and that genus' close relative Quaesitosaurus may have lacked osteoderms. The type locality of Ampelosaurus is a bone bed of numerous individuals and only four osteoderms (which are similar to the osteoderms Vidal et al. described), and no associated titanosaur skeleton I'm aware of has more than four osteoderms preserved. The current Wikipedia life reconstruction of Ampelosaurus is probably giving it far too many osteoderms. Oh, also, Steveoc, the roots of the Lo Hueco taxon's osteoderms are autapomorphically long, Rinconsaurus probably had much shorter osteoderms, possibly even lacking a root and spike entirely as appears to be the case in its relatives Mendozasaurus and Aeolosaurus. To sum up, most titanosaurs had a small number (probably in the single digits, if I had to guess) of osteoderms on each side, probably arranged into rows of unknown distribution. Some osteoderms (e.g. Ampelosaurus and the Lo Hueco titanosaur) had blunt spike-like bulbs, others (e.g. Mendozasaurus and possibly Aeolosaurus) seem to have been more rounded. Jeda045 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that calling them 'armour' is probably not the best word for it, but almost every paper I have read calls them armoured.

Vidals' (Vidal 2014) argument is that the morphology of osteoderm within an individual is a continuum ranging from the more rounded root all the way to the longer roots. Vidal argues 2 morphotyes (I'm sure they would have had subtle differnces on the genus/species level),the first being bulb and root and the second being Scutes (so far only found in saltasaurine). He noted there may be some exceptions/possible third morphotype from argentina, which you mention.

When I upload the new version I'll add info in the description discussing the osteoderms making it clear they are not 100% certain. I'll also have a look at this image of Saltasaurus. [40] I need to read more on saltasaurus osteoderms but I'll probably reduce the amount. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Saltasaurus Update

Here is a link to an update to the saltasaurus reconstruction. [41] (The second individual has been removed temporaraly. I'll add it back in once I have finalised the osteoderms) The osteoderms have been simplified into a single row along the back and I have added evidence of the smaller 'ossicles' Saltasaurus seems to have. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

interesting, since I guess we're all used to the "classic" version. But I don't know enough about the issue to comment on accuracy... However, it does look kind of like it is supposed to show two parallel rows? Since the osteoderms seem to be below the midline... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah two rows along the back, one each side....from what I can tell it's not clear the exact layout of the osteoderms in saltasaurus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I thought it was supposed to be a single, midline row due to "The osteoderms have been simplified into a single row along the back", so I guess it's fine as is. Seems a bit counter-intuitive that they would be arranged so neatly, with no "outliers"... But no evidence for or against, I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Most the papers I have read seem to think rows along the top of the back most likely in titanosaurs. I need to re-read one of the papers but I remember it saying the osteoderms nearly touch each other.

On an artistic note I think the outlines of the osteoderns make them stand out more then they would if they were rendered more realistically. I might see if I can adjust them so they don't jump out as much. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion made me think of Agustinia, so I just now checked, and for the first time saw text that suggests the "spikes" are just misinterpreted bones... So I guess this image[42] is incorrect? Could be modified, if the background (a copyrighted photo?) is removed... FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright allows for remixing, I'm sure that would include the photo. I'm sure we could update it. We could always ask Nobu if need be.Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Agustinia, There is also this paper that doubts the osteoderms [43]. Agustinia is very fragmentary and it's not clear what type of sauropod it actually is, so any life restoration would be a guess. Maybe it would be better to remove the image? Or update the caption to make clear that the image is an old view. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is another link to a Saltasaurus update [44]

Looks really good, I don't think any more changes are needed. IJReid ^discuss 18:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ampelosaurus

The current restoration in the wiki article seems to be based on this skeletal diagram [45].

Ampelosaurus is known from hundreds of bones and multiple individuals. According to Loeuff's Chapter in The Thinder lizards an articulated specimen has been found but is still waiting to be described. Here is a link to some of the remains scaled to the scale bars provided (assuming the scale bars are correct). [46] The current restoration is approximately scaled to the femur. It seems a lot of the material is from multiple sizes of individuals.

I don't think it will be possible to accurately update this restoration with out someone properly doing a skeletal reconstruction. That said, there are a few things that I think could be improved.

I think the neck in the current restoration is likely to be too short. A cervical vertebra is known to have been 29cm long, it's not clear if this is from a similar sized individual as the femur. In this image I have scaled well preserved titanosaur necks to have a longest cervical vertebra of approximately 29cm. (it might not represent the longest cervical for all I know) [47] If the 29cm vertebra comes from a smaller individual than the femur the neck might only be longer.

As I mentioned above I think the common view of ankylosaur like armour is probably not correct. I have only seen evidence of 'bulb and root' osteoderms and nothing else.

I would like to change it to somthing like this. [48] I won't drastically change the limb and body proportions because I can't really say they are right or wrong but I'd like to increase the neck length and greatly reduce the osteoderms.

I'd say go ahead, already looks much better than the attempt I made... FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is my current iteration. [49] It will obviously need updating when more is described. As usual I'll make notes in the description ragarding all the uncertainties regarding proportions and osteoderms placement etc.. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice! I like how you've been able to reshape the existing image rather than redrawing most of it... And anyone who wants to see the original can just scroll down and see past versions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Well....I tried to keep a lot of the original image where possible. There is a lot of cloning/cut and pasting etc. Unfortunately the whole topside had to be repainted. The hardest part is trying to maintain the artists style. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Austroraptor Reconstruction

Managed to make a quick Austroraptor reconstruction. Hope it's good enough and let me know of any errors to correct. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific reconstruction of Austroraptor cabazai

Looks good to me, so I've added it to the article. One thing that might be worth reading at least, is this blogpost[50] by Dinoguy2, where he argues that dromaeosaur tail feathers should not necessarily be restricted to the tail tip in a "fan" (only known in Microraptor), and would extend up to the legs, as in Zhenyuanlong (and Archaeopteryx). FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Just read it, good read. If I make more raptors I'll be sure to add more full tail fans more often than not. Thanks. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hope to see more of your work here! FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Will do, Sir! Fred Wierum (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Very beautifully illustrated, but as I wrote on my blog, it does indeed follow the standard trope of giving all pennaraptorans Caudipteryx's feathers (small wings, restricted tail fans) when all evidence shows Caudipteryx was highly aberrant. Most oviraptorosaurs and dromeosaurs had Archaeopteryx style tails and very large wings. Most artist's aren't even aware this pattern was initially inspired by Caudipteryx to begin with, but that was the first known non-avialan dinosaur with remixes, so it's pattern as used for everything else. Microraptor came along and solidified it, but most species found since have the Archaeopteryx pattern. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus Reconstruction

Got around to doing Herrerasaurus. Let me know of any errors! Fred Wierum (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Reconstruction of Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis

• Looking good! Personally, I'd give it fuzz, though... Seems more and more like a basal feature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that more of a 'should' or an option? I figured since there are dinosaurs known with scales covering the whole body that the feathered coat wasn't that basal. From what I've been lead to believe is that, based on the our current knowledge, the chance of feathers being the default basal integument is almost 50/50? Like we need more evidence to be sure? That's what I've been hearing. And to me, the relation between feathers and pterosaur pycnofibers could be just convergent evolution, right? I dunno. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I will read up and comment on that here soon. IJReid ^discuss 03:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Back. I have to say that other than Concavenator (questionable), the only theropod likely outside coelurosaurian was discussed in the most recent discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review. I have read up a bit on it, and it seems likely to be basal to Tetanurae, and Mickey Mortimer suggested it may be a basal dinosaur close to Eoraptor. I doubt any of us can disagree that this has feathers. In addition, Ornithischians, like Kulindadromeus and Psittacosaurus preserve quills that I have only seen as compared favourably with pterosaur pychnofibres. I addition, crocodile scales, and the scales on bird feet are as close to feathers chemically as you can get. This would suggest feathers (or at least the material in feathers), is well basal for Archosauria. IJReid ^discuss 03:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Wait, so what about animals like Ceratosaurus and Carnotaurus? Didnt they have osteoderm-like scales on they're body, and if they were, is it possible for a group of animals to go from scales to feathers then back to scales? Are we sure the fur-like feathers on Kulindadromeus are from ancestry or from environmental habitat reasons (might have gotten chilly for them)? Sorry if I'm asking too much, just want to know as much as I can. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it seems that all "small" dinosaurs with preserved integument so far show some sort of feather/quill-like structure... Also, the presence of scales does not rule out the presence of feathers. Some sediments only preserve one and not the either, and they can exist on the same patches of skin. But yes, it's hypothetical at this point, feathers just seem like a slightly safer bet down the line... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversals seems a likely explanation for the scales of hadrosaurs and ceratosaurs, considering dinosaur scales look identitical to avian tuberculate scales which are developmentally arrested feathers. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll put it in, regardless of this discussion of hypothetical feathers, it looks "healthier" than the one currently in the article (which is also scaly), which looks rather emaciated ("shrink-wrapped" is what the cool kids seem to call it). FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. If it makes it any better, I'll update the image and add a Juravenator coat when I have time in a month or so (working on other dinosaurs and projects at the moment). Thanks for the information guys. Fred Wierum (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alamosaurus Scale Chart

Now that the large Alamosaurus cervical series is published I guess it's time to update the scale diagram. I've also added in the smaller TMM specimen. [51] Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. I haven't yet seen the new Alamo cervicals, unless it was published a few years ago and it just didn't register in my brain, so I'll have to read it. IJReid ^discuss 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They were published last week. Link Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Read it. Not the absolutely greatest find, after all, it has been known about for nearly a decade or two, but decent enough. Also guys, new paper on Maxakalisaurus jaw, https://peerj.com/articles/2054/. IJReid ^discuss 14:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras

I and LittleJerry are about to expand the Stegoceras article to make it ready for potential promotion, but I then realised it is missing a life restoration (not to mention a scale diagram, hint hint). So I set out to make one, here's a sketch[52] with some blocked in colour, but before I go further, might be good to get some comments... I've given it quite a bit of of "fuzz" and "quills", which I think are within the possible, considering heterodontosaurs (though I haven't seen other pachycephalosaur restorations with so much). The head-shape seems a bit too generic pachycephalosaur, so will tweak it further... The Scott Hartman skeletal seems to have too large bumps on the skull compared to the known skulls, but could that be some kind of keratin extension? FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it! One thing that a lot of restorations of pachycephalosaurs don't show very well is how wide the torso and base of the tail is. Admittedly it's hard to illustrate in side view. At the moment it looks quite good, just be careful with the highlights and shading, try to make it not look slab-sided. In thing I woud say Hartmans restoration seems a little deeper vertically in the chest. Artistically I like the tail quills. In the past I have thought that these images, intended for an encyclopedia, should be more towards the conservative side but I don't see these quills as outlandish or anything. I'm not sure what bumps you are refering to on the Hartman skeletal, it might be his drawing style (thick lines) exaggerating the bumps slighly. Lastly, the foot nearest the viewer seems a little twisted, I'm not sure how much flexibility there is in that region but I'd imagine it slightly less then you have currently illustrated. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the fuzz will probably even make it impossible for it too look too slab-sided... The quills are a bit thick now, but I'll make them more slender, and deeper chest as you say. As for the foot, not sure if I'm interpreting this running guinea fowl[53] correctly, but seems to be about the same amount of twist (it is even seen a bit from a hind angle, making it less apparent)? I think it is mainly fatter, more "waddly" birds that would twist their bodies to an extend where the leg could be angled like that... 14:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Looks great! I wonder if you eliminate the forward line of the thigh, if that might ake it look less theropodan and slab-sided. The thigh would probably be especially hidden inside the body wall in species with really robust rib cages like this. I might also make the line of the belly to the pubis more convex rather than concave, to accomodate the larger gut (this is a problem with a lost of theropod illustration too, which should often be more triangular-torsoed). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool, will do! FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks great, promises much. The only point that I'm not sure is the placement of the ear.--Levi bernardo (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, damn, I think you're right, might have put it in a fenestra! FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Closer to done, but do the issues raised above look fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I not sure if the quills are justified. It seems more likely that they were just scaled. LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That study mainly says that quills/fuzz may not have been primitive for dinosaurs as a whole, and that the fuzz of ornithischians may not be homologus with the feathers of theropods. We know that quills/fuzz (whether they have anything to do with theropod feathers or not) are a primitive condition among ornithischians, as we now have both Tianyulong (a heterodontosaur, which may be close to pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsians) and Kulindadromeus, not to mention Psittacosaurus (a primitive ceratopsian), with quills. All of these are small, and show both scales and quills (like the Stegoceras drawing). At this point, we actually don't know any small ornithiscians that only show scales... So unless quills/fuzz somehow evolved independently multiple times at the base of ornithischia, it seems more likely it was a shared feature within the group (continued below)...

Agreed. If the conclusions of the paper are to be followed, we should even assume that quill-like structures or feather-like structures pop up randomly all over ornithodira (pterosaurs, theropods, maybe several times in ornithischians). Which means it is not possible to predict the integument of any given dinosaur in the absence of skin impressions, and that bracketing is useless. I don't really agree with that, but that's the implication, and it implies "if we don't have skin impressions, then anything goes". Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(Continued) The study you cited doesn't deny such quills anyhow, it just says "Previous authors noted that ornithischian quills/protofeathers were morphologically distinct from those in theropods [6,19]. Our analyses support suggestions that these features should not be regarded a priori as homologous with theropod epidermal structures: ornithischian quills/protofeathers plausibly represent epidermal structures that evolved independently, and may be indicative of a more general ornithodiran tendency to experiment with epidermal features." The structures I drew are based on those of the related heterodontosaurs, not theropods (and note the head, neck, limbs, and belly, are "naked"). As far as I know, hetereodontosaurs and Psittacosaurus are the closest relatives of pachycephalosaurs that show any evidence of integument, and both had quills... So that should be a good indication for phylogenetic bracketing.FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, we do have a few publishing palaeontologists editing here, so perhaps see what they think about the amount of quills? Pinging Jens Lallensack and HMallison... FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with them. HMallison (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks Great! Rgarding the foot; I think it's the way the toe claws connect to the toes that makes the foot look twisted, especally the claws on the inner and middle toes. If you look at the guinea fowl pic you see that the claws on those toes look more side on. I'd also say that the inner toe looks like it comes out too far forward compared to the middle toe which adds to the illustion of the foot looking twisted. A bit like this [54] Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, will fix, along with some things on the skull... FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Did some fixes, including the foot, look better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, I've started a scale diagram. [55]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I see it is called "validus" there, that's the old name! FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh....I'll correct that.- Done! Anyway here is the upload. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice, added! FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, I like the final drawing and scale diagram. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Anzu

Went with a more pencil and black & white look for Anzu's reconstruction. First time seriously drawing an Oviraptorid so I know it must be heaping with errors. Fred Wierum (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Reconstruction of Anzu wyliei

Looks good! The first thing that comes to mind, the lower jaw seems quite a bit too deep? I know it is closed, but it still seems too deep compared to reconstructions of the skull:[56][57] It would seem much less of it would be visible in a closed position. The crest also seems like it should begin further back on the head?[58] The current one has a bit more of a Citipati shape... FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Error corrected! Fred Wierum (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Looks good to me. Perhaps someone else has something to say about the feather arrangement. I've added it to the article, as it does have a more advanced (correct) plumage than the old restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Diplodocus

Hey ladies and gentlesaurs, I'm gonna say it flat out I know basically nothing with sauropods. I know there's still debate over neck posture and flexibility on animals like Diplodocus so I posted this sketch of what I'm going for. My issue is with the neck and whether I should have it stiff like above or curved like below, if of course this is in fact a crucial detail. Also, anything else before hand I may be missing will be helpful, like distinctive skin impression/pattern to the family, dorsal spikes or no, should the legs be locked straight like elephants, nose in the wrong spot, etc. Fred Wierum (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Reconstruction of Diplodocus carnegii

Oh, I'll let the more sauropod-savvy guys comment on this one. I'd expect the nostrils to be placed closer to the midline maybe:[59] FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Funk! Fred Wierum (talk)

The area around the spinous processes should be a fair bit meatier, especially above the hip. Gotta have them muscles! As an aside, I prefer the top option, though I can't really say which is more accurate than the other. JohannSnow (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the dorsal spines are based on skin impressions that were found in 1990; those are, however, from specimens more likely to be Kaatedocus or a species of Barosaurus rather than Diplodocus proper (although phylogenetic bracketing would still heavily imply it on D. proper, so definitely feel free to illustrate D. with spines on it's back!).

"phylogenetic bracketing would still heavily imply it on D. proper," I don't think we can even say that, for there to be a bracket you need more than one data point! It's entirely possible these are unique to the clade of K. and Barosaurus. Though titanosaur footprints show small spines covering the sides of the feet, so that might imply a bracket of spines on various places on the hide for all eusauropods. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the reference for these spines on titanosaur footprints? I haven't heard of that before. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mil�n, J., Christiansen, P. & Mateus, O. 2005. A three-dimensionally preserved sauropod manus impression from the Upper Jurassic of Portugal: implications for sauropod manus shape and locomotor mechanics. Kaupia 14, 47-52. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As for other things, I agree that a bit more meat should be added all around; Diplodocus should basically look kind of like a skinnier Apatosaurus with a new head, with a decent amount of bulk to accomodate the muscles, internal organs and tendons. Not quite as ridiculous as A., of course, but still, I think bulking it up a fair amount is reasonable. Raptormimus456 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing might not be applicable here if the cladogram on the Kaatedocus article is correct, however. JohannSnow (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk is right about the nasal passages should be placed like that image, here's another Dmitry Bogdanov that rebuilds very well [60]. Regarding neck posture is not much about it, but Mike Taylor has suggested a probable neck of Diplodocus posture [61]. But if we take into account your article Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animals [62], sauropods would have had a very flexible neck could have had both stiff neck and curved.

The correct neck posture choose depends on what state your Dilpodocus. Levi bernardo (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Uhhmm, relaxed state? Fred Wierum (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Good, then it would be like the bottom illustration Levi bernardo (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I love your drawing style! I prefer the bottom restoration, it looks a lot like Hartmans skeletals (which I like, being a bit of a fan boy.) His diplocid necks are in what he thinks is close to the neutral posture where the vertebra are alined with no bending up or down. Obviously animals move their necks a lot and they might not spend much/or any time in neutral posture. Taylors' research was looking at animal 'resting poses', what he called an 'Alert Posture'. What he saw was that they nearly every animal group raises the base of the neck and lowers the head region. There is so much uncertainty and debate regarding sauropod necks that you are somewhat free to decide what pose you think most likley.

Regarding the torso, by sauropod standards diplodocids are slighly more slab-sided compared to Camerasaurs, Brachiosaurs and Titanosaurs etc.[63] Also the way it's currently rendered the torso looks a little lopsided. The thumb claws in sauropods often point more backwards. [64].

From what I have seen, sauropod scale impressions are very similar in essence to many other dinosaur scale impressions, non-overlapping, roundish/polyagonal and quite random looking. [65] Here is an image of some dermal spines from a diplodocid [66] Most artists illustrate them as a midline row, like this: [67], however that isn't 100% certain and it could be that there are multiple rows of these small spines or that they are randomly dotted about on the top and sides. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Steve! I'll take these into consideration. Although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by lopsided. You mean like it's too round and I should slim the sides more? Fred Wierum (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It probably is because it is too round on the sides. I think it's the shading on the underside that to my eye is making it look lower on the farside. I might just be misinterpreting it...

Another thing to consider, the hind limb bones in diplodocus look slender in side view, however they are wider in front view. Especially down by the ankles, in your illustration they look quite slender and cylindrical. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No, no. I see it, you're right. And for the legs, I attempted to widen it and hopefully it's better now. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a justification for what it seems very wrinkly, elephant-like skin in your drawings, I think skin like in your Allosaurus and Herrerasaurus would be better. As for the neck, I share the opinion of Steve so there is nothing more to add in that front on my part. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree, currently there are animals with scales that have wrinkled skin as varanids, and there are mammals and birds with some unusual wrinkles. Therefore it is justifiable elephant wrinkly skin style. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. It's a lot more wrinkly here than the final image will be. Those lines are to represent the form of the animal. Though I do think you're specifically referring to the wrinkly texture, right, not the extra skin flowing from the knee to the torso? Fred Wierum (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just like I do with my recreations, I also use lines to represent the shape of the animal. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the texture and thanks for clarifying that those lines are actually meant to represent the form of the animal, my bad, I mistakenly likened them to the wrinkles I've seen in old depictions of sauropods. Levi, could you provide an example of a varanid with elephant-like wrinkles? perhaps it is a semantic misunderstanding? I meant the texture not the folds in the limbs, neck or similar. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, was just making sure. And I still am using elephants as a prime reference to do the legs, especially how the skin flows from one part of the body to the next. Makes it look more believable. And maybe an example Levi is thinking of are Tortoises? They seem to have very wrinkly skin, not exactly like elephants but wrinkly still. That might *count*. Fred Wierum (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's looking really good! Regarding wrinkles; the problem in the past is that artists where basically just stretching elephant skin over sauropods and not giving them scales. As far as I know, we don't have any mummy sauropods to show us extensive skin covering. I think it's unlikely that there were no skin folds/creases here and there. That said, a probelm with many dinosaur scales is that they are very small inrelation to the animals, they would be hard to perceive at a distance. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the dermal spines; this paper by Czerkas has some images [68]. Not all the spines are tall and narrow, some have a wider base. These wider base spines czerkas thinks might have been on the sides. If you read through the comments on this picture on deviantart [69] Hartman speaks about the spines and skin, he doen't think there is evidence for a midline row. (That doen't mean that there isn't one...just the evidence isn't strong as Czerkas thinks) Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually almost done with this so maybe later during the month or so I'll update it (it's hard to part from the WWD look lol). Maybe I'll shorten the dorsal spikes and add some spread out over the top of the torso (similar to crocs as Hartman suggests). I do find this very interesting, would make total sense seeing that it lived with carnivores as deadly as Allosaurus running around bleeding things out. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful illustration! Regarding the dermal spines, according to the paper describing them, the only spines associated with actual bones are with distal caudal vertebrae. So while we don't know their actual arrangement, we do know that the only place they were definitely present was on the "whiplash" portion of the tail. Yours and pretty much every other illustration I've ever seen gets this exactly backwards, and shows them along the entire back everywhere except the whiplash, the only place we know they definitely were! So here's your chance to be the first person to draw this correctly ;) Well, "correctly", considering the specimens with spines are now referred to Kaatedocus, NOT Diplodocus, but still. We don't know if they were arranged on the rest of the body at all. Czerkas speculated this because they look like iguana spines and because hadrosaurids have a midline row of dorsal spines. That's it. It's equally likely they formed some kind of thagomizer and were associated exclusively with the whiplash. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so two questions. So the tail was basically a thin and flexible mace? Like the far end was covered in the spikes [70] or more on just the dorsal part of the tail? And my other question is does this mean I need to remove the spikes on the body i have here? No way of me leaving what I have here and just adding to the tail? Fred Wierum (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say any arrangement is good, as long as the distal end has spines. There should be enough speculation to assume whatever arrangement you want. IJReid ^discuss 02:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, how does it look now? Shorten the middle row spikes? Spikes on the tail too stubby? Something else incorrect? Or is it fine? Fred Wierum (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Literally the only evidence we have about how these were arranged is a juvenile Kaatedocus specimen with three spines attached near a couple of whiplash vertebrae. So the answer to questions like should they be on the rest of the body, were they only on the dorsal surface of the tail, etc. will be "no clue, do it however you want" unless we ever find more specimens ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seems most reviewers like it, and it is already more accurate than the restorations we had in the article already, so I went ahead and added it. To make more space, I also removed one image which I and Dinoguy had tried to make more accurate over the years, but it still seems to have some issues with the legs[71], and to be based on a composite skeleton in Germany[72] that was not part of the recent specimen analysis, and may therefore be of uncertain classification... FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Funk, if you guys have any speculative behaviors or any sort of idea for an illustration that could replace the reconstruction you swapped with the museum photo, let me know. Maybe it can be replaced as well, who knows. Thanks for the help guys, I learned a ton. It's always fun doing these and learning more with every illustration I make. Cant wait to make more in the future! Fred Wierum (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe slapping a theropod silly with the tail whip? We don't have any images like that of any sauropod, though it seems to have been suggested as a general behaviour? FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, I'll make a new section for this. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, others may have less dramatic, more scientifically sound suggestions... FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

But of course, I'll work on another dinosaur and come back to this one then. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, why not an Auca Mahuevo sauropod taking care of a hatchling parasitic Abelisaurid? Would be cool, and like one you've already made of Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus. IJReid ^discuss 18:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Woah, is there evidence for this!? (Would be a little too out there if not...). Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

hehe, seems more like an All Yesterdays thing than Wikipedia, which should be based on published science... FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

True, I'd consider it too implausible for even AY barring some kind of clue. You'd think sauropods, even if they did care for the young in some limited way after hatching, would be pretty keyed in against the body shape of small theropods, which would have been major predators of their eggs... a nest parasite would probably want to find a better "host" than a sea-turtle-like R strategist to "care" for their young, too! But I find the whole idea of nest parasitism in non-avian dinosaurs pretty bonkers to begin with, given how different the life history of all known examples was from the couple of highly specialized bird species that do that. Especially since the only known possible example turned out to be a wash-in. Non-avian theropods up to and including enantiornitheans and troodontids laid dozens of eggs at a time, and buried them at least partially. Nest parasites usually lay one egg at a time and rely on open nesting. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Were IGM 100/972 and IGM 100/974 washed in? The article seems ambiguous... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs to be updated. They found a troodontid nest nearby and uphill. I'm not sure if that's been published yet outside an SVP abstract, but that was a few years ago now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We're also short on depictions of tripod rearing, despite it being the subject of a famous mount and studies showing diplodocids were specially adapted for this behavior. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I could make a few sketches sometime soon on the rearing up and tail whipping...perhaps an illustration of a pair, one rearing up like the famous Barosaurus mount and another attempting to whip a theropod. Could be a pack/mob of 3 Allosaurus? Fred Wierum (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe even make it Barosaurus? We have no accurate restoration of that one... FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? Alright. He lives in the same time and place as Diplo right? Or should the theropods be different? Fred Wierum (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the paleoecology section in the Barosaurus article gives a good overview of contemporaries. We do have quite a few well-known dinosaurs left without appropriate restorations... FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Barosaurus did live alongside Diplodocus hallorum but not D. carnegii, IIRC. Just don't have it doing the mammalian "protecting a single baby" thing. Plenty of evidence sauropods were super precocial and contrary to the AMNH mount, that adult bara wouldn't give a whip about defending that baby Kaatedocus they have up behind it ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My "parasitic" suggestion was just some fun, I doubt any image like that would be used on wiki. For Barosaurus, don't base it too heavily on the AMNH mount, that thing has a few extra cervicals, would be better to use the ROM mount as the basis for proportions (I've visited it and taken pics, the skeleton is partly casted from actual specimens, and the proportions are quite good). IJReid ^discuss 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I was gonna use Scott Hartman's skeletal illustrations, like I normally do. So hopefully it should be closer to what you guys want. I'll also (since it's multiple animals in action)make it more of a photo, with a background and flora,etc. I'll make the first sketch and see what comes of it. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Barosaurus

Here's what I'm thinking of doing for the Barosaurus image. It was suggested to have the sauropod rearing up since there's a lack of diplodocids doing this so I had it defending itself (like the famous museum mount) from a mated pair of Allosaurus. Since this wasnt just a default image of the animal and more of it doing a behavior, I thought maybe this time I'll have it in it's environment. Trying to give it a wildlife photography feel aswell. As for the integument, we had a wonderfully large discussion on Diplodocus' spikes. So, I assume, since the two are closely related, I should spike-up the tail. As for the body, you guys mentioned the flanks having some stubby spikes as well. Maybe you guys meant like this [73]?

Barosaurus lentus defending itself from a pair of Allosaurus fragilis.

Looks good! 'the tail should definitely be spiked, since Barosaurus is much more similar to the spiney Kaatedocus than even Diplodocus is. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So make the body spikes like that of the reconstruction I linked? Fred Wierum (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome image! It's hard to tell with persective, but it looks to me like barosaurus' neck needs to be a little longer. Also the Allosaurus on the right, its far side leg looks a little straight at the knee.

Out of curiousity, do we have any images of diplodocids showing rearing to feed? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There's these [74] [75]. Not sure if you meant on Wiki or images in general. Fred Wierum (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

On here, we only have this onl one by Charles Knight:[76] FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ohh, this image is the best, that good that has given a context of photography. I have no comment more. I see everything well. Levi bernardo (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It really looks great. On the spines, I think that they should be placed all on the tail like your other restoration, but in the back be placed in horizontal rows, like the spines in a titanosaur. Steve, I think the Allosaurus on the right, definitely needs a far leg revamp, the shin should be projecting gently forwards, but also, the head looks a little too pointed, if restored based on A. fragilis, the snout should still be gently rounded, but if based on A. atrox it should be significantly more rounded, with the two brow spines, a small U shaped dip, and the a nasal projection up and curved forwards. The neck of Barosaurus should be a little longer, about equal to the length of the tail (looks about 5/6 of the tail right now). IJReid ^discuss 03:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

One other issue is that the barosaur's tail seems to be off the ground. Tail support is a major part of a tripod stance, of course, and diplodocid tail vertebrae were specifically adapted for this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems the head is angled quite a bit to the side in relation to the neck, was this extent possible? FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how flexible the head was on the neck, might be an SV-POW question... I'm a little unsure of why it's craning its head that way. Given that it didn't have binocular vision it almost seems like craning the head into that spot would cause it to loose sight of both allosaurs ;) Also, not sure why the mouth is open? Sauropods seem to have resonating chambers so I'd more expect the mouth closed during vocalization. The craned head/open mouth trope is used often and seems more dynamic to us humans who respond to threats with open mouth/bared teeth/vocalizations, but I think it's a little anthropomorphic for that reason. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on what I can tell for the neck and skull, it wouldn't be very flexible at the anterior end, most of the curvature would be in the middle/posterior portion. I think the best way to restore the head would be to have a straightened neck, but a head cocked to the side, like in this bird picture [77]. One thing I don't understand is, without binocular vision, a sauropod rearing up to stomp a theropod would have absolutely no idea how far away the theropod was, it more likely would have just landed to make a lot of noise to scare the theropod away. Of course there is no published basis for this, just my personal thoughts. IJReid ^discuss 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just based on modern animal behavior, I think just the act of rearing up would be the defense itself, not the possibility of physically stomping on the predator. Rearing makes the animal appear larger, and no predator that wasn't desperate and near starvation would risk getting close to something that big. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long. Made as many corrections as I could. Are the spikes/scales on the Baro okay or need more altering? Fred Wierum (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, I imagine the tail will look more like it is weight bearing in the final? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean at the base where it's in contact with the ground, then yes, of course. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rendered and colored. Yet having to add background Fred Wierum (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus

Hey everyone, my name is RJ Palmer and I'm a professional creature designer and dinosaur artist. I noticed that the T. rex life restorations on its page were a little out of date or had minor errors so I wanted to update it. I've worked with Tom a number of years and feel pretty confident in my ability to deliver one of the most accurate T. rex reconstructions out there factoring in all the most current data.

Modern scientific reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Welcome! Looks good, the front of the mandible maybe seems a bit "undertoothed"? Or at least the gap between the two front teeth (and space in front of them) looks a bit larger than it is in most skulls?[78][79][80] FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I use the teeth count from Scott Hartman's skeletals, but the fleshy parts of the mouth might obscure some of the teeth. I see what you're getting at on the spacing between the teeth at the front, but looking at those skulls you provided and my Stan skulls, I'd say its within the realm of individual variation. If its a real concern I can probably adjust it. The mandible lips extend some length beyond the end of the dentition to form a seal with the upper lip and a place for the maxillary teeth to fit in. RJPalmerArt (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is mainly nitpicking... I guess the tongue is based on that of an eagle? Does it make the same functional sense in an animal of this size (seems a bit delicate)? A question rather than a nitpick... The eagle tongue seems to be rather specialised among birds, partially for flight (and doesn't even seem to be very similar to even other birds?): "The bald eagle has a specialized tongue with longitudinal ridges. The ridges serve to guide food down the throat. There is also an adjustable hole in the tongue. This vent lets in variable amounts of air to enhance calling and increase the entry of air to the lungs during flight. It also allows for increased airflow for temperature regulation during on a hot day."[81] FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually barbed tongue structures are present in many carnivorous birds, not just eagles. Similar structures exist in vultures and herons, and even flamingos have an advanced tongue structure. It would appear as if these structures may serve a similar purpose to the pharyngeal jaws found in eels; helping to pull food down the throat. I don't think its outside the realm of plausibility for non-avian theropods to have various barbed tongue structures. RJPalmerArt (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine for the article (comments from other editors are of course welcome). Which of the existing restorations in the article appear to be outdated? FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the one by Matt Martynuik has quite a few issues. Its quite far off in many proportions, the head is notably small for the body. Artistically speaking it is very unrefined for a reconstruction. RJPalmerArt (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you also upload one with a white background? It would be good for illustrating cladograms. Mariomassone (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the values and rim lighting are dependent on having a value darker than white as a background color. It really needs at least a medium value backdrop for the painting to work. RJPalmerArt (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a very good and detailed reconstruction. The pose and lighting feels a little 'hollywood' for my taste but it's not a major problem. This being an encyclopedia I think we should be aiming for more naturalistic.

I like the idea of a barbed tongue but I agree with Funk. I can't comment scientifically on it, however if you are hypothesising a barbed tongue, then I'd imagine it would be more muscular considering an adult T.rex might be taking on large prey and manipulating large chunks of flesh. Being nitpicky, the scales on the tail look a bit uniform. Whilst there arn't exactly extensive skin impressions from tyrannosaurs, known dinosaur tubercles/scales are a bit more random looking. [82]

Regarding Matt Martynuik's Reconstruction, I don't think it should be removed, it's slighlty stylised but for the most part it's within the bounds of accuracy. If you look at Scott Hartmans Skeletal diagrams of tyrannosaurs there is a large amount of variety between specimens. Matt Martynuik's is based on AMNH 5027 which does have a proportionally smaller head compared to other specimens. [83] I'm also a big believer in an encyclopedia showing multiple interpretations of the same extinct animal. There are so many areas of uncertainty who is to say that yours is more accurate then Matt Martynuik's? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree both can be used, even if we assumed MM's image had issues, I'm sure he would be willing to fix them in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Even accounting for the slightly smaller head of AMNH 5027 the head still appears small and the proportions are incorrect on the body and legs on Martynuik's reconstruction. The tail is oddly misshapen and the hallux placed awkwardly high on the metatarsals. Check out a quick overlay of Hartman's sue on top of Martynuik's rex, I know its not the same specimen but its still a decent reference point [84] . Regarding the tongue musculature, I imagine this would be plenty thick considering that the jaws and teeth would still be doing the lion's share of the work by making the chunks of flesh small enough to fit down the throat. The tongue as presented is around 30-35cm in circumference of solid muscle, seems pretty powerful if you ask me. I've seen the tail skin impressions. I agree that perhaps the technique I used could look a bit more random, though on emu feet the reticulae can occasionally end up looking uniform. Here is an infographic I put together with research from Tom Parker for a different project which covers a lot of the thought behind the design decisions on this. [85] I don't necessarily agree with the pose and lighting being too Hollywood. Here is one of the lighting references I was looking at [86] which also has the animal exposing its mouth. Here is a picture of a weka in a similar pose, its even from wikipedia [87] We have so many drawings of dinosaurs in straight profile views on wikipedia, having something with a slight bit of dynamism replace a slightly inaccurate static profile drawing would be refreshing. At least that's where I'm coming from. RJPalmerArt (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be critical, just offering an opinion. There is definitely a place for your amazing reconstruction, you've created a stunning peice of art! I think it will be a nice addition to the article. I think my issue with the lighting is it's too 'moody'. I think if it were slightly brighter in the shadows it might look more natralistic. Regarding the pose, I feel that giant theropods roaring with the head close to the ground is another paleoart trend. I think the pose was popularised with Jurassic Park, but I'm not 100% sure. Preditors don't spend most the day roaring and yet so much paleoart of giant theropods is them roaring. Whether a tyrannosaur could roar is in its self somthing that isn't certain. It's obvoiusly not impossible and I don't think it's a valid reason to reject an image. This has to be one of the best tyrannosaur roars I have seen.

If Martynuik is out there then I'm sure he'll be interested in addressing/checking your concerns. How much flexibility there was in the tail is certainly debatable, I'm not sure I can say it's impossible. If I get time I'll do a comparison of AMNH 5027 and his reconstruction. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@RJPalmerArt: Absolutely stunning work! I agree that it has more of a "dramatic" tone but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. My style has always been to present dinosaurs in a much more mundane light. I think there's room for both in the article, though I certainly wouldn't care if mine were replaced. It's already six years old and had feathers painted over the original at one point, which might add to the unrefined look (other than my personal sketch/painting field guide style, which is in no way aiming for photo realism any more than Sibley is). I do have to disagree with you regarding the proportions, however, which I tried to be very careful with. In your screen shot, you layered the Sue specimen over which is quite different proportionally than the AMNH specimen. You also seem to have made the skeletal larger than the soft tissue outline in my image so the skeleton looks too big in places. I added a lot of extra bulk to mine based on the slightly more extreme end of T. rex mass studies. Here is my image overlain with Scott Hartman's restoration of the correct specimen[88]. As for the tail, I did add extra mass around the base, though it doesn't grade as smoothly into the distal tail as yours does though it's hard to tell since you're isn't lateral, but this is based on the condition in some reptiles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is nothing wrong with Matt's, and think there is room for both on the article. I am in complete agreement with Steve that multiple reconstructions showing different possibilities are ideal for an encyclopedia, at least for animals as with articles as large as 'T. rex'. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough. I'd propose replacing Dinoguy2's rex in its current location with my reconstruction under the description section and moving his to classification, skin and feathers, or posture sections. As my reconstruction is very detailed I believe it would be fitting under the description header. RJPalmerArt (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried an arrangement that includes both images. I've added RJPalmer's image to description, and since much of the rest of the article is cluttered with images already, and the thermoregulation section has always been empty due to lack of relevant images, I placed the AMNH 5027 image there. The adjacent text does go into the relation between growth and metabolism, so I've mentioned that the specimen is adult in the caption, to make it more relevant, and not just decorative... Another possibility is that it can replace the model head (by Czerkas?) under feeding strategies; that restoration has no lips, and it might be more in line with current thinking not to have such restorations after all... As for the crouched roaring pose of the new restoration, seems it is the same pose as the taxobox image from the Carnegie museum, so it has their stamp of approval at least... FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This reconstruction seems more than a little inspired by Saurian's reconstruction, the only major difference being the suspiciously mammalian facial musculature. JohannSnow (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

RJPalmer appears to be Saurian's lead artist after all, so would make sense... FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Actually this artist is saurian's team member Levi bernardo (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If your recreation Tyrannosaurus I like. But the piece of MM does not have any error in proportions. The two are good. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a comment written by Rjpalmer which explains why we have to remove his reconstruction: "Proportions are stan, size is more like sue. Stan is my favorite rex, so I use it whenever I can."

User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 18:38, 01 August 2016 (UTC)

A blend between two specimens of the same species can hardly be considered a chimaera. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly (Damn you beat me to first comment Funk). Even if it is, simply the size being based off another specimen doesn't make it a chimaera, after all, Dynamosaurus actually is comparable to Sue too. If proportions were based off two specimens, then if may be problematic in the future, but it still isn't right now. IJReid ^discuss 19:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yutyrannus

I can't beleive there isn't a reconstruction of this animal yet. I'll be doing one. Expect a firt WIP up today. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it. I may be able to do some quick colors on it if you're interested. RJPalmerArt (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is the head restoration, but I've never liked the long, horizontal slit nostrils shown (stretching the entire length of the nares), seems not to be based on anything... FunkMonk (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I mean't full body, but that portrait also has exposed teeth (and exposed in a weird way). Anyway here is the current WIP http://sta.sh/013kh2bmth3d (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good so far! This hasn't been mentioned in published lit so feel free to ignore it, but Tom Holtz has claimed on Facebook that there are scales on the underside of the tail at least around the base. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, no reason to think it's "dubious" coming from him, so probably good to add it already than to have too update it later on anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, despite his prestige, I did find it dubious. When he suggested it on FB initially, I asked for some clarification and he showed me: so to clarify here, he hasn't seen the fossils, this is based off eyeballing the photos and he showed me exactly what he was looking at, and I didn't find it at all convincing. I am of course happy to go back and edit if this proves to be the case in the future, but for now we have feathers preserved along the dorsal and ventral of the tail, it is most parsimonious to assume the whole tail was feathered. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dammit! Tom beat me to it. Looks awesome so far, cant wait to see the final! Fred Wierum (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It is done.

Life reconstruction of Yutyrannus huali (Tom Parker, 2016).

Tomopteryx (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! The nasal ridge profile seems a bit more concave/straight in the skeleton[89] and most reconstructions[90], whereas yours is more convex, but it seems to be so badly crushed that it is probably up for interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've given the nasal a keratainous covering akin to a cassowary's casque, which is altering the shape from the underlying bone. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, always good to know the rationale behind "speculative" features. I added the image to the article a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Supersaurus Update

I've started an update to LadyofHats' Supersaurus restoration, a WIP can be seen here, [91]. I've used Hartman's skeletal as guide. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As usual, I can't say much about sauropod anatomy, but looks more accurate! I always wondered why there was another sauropod in the background? And by the way, the original image was used in one of Darren Naish's books, "Dinosaur Discoveries" I believe... FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm planning to update and add back in the one in the background, but not until I finnish the foreground one. Do you recon we should leave it out? I quite like that it shows another posture within the same image, it sort of reminds the viewer that these animals move around. Especially considering that the debates on sauropod necks often feel like a high vs low dichotomy. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Are they supposed to depict the same taxon? The one in the back has a rather different neck shape... I think it's fine they're both there, as long as their shape is consistent... FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ohh this excellent, I wanted to make this update, but as you advance me, Haha. Levi bernardo (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, and I agree two is better, but one thing, the step cycle. AFAIK, the only time an actual analysis has been done (On Argentinosaurus of all things) it found that instead of the elephant pattern of back left-front left-back right-front right etc., instead it would have walked left side-right side, moving both feet on the same side at once in a rocking side-to-side motion. I don't know how this would apply to diplodocids, but just wanted to mention it. IJReid ^discuss 17:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the current version [92]. I havn't had much time at the moment so the second individual hasn't been started yet. I might upload it with just the one in the meantime. Regarding walk cycles, I have seen the analysis you refer to. I'd like to see more analysis of more complete sauropods before I factor it in. From what I understand known sauropod trackways support the more normal quadruped walk cycle. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and upload it until 9youi have the background one ready... FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent result Levi bernardo (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pachycephalosaurus

Figured the Pachy's restoration image needed an overhaul. Didnt know whether to draw the tail like how it is in the page's size chart or more tall like the skeletal mounts. I'llE most likely change the head angle a bit and I'm not sure if the Barosaurus image is ready for the full on rendering.Fred Wierum (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Pachycephalosaurus

That is a pretty huge skull, neck and feet. What is it based on? The Sandy specimen (only one postcranial remains)[93] seems to show much more gracile proportions, so do the few other known pachycephalosaur skeletons.[94][95][96][97] The skull also appears to have been much narrower. I don't see anything wrong with the present restoration by palaeontologist Jordan Mallon, though it may be a bit emaciated...[98] FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rather useful for checking proportions, here's a rotatable laserscan of the reconstructed Sandy specimen: http://www.dinosaursanctuary.com/Sandy.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So fix the head, shrink the feet, broaden the tail height, and slim the rest of the body?Fred Wierum (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say anything that brings it more in line with that laser scan, if you can move it into a fitting position, but of course, you've chosen the "adult" skull type, so that doesn't have to conform with Sandy. But it seems you have drawn the snout profile more convex, where it seems to be concave after the dome in the adult (and most famous) AMNH specimen:[99] FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-drew the whole animal to fit the Sandy specimen. Changed the skull for a bit to resemble more of an adult.Fred Wierum (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Awww, well, in that case, looks good to me! Not an angle for the skull you see much, so pretty interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks great now, Fred. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks Great! My only concern is maybe the tails thickness. Most the skeletals I see of Pachycephalosaurs show thinner tails with a dense covering of rods starting about a quarter ways down. I havn't looked into it much but if this image is correct, it might be that none of the Pachycephalosaurus specimens preserve much tail material. [100] If this is true then I'd be inclined to go with a thinner, straighter tail. That said with out doing some research I'm not sure what Pachycephalosaurs actually preserve tail material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You sure it's that much of a concern? I was first told to thicken it like the Sandy specimen and now I'm told to thin it? I'm confused. I could straighten it...if that's more acceptable. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We currently have no caudal material from Pachycephalosaurus unfortunately (not even from Sandy). It does, however, have very large attachment points for the caudofemoralis on it's tibia, which would suggest this muscle was quite sizable in this animal, which would thicken out the tail quite considerably. Tomopteryx (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm refering to the distal tail more. I'm not sure what specimens/genre caudal material comes from but pachycephalosaurs are often restored with a very wide tail base that narrows down and then the last ~3/4 of the tail contains ossified tendons.[101] [102] [103]. If this interpretation is correct then the caudofemoralis would be only be located within the first ~quarter of the tail. Steveoc 86 (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the most completely known pachycephalosaur tail is that of Homalocephale[104], which is also the only one that preserves parts of an articulated "caudal basket". But since it doesn't seem to preserve the chevrons, I don't think we can say much about the specific depth of the tail? Also, it is a rather smaller animal... But yeah, perhaps the rear part of the tail could taper more. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So is it good now or more edits?Fred Wierum (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Though I liked the old restoration by Jordan Mallon as well, this one seems more healthy (less skinny)... But one question, why is the ornamentation on the snout so symmetrical? It seems in all skulls, the small horns were placed rather asymmetrically, and were maybe smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally think it's kinda bad. Form, shading, even musculature looks off. As for the Snout lumps, I could change them a bit. Fred Wierum (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't find a good front-view photo of a skull, but these two[105][106] seem to show smaller horns and a narrower snout. But nah, I don't think those are good enough to base changes on, unless you're doing other changes in a future revision anyway. Unless anyone else has anything to say, I think it could go instead of Mallon's. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the nose nodes look fine, there generally is a central ridge of them along the middle, so maybe elevating them a bit more would be good. However, your restoration clearly lacks the jugal nodes, which are found in every possible Pachycephalosaurus skull that shows that region. I would recommend having about three to five clustered at the very end of the jugal, in a position close to the jugal horn seen in ceratopsian restorations. IJReid ^discuss 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edited Fred Wierum (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. I would say its accurate and ready for inclusion in the article. IJReid ^discuss 14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Added! Too bad the taxonomy of Pachycephalosaurus is so unstable/uncertain, could have been nice to beef up as a featured article... FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Triceratops

Triceratops horridus by User:NobuTamura.

Illustration of Triceratops horridus by Nobu Tamura. Please review it. MathKnight 15:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, it seems the toes and fingers are shown as kind of a "single unit", where they should maybe be more separated?[107] Not sure, though, ceratopsian tracks seem a bit ambiguous.[108] FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's integument is innacurate. Triceratops has very large scales, some of them up to the size of the palm of your hand (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GOS5nmIiarE/Vnv4AD5gD9I/AAAAAAAAB-g/x0WtiYXiL3U/s1600/51623fe264cad.preview-620.jpg) and would therefore be visible even at this distance. I also have some major concerns about the hindlimb. The musclulature is far too narrow (and arguably should probably blend into the body much more), the femur is too short and the pelvis misplaced. Here is a quick mockup of what I mean: http://sta.sh/05v4ekvl10 Tomopteryx (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire body looks more like a calichothere or something rather than any ceratopsid I've ever seen. The skull proportions could be explained as being a larger/older individual, but in that case it should lose the epioccipitals. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the Triceratops page based on the issues discussed here. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps NobuTamura can fix it. In the meantime, remember to add the "inaccurate paleoart" template when removing such images (to prevent them from being added again), as in this example:[109] FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiehenvenator

Wiehenvenator albati by User:Midiaou Diallo.

This is my reconstruction of Wiehenvenator albati. Wondering if it could either replace the current thumbnail Wiehenvenator. I used the paper (http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2016/1536-german-jurassic-megalosaurid) as reference. Traditional. Given a moth opening more akin to birds. The snout has slightly hardened and scarred skin, as if to imply a near transition towards a beak, as beaks aren't capable of coexisting with teeth. Feathers given due to phylogenetic bracketing. Mind reviewing? More hd image here: http://midiaou.deviantart.com/art/Wiehenvenator-albati-631778673 Midiaou Diallo 11:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Added the image. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks nice! I have two potential issues (assuming this is pretty much based on Torvosaurus, as the skeletal in the paper). I would think the eye would be a bit closer to the lacrimal bone/horn, as is for example implied by Scott Hartman's skeletal:[110] Second, the skull seems to have been even narrower at the front, if this mount (which seems to be a new specimen) is anything to go by:[111] That doesn't seem to match the more common mounted cast seen in various museums[112], but those are mainly sculpted, I believe.... So I guess the jury is out in that. I think both restorations could be used in the article, they show quite different views, after all. But no, the one I modified and added isn't too great, but it isn't downright inaccurate... FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I certainly did not use hartman's torvosaurus skeletal. I used the skull referenced in the paper. It is longer. Joschua Knuppe also reconstructed it with said longer snout. The issues I have with the one you posted is that the animal is a carbon copy of torvosaurus, despite the fact that we have the skull along with a bunch of other parts from Wiehenvenator. Also. It is either too skinny or too muscle defined. Not to mention it is neon orange which would not be at all practical for a predator of its bodytype.Midiaou Diallo 01:31, 1 2016 (UTC)

The skeletal in the Wiehenvenator paper is the silhouette of the Hartman skeletal, though.[113] It is also the same used for the T. gurneyi paper:[114] This would imply that the authors think the proportions are roughly the same (and the orange restoration seems to be drawn on top of the one in the new paper, so the proportions are at least ok). But yeah, as it's not the same animal after all, there isn't a definite solution. As for the eye, Chure 1998 implies that the sclerotic ring of Allosaurus would be very close to the upper front margin of the lacrimal, based on a projection there:[115] Since the sclerotic ring doesn't seem to be known in any other large theropods, this would be the only thing we have to go by. Anyhow, I've added the image to the article, regardless of the eye-position, it seems accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note this and the other image by Midiaou were just tagged for deletion on Commons because some admins thought the images were "stolen" from Deviantart (I jus saved them from deletion). So it should be made clearer that Midiaou has given permission in future images (probably best if Midiaou uploads them). FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus

So I assume the wiki reconstruction deserves a revamp now due to the new info coming out. I'll see if I can work on one as soon as I can. Gonna ask this one time, should I take the same color (redish) of the model? [116] Or if possible, we get a real nice photo of the model itself and add it to the page. Fred Wierum (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The specimen with integument

I think chances are pretty slim that we will get a free photo of that model any time soon, so yeah, a new reconstruction would be cool! And if the paper says it had reddish pigments, I guess that's what it should have, but I haven't read the paper... Another thing, those findings only count for one, undetermined species of Psittacosaurus, so we don't know what colour and bristle pattern the other species would have had... So the older restorations are not necessarily incorrect in that regard, since all of them show species that are only known from bones. Personally, I think it looks a bit strange how the "patagium" of the leg seems to be somehow "divided" from the thigh muscles on the model. To me, it looks more like it just had really fat legs, or that there would not necessarily be a visible "border" between the patagium and the muscles? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The paper is now free for download[117], better to base the restoration on that than some news stories. Note the authors state: "It is, of course, possible that there was variation in color across the species’ range, and we would predict that this would mirror differences in the light environment." That should make the older restorations safe as well, but this new one should be shown at the top. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saw the supplemental information[118], which goes much more into detail about how the reconstruction was made (including a skeletal and muscle diagram, which should be used as reference when making the restoration), certainly worth a look. Also, they specifically rule out that this specimen is P. mongoliensis (even though it seems to be labelled as such in the museum). FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well not that specimen or species Fred, you want to build. But several we can illustrate the article either paleoenvironment, or recreations of white background. I want to recreate the type species with its holotype. And here I present a sketch of what will be a recreation of his paleoenvironment. [119] I guess this kind would have a different color and a different pattern of bristles. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The image isn't showing! FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? how weird. Well now I'm doing the concept, for the moment I pass another advance. I hope this one looks. [120]Levi bernardo (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice that the eyes are smaller, they are huge in the official model... Seems it's a bit too slender, though? And why are the quills so short compared to the fossil? By the way, turns out the paper about the colours was CC licensed, so images from it have been added to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, true, it's kind of thin. The integument are small because this other species lived in deserts unlike the preserved specimen, which lived in forests. I have made two concepts for an illustration, one is a subadult caring for his younger siblings as seen with cooperative breeding in birds. [121] And the other is from an adult yawning near a Shanag. [122] But he is not under threat since he is not hunting. What would be best to add to the article?

Note it is thought Psittacosaurus did not take care of their young; the juveniles stuck together in small groups by themselves.[123] FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A subsequent paper argued that the larger skull is in fact associated with the juvenile assemblage, but was likely not sexually mature. As such, it was suggested that it may have been an older sibling assisting in post-hatching care of the juveniles (possibly the basis for Levi's concept). Albertonykus (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, our article is outdated... Oh, I see someone added it since I looked last! FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rativates evadens

Hold this spot. Bashing out a reconstruction. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, do you have the paper? I have no idea how the specimen looks... FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Images can be see here, but not much preserved:[124] FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I do have the paper and "enough" is preserved. In other words, we've done reconstructions from less. Tomopteryx (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but given so little is known, there are few strict proportions to follow, which gives some leeway. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Baro Again

Barosaurus lentus defending itself from a pair of Allosaurus fragilis.

Managed to complete the illustration. (User:Fred Wierum)

Hm. Oddly enough the image is not displaying properly? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? In what way? Does it not load, comes out pixilated, too large of a resolution? Fred Wierum (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think he means that the image to the direct right of my comment isn't displaying the current version on Commons, which is what is happening for me to. It is likely an error with the purging, and a force-purge should fix it. Looking at it on commons it looks great, I will add it to the article if it isn't already. IJReid ^discuss 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I dont know exactly how to fix that issue. Maybe upload a new version? And I dont think I'll fiddle with it anymore, it's complete in my opinion. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Pressing the re-load button alone the URL bar should work fine, it did for me. IJReid ^discuss 23:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks great to me! All my issues were fixed at the sketch stage. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rare Dinosaurs

Limusaurus

In the last month I joined a contest of a Facebook group, and category were rare dinosaurs, and I made three drawings and I chose the original Chilesaurus, haha. So I did this Limusaurus. [125] My adviser did not give me any advice, so be very critical and any bad point to find let me know (even the smallest). Levi bernardo (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks cool, the lifted leg seems a bit straight? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ohh is right, but I have seen birds and especially Chickens his leg so straight, [126] but I think if it is necessary to flex a little. --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also the foot itself, the toes seem very straight, I think they would be spread a little during a run... FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, true. When the fingers tread on the ground and in the air and run at high speed these fingers are farther apart from each other. I will try to correct it as soon as possible, thanks. By the time I spend correction of the bent leg, and other corrections to the ranfoteca and head [127]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well I recently had the opportunity to meet one of the authors of the article Limusaurus (René Hernandéz Rivera), and told me that everything was fine. But what you FunkMonk said is true and needs corrected. By the time I spend approximately how will these corrections. [128] --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ready, after a while I've corrected the drawing of Limusaurus, this time already has the fingers more separated. What do you think FunkMonk? Levi bernardo (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Atlasaurus

• Before the end of the year I would like to review this illustration of Atlasaurus I did recently, Any suggestions?Levi bernardo (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some more cleanup of the outline? FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that shortly. Levi bernardo (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the Limusaurus has been cleaned. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• One thing about the Limusaurus that may warrant discussion is the shape of the head. Most of the "official" skeletal reconstructions, as well as that of Scott Hartman, shows a taller, rounder skull. The one by Jaime Headden, which I assume this restoration here is based on, shows a lower, pointier skull. Not sure what is more correct (the fossil skulls seem rather crushed), but I'm thinking it might be better to follow the reconstructions that have been published in journals? But then again, since you say one of the describers approved your drawing, there may be room for interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The available skulls seem to be either crushed or incomplete. In the SOM of the ontogeny paper, the new specimens (incl. skulls) are mentioned in passing, with most of them being figured in either pathetically low detail in Figure 1, or referencing some Figure 2F/G/H (which doesn't exist, and is probably a typo). Of note, the only skull length estimate is provided for a young juvenile..... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Carnotaurus

Carnotaurus illustration(s) need an update. Ive got two reconstructions sketched out here. I think one would be neat (imo, one on right) to have the leg without skin to show the musculature of the thigh and calf. Maybe that as the second image and the running one (left) as the main image? I based the muscles off of an Ostrich and know it might not be the best in accuracy, so I'd like to get it as accurate as possible if anyone has a good Carno leg muscle reference. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Carnotaurus sastrei reconstruction

Most of the shinbone isn't known inCarnotaurus, so showing muscle detail there would be kind of pointless? Anyhow, pinging Jens Lallensack, who wrote the article, perhaps he has some points. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's pointless,just like other parts of the animal, doesnt hurt to best-guess missing bits. Figured it would be a nice way to emphasize on how this animal must've been a speedster. Fred Wierum (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean, since most of the rest of the animal is known (apart from the tail), why emphasize the one bit that is unknown (lower leg[129])? But it's up to you. Only other thing I can think of at this stage is, how are yu going to make the hands? Seems there is no consensus on the life appearance of abelisaur hands... FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well the idea I had was that since it's legs are long, why not emphasize that it was a fast runner by showing off it's leg's musculature (similar to back anatomy shown on cheetah illustrations [130] [131]). I just thought it would be a neat idea as opposed to simple 'dinosaur here, dinosaur there' that's normally on wiki. Similar to that of dinosaur encyclopedias. As for hands, I figured it's proportions would follow that of Scott Hartman's skeletal. Safest route, right? And I'm not having the arms do anything, just technically sit there. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking of the issue of whether abelisaurs had visible claws or not... I think the consensus is that they did not... A bit unclear what Hartman has done, since it's only a skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps just small stubby claws? Like barely visible ones? Fred Wierum (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

They may not have had claw (ungual) bones at all, see the end of this paper:[132] As for showing muscles, I'm not against the idea itself at all, but I think it would be more relevant to show a part of the animal that has actually been discussed and reconstructed in the literature, such as the tail muscles.[133] The life restoration in that paper is pretty awful, by the way.... FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The most recent interpretation of Carnotaurus hands that I am aware of is Burch and Carrano (2012). They suggest that Carnotaurus did have manual unguals, likely on digits II and III (the supposed "metacarpal IV spike" being one of them), but some other abelisaurids, such as Majungasaurus, may not have had any. Albertonykus (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think recreation is correct, I just think that the head should have keratin structures and dermal wrinkles around the eye and much of the head, similar to Rugops. [134] Levi bernardo (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus

I thought I'd do some updates to this Giganotosaurus image.

The base of the tail is probably raised too much, the leg posture is strange, it doesn't look balanced and the far side knee is probably dislocated. A work in progress can be seen here [135] Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks better to me, I previously imagined/excused it with that it was biting at something, and therefore leaning forwards, but yeah, it's an awkward pose in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

True, it would seem as if it were going to fall. Well I would just like to comment that the tail muscles are still incorrect based on this [136]. Also, are not the arms too small? Levi bernardo (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the current version, [137] I wasn't sure whether to keep the 'quills/spines', considering there are two other restorations in the article without quills I don't think they'll be misleading. I've improved the tail muscles to be more in line with current thinking. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! Maybe the tail should even be straightened out more, or do you have any thoughts on that? As for the spines, yeah, the absence on the other restorations should make it obvious it is not a "fact". As for the size of the arms Levi mentioned, well, they're not known, but the pectoral girdle was very small. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)#

Well at the moment the tail is slightly raised along the anterior ~2/3rds which I suspect is fine. The end of the tail I have envisioned as flopping down and towards the viewer. I'm not sure how much flexibility is likely in theropod tails. Using a skeletal reconstruction and bending the tail vertebra about 3-4 degrees each gets you close to what I have. To be safe I'll straighten the end of the tail out a bit. More like this [138] Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! And it's now in a featured article, so good it got an overhaul... FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aurornis

I've updated my Aurornis restoration I made a couple of years ago. The drawing had been criticized a couple of times and was removed twice from the article (mainly because of the artistic quality), so maybe it's time to update it. What do you think about the new one? Is the coloration appropriate? I've just realized that I forgot to include the right foot hallux, but it could been hidden by the plumage. Thoughts?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think it's better to show it in side view, as that's how the specimen is preserved. It seems a little bit off-balance maybe (like tipping backwards)? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed a bit off-balance. I've rotated the picture and now looks more balanced (if needed, it can be rotated again). --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks better, but now there's some kind of line or "aura" along the back? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops, you are right! It is removed now ;). --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wannanosaurus

Wannanosaurus yansiensis reconstruction for review

This is the lineart for my illustration of Wannanosaurus yansiensis. I had to draw it anyway for the entry on a-dinosaur-a-day.com, and noticed there isn't an illustration on the wikipedia page for Wannanosaurus, so I figured I might as well submit it for review here. Proportions are based on known skeletal elements where possible and the rest is based on Homalocephale. I've decided to include several soft tissue elements such as a uropatagium-like structure based on that seen in Psittacosaurus (SMF R 4970), quills (again seen in Psittacosaurus), and larger scales around the knees, elbows, and shoulders. I intend to colour the reconstruction, too. I hope it's up to scratch, but I can make adjustments if necessary. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, not much to go by for this guy, so I guess as long as the skull and limb proportions match up, it should be fine. I can't find a side view of the skull, though, where did you see that? I (and some others, it seems) am not sold on the leg patagium idea (looks like fat thighs squashed flat to me, just like the squashed outline around the tail), but since that interpretation is published, it should be fine. But seems to have been reconstructed smaller even for that Psittacosaurus model[139]? You might want to add more pronounced individual toe pads under the feet, though, as shown in tracks of bipedal dinosaurs. Looks bit too smooth now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The skull is fragmentary, though elements are described and photographed in Butler & Zhao (2009) [140]. I did my best to reconstruct the rest of the head based on the postorbital, squamosal, and jugal figured in the paper and filled in referencing reconstructions of the skulls of Homalocephale and Goyocephale. I see what you mean about the leg patagia. I think I may indeed have made them too extensive, so I'll scale them back. I'll also make the toe pads more pronounced. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, also, nice to see new faces here, hope you stick around! Plenty of dinosaurs needing restorations here... FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! Unfortunately I don't have as much time as I'd like for drawing - I'm currently on the payroll doing drawings for a-dinosaur-a-day.com, and for the most part have to pump out an illustration every other day. Hence the Wannanosaurus, actually. I probably never would have considered drawing it otherwise. I'll see what I can find time for in future though. I've uploaded the updated illustration with colour as well as the adjustments suggested.--Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go, so I'll add it. Wikipedia is also a good place to showcase one's art, hint hint... FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Foraminacephale

I've been trying a new style, which is fully digital, and my first attempt was done for Foraminacephale, since it appears that no-one else has restored it yet anywhere online. My current version is here: [141]. The skeleton is based on Homalocephale (the most complete "close" relative), with the arm of Stegoceras, and the skull based on the known material of Foraminacephale with the rest restored after Stegoceras. IJReid ^discuss 03:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good beginning on digital! Seems a bit pixelated in places? Accuracy-wise, seems to be missing a finger and hallux? FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my error on the missing digits. If it seems pixelated around the base of the tail, that is a Deviantart error, simply because there is a small white halo around it that couldn't be erased when I deleted the background. IJReid ^discuss 15:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Deviantart has upscaled the image too much, is it smaller originally? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm going to upload the image here and see. IJReid ^discuss 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems the pixellation is in the image, I'll try to fix that. Any other anatomical issues? IJReid ^discuss 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the pixellation has been fixed now. IJReid ^discuss 15:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I remember Carpenter 1997 mentioned the neck would have been more U or S shaped, due to the curvature seen in the back of Homalocephale, where the back vertebrae turns steeply downwards (no other pachycephalosaur backs are as completely known), they would have to go steeply upwards as well, and could not form a straight line. Also, the opening for the occipital condyle faces downwards in pachy skulls. So the neck is probably too straight. Not sure where that leaves this[142] restoration, though... FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that I've accounted for that in the original skeletal hodgepodge I made. The neck comes out of the head about horizontal, and then curves down before merging into the curve of the back. If it makes it clearer I could add some more flesh under the base of the neck. IJReid ^discuss 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking the head should come out more vertically, since the opening for the condyle faces downwards... Like on Hartman's skeletal:[143] FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

OOH, I think I found the problem. The head in my restoration is actually at the same angle as in Scott's skeletal, but I think what may be confusing is how far down the line at the back of the skull goes. it also may be that it looks weird because of where the nodule rows are, but having them like that was the only way to make the snout not look extremely odd, because unlike Stegoceras the dome of Foraminacephale would cut down the snout length by half .IJReid ^discuss 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How does it look now? IJReid ^discuss 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this?[144] FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

How does it look now? IJReid ^discuss 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to me now! Maybe experiment with some scale details? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll try! For now though I'll add it to the article, since we have only the old drawing in it right now. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the nice thing is you can always modify the illustrations later on... I have some restorations I update continuously... Deinocheirus had quite a few iterations, obviously (I deleted some of the older revisions because they were just too ugly)... FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rativates

• 
  Rativates

Hello ladies and gentlesaurs. This is my first time posting here so please bear with me. I couldn't help but notice there was no reconstruction of the newly discovered ornithomimid rativates so I thought I'd chip in. I made do with what little skeletal references I could find [145] and also incorporated prior knowledge of ornithomimids. I also went for a different pose rather than the generic 'running with head held high' one. AnnieI (talk) 4:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks ok, but there are a few major issues. It seems you based it too much off modern ratites, considering the arm should be right at the front of the torso, not close to the hip. I addition the tail is likely too short, maybe add 1/2 of its current length. Finally, there should be a bit more flesh on the exposed legs, especially on the bottom of the foot. IJReid ^discuss 06:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

From overlaying the description's rigorous skeletal diagram, the head seems too large; it would have been about half the size that you've drawn it, if we scale to the same hip height. In addition, as for the arm plumage, in my opinion the most parsimonious option would likely be shaggier (not pennaceous) feathers that stop at the wrist (Julius Csotonyi's Ornithomimus for the van der Reest press release is a good example of what that looks like). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Time to edit again! Thanks for pointing out my errors. AnnieI (talk) 6:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not know that the forelimb feathers stop at the wrist. All we know is that the adult Ornithomimus with carbonized marks left by feathers on the bones didn't preserve them near the distal and proximal ends of the forearm, but that doesn't mean there weren't feathers there. In fact, the smallest Ornithomimimus specimen with preserved feathers (actual feathers, not just carbon marks on the bones) explicitly has feathers coming out the of the hand. Because it is a juvenile, it doesn't tell us whether those feathers would have developed into the larger wing feathers hypothesized to have been present in adults, but I wouldn't consider it wrong to put wing feathers on the hands. Albertonykus (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)