Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology‎ | Paleoart review
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Potamornis holotype illustration

 
Holotype of Potamornis skutchi

Illustration of the holotype of Potamornis based on figures in Elzanowski et al 2001 (http://gspauldino.com/Avianquadrate.pdf) Corrections/feedback appreciated. P2N2222A (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the rest of the skull (based on a related taxon) could be shown in silhouette? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely possible. Since the quadrate is a relatively small bone compared to the rest of the skull, I will do that as a separate illustration. P2N2222A (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 
Skull reconstruction of Potamornis skutchi

As suggested by Lythronaxargestes, I made a reconstruction of the full skull based on Hesperornis. However, I am much less confident in the accuracy of this one. Feedback/corrections much appreciated. Hesperornis skull based on this and this. P2N2222A (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Stegotherium and Protypotherium, by Charles R. Knight (1913)

 

I'm about to expand the article on those animals, so I would like some feedback about the accuracy of those images drawn by Charles R. Knight in 1913, depicting Stegotherium tesselatum and Protypotherium australe. I'm absolutely not arguing for this artwork removal, as I'll definitely use it in the article and it's the only one we have about these species, but I don't know if I should talk about it as an "historic reconstruction", or as a regular one. Any thoughts on that ? Larrayal (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the only editor who might know is Rextron? FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The animals looks fine (I don't know about any particular fossil that suggests something different for their body shape), but I think that is better include that it is a historical reconstruction. For some reason the environment depicted looks as a semidesert, but the Santa Cruz formation was a lowland continental environment, with presence of forests and semi open spaces. --Rextron (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, it's of course hard to judge what the environment is when it has no colour, so that ambiguity probably works in its favour... In any case, yeah, also always good to note the year the image was made in the captions to make the age clear, as well as link the notable artist. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I will act as said. Larrayal (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Old and new models by Petr Menshikov

These models have never been reviewed before. Unfortunately, many of them have been lost and currently the author can only edit the latest ones (from the ones presented above, these are Baurusuchus and Carnotaurus). HFoxii (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the front legs on Kritosaurus look weirdly straight. Also, the dark colors on most of them are odd and make it hard to see details. And is it just me, or does the Baurusuchus look rabid? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the Kritosaurus model is rather old and therefore it is not surprising that it is somewhat rough. As for the Baurusuchus, it seems to me that it looks realistic (although, if necessary, the model can be corrected). HFoxii (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, here's a new model of crocodylomorph Hallopus victor. There is currently no life restoration of this species on Wikipedia. (Yes, I know that the posture of the front limbs is odd; the author will provide a better version soon). HFoxii (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The model is now posed. Got something to say? HFoxii (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The leg position on Australovenator is extremely awkward. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The hands of Australovenator are also weird; the middle finger (and its claw) seem particularly underdeveloped. I guess one could explain that based on perspective, but the perspective looks identical on both hands. I'm also not sure what's going on with the single spike Carnotaurus "hand" and the fleshy-looking bits on the tail of Wulong. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the Carnotaurus hand doesn't make sense. The spike on IV is a metacarpal, not an ungual, and III is supposed to have an ungual. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This bug has now been fixed. HFoxii (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I... don't think so...? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oops... Wrong file. It's all right now (isn't it?). HFoxii (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I see no meaningful digit differentiation here. It still looks like a flesh mitten. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Should it look like this? (see the new version of the file). HFoxii (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I legitimately do not see the difference. There needs to be more shading between the fingers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the reconstruction of Varanus priscus looks too much like a modern Komodo Dragon. Besides that, the wings on the Wulong model look like they're incomplete, as there seem to be no pennaceous feathers on the upper arm.TimTheDragonRider (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
What's the problem with Varanus priscus? There is nothing surprising in the resemblance to the Komodo dragon. HFoxii (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The claws of the Triceratops look really lumpy (the ones at the back seem to have bases that are larger than the toes themselves), and it seems it lacks the fifth vestigial finger? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also find it quite strange that the scalation extends up the frill. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also seems the inner side of the lower beak isn't deeply concave as it should be.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to say that the fuzz on the Australovenator and Pterodaustro doesn't look too realistic the way it's sticking up. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Vetelia

 

Hello ! Sorry to come back this soon (I'm still working on Stegotherium, but a paywall has recently blocked a bit my progress, so I'm doing Vetelia as well. Here's an image I uploaded from "Barasoain, D.; Gonzalez Ruiz, L.R.; Tomassini, R.L.; Zurita, A.E.; Contreras, V.H. & Montalvo, C.I. (2021). "First phylogenetic analysis of the Miocene armadillo Vetelia reveals novel affinities with Tolypeutinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 66(3): S32–S46. doi:10.4202/app.00829.2020". The image is by Pedro Cuaranta, and was used in the article. (All of this being under CC-BY 4.0 naturally.) It was produced in 2020, a bit prior to the article realisation, by Pedro Cuaranta. The paper's goal is to assess Vetelia as a basal Tolypeutinae (a relative of the three-banded, naked-tailed, and giant armadillo). There's already four images of fossils belonging to the genus on the Commons, which can serve as references for assessment. Larrayal (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are having issues with paywalls, you should request the source at WP:RX, and they will probably be able to provide you a copy Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Generally, we don't have to get recent restorations that have been published in peer reviewed sources reviewed, since they are already considered reliable by default (unlike user-made restorations, or historical ones). Unless we of course notice inaccuracies, which does happen even in such sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Drazinda Formation Softshell turtles

Size comparisons/skeletals for the Drazinda Formation (Eocene Pakistan) softshell turtles. The holotype of Drazinderetes tethyensis and the giant indetermined trionychid. Sizes are based on the minimum and maximum estimate of the paper (about 20% cartilage and 45% cartilage respectively based on Apalone and Dogania subplana).

So the maximum for Drazinderetes is assuming that the entire periphery of the shell is cartilage? Not questioning it, but it just looks a little weird. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I can move the bony part further down of course so the ratio is a bit less extreme, but the extend of cartilage in relation to bone is what the paper suggests for the upper estimate (45:55 based on the Malayan Softshell Turtle). But yeah, I don't think there should be a problem in placing the bony element of the carapace a little further down the body. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok I moved the bony carapace down a bit, naturally it still looks a bit extreme tho that is more connected to softshell turtles just being weird as seen here in Pelodiscus [3]. You can really tell where the bony carapace stops and the cartilage continues, leaving quite a big flap covering most of the tail Armin Reindl (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not know that trionychid carapaces look like that. Interesting. The current version looks fine to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dracopristis

 
Dracopristis hoffmanorum

I've done this Dracopristis reconstruction based on the advice of EvolutionIncarnate and wanted to make sure there weren't any further problems with it. Gasmasque (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Silurianfishes ntm 1905 smit 1929.gif

 

This image is used as Silurian fauna in multiple articles. But as far as I have seen, Holoptychius or its relatives are from Devonian, although other ones, relatives of Pteraspis, Cephalaspis are known from Silurian, but still more common in Devonian, so this image is more likely to be Devonian and unacceptable to use in article about Silurian. What do you think about that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to use a 1905 illustration for anything without a disclaimer that it's historical. And then it's probably pointless to use it for such a general article to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Brazilosaurus

 
Brazilosaurus

I fixed the head shape a bit and the amount of toes being wrong. Is there anything else I need to fix? If so, please tell me. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Skull of Rhynchosaurus

 
Skeletal recontruction of the skull of Rhynchosaurus articeps by Jaime Headden

This file is on six Wikipedia pages and has never been reviewed. The skull has a jugal-quadratojugal contact, which, according to Ezcurra et al. (2016), is non-existent in this species. In addition, the tissue covering at least the premaxilla is not in agreement with what is present in the literature. Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a Jaime Headden diagram, and those are usually okay in terms of accuracy, though this one is a bit old. As for the tissue on the premaxilla, Rhynchosaurus is a fairly early-diverging rhynchosaur and there is not much conclusive evidence for how much lippage was present at that point in their evolution. Headden did admittedly create the diagram to present his hypothesis on rhynchosaur oral integument, which may not necessarily be accurate for later members of the group. I agree with your point about the jugal-quadratojugal contact, Headden appears to have retained the traditional interpretation as seen in Benton (1990). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Zenaspida

 

Added in the page with no review. Looks like a bit rough, and I don't know what species is that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

And I should review other work by that user too. These image are actually uploaded on pages that is linked. I personally think these images should be removed from page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The eriptychiid is clearly a pteraspidid: as far as I know, eriptychiids are known from Ordovician-aged fragmentary remains and scales, and heterostracans like that don't appear until the early Devonian. I've removed the second two images from their respective pages as the eriptychiid uses a Devonian-aged pteraspidid as a reference, and the thelodont has a defined jaw, despite being a jawless fish.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that, by the way it seems like User:Zakqary have some troubles about editing. He used the unreliable Fandom Wiki as a reference and seems to undid by the bot... Looking at page Drepanolepis it feels like he is quite unfamiliar with editing. To see these, it seems that I should delete the image in page Zenaspida too. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

they do look a bit rough, but some of the drawings i've seen of thelodonts have a weird shaped mouth that makes it look like they have jaws. that one's mouth curve goes a bit too deep though, so yeah. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Of all of the whole body fossils and restorations I've seen of thelodonts, the mouth is a hole. The artist gives Longodus a long mandible, which is demonstratively inaccurate.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that was the anaspids I was thinking of. One of your drawings of an anaspid has a mouth that's shaped like it has jaws, but it's nowhere as deep as the mouth on that thelodont. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Size comparisons and skeletals

Size charts and skeletal recon dump: Dearc based on the various size estimates of the type description, Duerosuchus based on the 2021 redescription and C. thorbjarnarsoni based on the upper and lower estimates (of the largest specimen) of the type description Armin Reindl (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, is the Dearc one based on wing-span estimates from the paper (if there are any), or is it WP:original research? Might be problematic then. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, it's based on the estimates of the type description of Dearc, 1.9 meters based on Dorygnathus, 2.2 based on Rhamphorhynchus's skull and 3.8 based on Rhampho's humerus (plus 3 meters, the intermediate between the two estimates which is commonly used as the shorthand in the paper) Armin Reindl (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
the paper is open access in case you wish to check for yourself Armin Reindl (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00135-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098222200135X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
I see, remember to cite (and link when possible) the sources used in the image descriptions on Commons also so this will be clearer for anyone fact-checking it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanjks for the reminder, proper citation has been added to the description Armin Reindl (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sauropareion

 

I just drew this picture of the parareptile Sauropareion since the page for it does not have any restorations. I think I did a pretty good job on it, but i'm not sure about the teeth sticking out, so please tell me if i need to remove them. if you see anything wrong with it, please tell me and i'll try and fix it. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not well versed enough in parareptiles to comment on accuracy, but I would recommend adding more space to the left edge of the image and cropping away parts of the right edge (or simply move the drawing itself into the center of the canvas), since the piece is basically pressed against the left border as it is right now Armin Reindl (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ah, thank you! I'll fix that after someone reviews accuracy. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Plexus ricei

This certainly shows the characteristics of that organism well,[4] but I think that the morphology seems a bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 
This user posted image in page Brazilosaurus without review again. As far as I have seen, numbers of fingers are wrong. This user previously added image of Dimetrodon in page by themselves without review, and already deleted, considered as inaccurate. They may repeat such things in the future, so I think it's better to teach them now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think tagging Firewing The Wyvern is inappropriate. Firewing, the paleontology project has come under fire historically for inadequately sourced images, so peer review is a necessary evil that also ensures the quality of our images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to can you please tell me what's wrong with my dimetrodon so I can fix it? Also, I'm planning to redraw the Plexus ricei, I did that drawing extremely quickly so the article would have an image. I also fixed the amount of toes on the brazilosaurus and posted the new image on this forum but no one has taken a look at it yet. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know where to point out. Because there are many points that are inaccurate in that reconstruction of Dimetrodon. I should ping @Pyramids09: who nominated that reconstruction inaccurate. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the illustration of P. ricei needs cleaning up. It's not inaccurate necessarily to my understanding, just not very neatly drawn, if that makes sense. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

New Plexus ricei paleoart

 
Plexus ricei

Hello, I made an illustration for Plexus ricei that I hope is better than the one that is currently on the page. It is File:Plexus ricei paleoart.png. If there are any issues please let me know. Thank you. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Size estimation of Koolasuchus and Kairuku

So I have uploaded two size comparation charts. Do you have any opinion about them? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  •  
    Koolasuchus
  •  
    Kairuku
  •  
    Pebasiconcha
The size of Koolasuchus seems about correct given the estimated midline skull length of 65 cm for Koolasuchus vs 60 cm for Siderops with a total body length of 2.7 m for Siderops. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Also I have uploaded the size chart of Pebasiconcha. What do you think @Armin Reindl:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah I almost forgot I asked about that before. Looks good to me. Armin Reindl (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Also I want to hear opinion from @Slate Weasel:, what do you think about these charts? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Slate Weasel is on leave. I don't think you're likely to hear back. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rhinconichthys

 
Rhinconichthys by DigiBd

Not convinced of the accuracy of restoration of this filter-feeding pachycormiform, the thinness of the body and the bulge around the head looks unnatural compared to other giant filter feeding fish, such as basking sharks and whale sharks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks very much like this[5] "official" artwork by Bob Nicholls, though. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The official artwork gives a much more realistic impression of the drag created by opening of the mouth. I agree though that the body proportions are accurate to Bob Nicholls restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I know a person who has done a lot of research on pachycormiforms and probably has a lot to say about this reconstruction. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's coverage of Pachycormiformes (and other fossil fish) is lacklustre at best. Hell, it was only a year ago that I redirected Pachycormidae to Pachycormiformes so that we stopped having two duplicate articles on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this reconstruction is very problematic, I expect to hear some elaboration later. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, new here, but Fanboyphilosopher suggested I give some input. The reconstruction has a number of glaring issues, but to summarize, the cranial anatomy of this reconstruction does not resemble that of Rhinconichthys or any pachycormid in general, and has implausible soft tissue. The postcranial anatomy is completely unknown for this animal other than the pectoral girdle (Schumacher et al 2016)[6]. Orthocormus (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I also want to add, while postcrania is unknown, this reconstruction is lacking pelvic fins. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems like the Bob Nicholls illustration does have pectoral fins, so the Deviant art artist must have overlooked it. But as far as I can tell, it seems like the head looks different from the skull in Nicholls' illustration too, I guess the sides of the mouth are expanded or something from taking in water? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Would this be ok to use if I give it pectoral fins? Because other than that, it's nearly identical to the "official" artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Other Pachycormiform restorations

If we're going to go through one pachycormiform restoration, why not do them all (Other than Leedsichthys, which I think are well discussed enough at this point). All of the ones currently listed have never been discussed before and are currently used in articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Any comments on these? Would be a shame if they aren't dealt with before the section is archived. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Woodbinesuchus

 

I think better reconstruction for that thing is needed. As image of that genus is only this, (same for Gigantophis) currently there is no way other than use this in page and Wikidata. For the time being is it good to tag that image inaccurate and remove that from page? Though update by Levi bernardo makes that relatively better. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe this user has made more images than just these two, and some more of them are used on other pages. I personally think they don't fit the Wikipedia style, not to mention that they're often inaccurate. Tagging as inaccurate and removing from the page would be the smartest thing to do imo. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Now I think I have deleted all the reconstruction by that user from wikidata. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Crocodylus falconensis

 
Skull reconstruction of Crocodylus falconensis

Quick reconstruction of C. falconensis for an in-progress overhaul of the page since there are no creative commons images I could find of it. Left a drawing of the skull as preserved (including the elements of the lower jaw), right the reconstruction of the cranium alone, accounting for taphonomic distortion. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What sources did you use? These should be added to the image description. Also, what does black fill mean? It seems to have a different meaning in both drawings? We also don't know how long the scale bar is; this needs explanation in the description. I furthermore wonder why sutures appear more serrated in the right reconstruction than on the left. The interorbital bar, to which bone does it belong? Seems to be a bone of its own in your drawing. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Source and scale bar have been added (admittedly I forgot in my rush). The black fill supplements major missing areas on the illustration of the actual fossil, while helping to contrast in the reconstructed version (i.e. make the skull openings easily recognizable, especially since the palatal anatomy cannot be determined thanks to the mandible and sediments). The sutures are not well visible on the fossils and only roughly figured by the paper. As for the interorbital bar, in crocodilians it's naturally positioned in a way that has the jugal and the postorbital overhang it's edges, making it seem as if it was an independent bone. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Use grey fill for missing parts to avoid confusion, then, maybe? Could you add information on how you produced this drawing, did you redraw from the source? I can't see the reconstruction in the source, did you do it by yourself using other species as templates (if so, which?). I still don't see where the strikingly irregular sutures are coming from, these are not indicated in your source? Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Changes implemented, the reconstruction is a simple attempt at resolving the obvious crushing applied to the holotype specimen. The only major change of which besides evening out the rostrum (which is notably shifted towards one side over the other) is the angle of the quadrate and quadratojugal (again due to crushing it's pushed relatively inward), based on modern crocodylus (specifically C. acutus) Armin Reindl (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. One more point: The reconstruction is much shorter than the actual fossil. I believe you argue that this is due to shearing, but it rather looks to me as if the left half of the rear is simply missing in the fossil. The other skull bones do not indicate strong shearing. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh the shearing is unrelated to the area around the left quadrate, that one's obviously broken off I agree. The shearing is more concluded from the size disparity between the two halves of the rostrum, explaining why the left side is relatively wider (and with the more pronounced margin following the post-nasal notch), while the right half is notably more narrow. Far as I can judge this would also feel with the mandible being slightly dislodged and peaking out from beneath the skull on the left Perhaps the fossil and reconstructed version don't line up 100% due to one being moved up a little further up by a smidge, but their length is generally the same. The later simply does not figure the mandible to make the image easier to interpret (if that makes any sense). Armin Reindl (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
So the left drawing includes the mandible while the right drawing does not, which is why the right drawing is shorter? I fear this confuses others as much as it did confuse me. I would either include the mandible in both drawings, or remove them from both. On what is the shape of the mandible (your grey part) based on in the first place? This part isn't seen in your source. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The posterior elements of the mandible were again based on the shape seen in modern Crocodylus species (C. acutus). Regardless, it's removed now. Armin Reindl (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Size of Shringasaurus

 

I'm very confused about the size of Shringasaurus... the description and described skeletal reconstruction in the paper certainly agrees with the estimate of a total length of 3-4 m, but actually comparing the skeletal elements (skulls and limb bones), it seems that the total length is about 3 m. I don't know if the larger estimation is based on more partial materials. But at least in this image, if the man's height is 175 cm, this looks too big. It looks like it's like just made as "total length" of 4 m (not along the vertebral column) without compared to the skeleton. It looks like a bit larger even compared to the skeletal reconstruction in the paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Another case where it would probably best to just remove the human. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that is best, too. Is it possible to work on that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Now removed the human. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Romerodus

 
Romerodus

I wanted to run a final accuracy check on this Romerodus reconstruction. I've already talked to some other editors to make sure there aren't any glaring issues, but there might still be something I've messed up on. What do y'all think? Gasmasque (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The caudal keel seems a little extreme. What is that based on? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Fast moving pelagic sharks, such as makos, have similarly exaggerated keels. I couldn't find any fossils preserving the keel of Romerodus, and other Eugeneodont artists I talked with suggested giving it a large keel. If this is unreasonable speculation I can tone down/remove it. Gasmasque (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Romerodus has preserved caudal keels according to Zangerl (1981). Based on Zangerl's illustration, they look to be about the right size here. Carnoferox (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Jydegård Formation fish

A lot of fish restorations have been posted here lately, and seems we have a lot of experts around, so I thought it was the time to put up a restoration[7] I did of Jydegård Formation fish for a school project years ago, as parts of it might be useful here. I have absolutely no experience drawing fish, let alone prehistoric ones, apart from this image, so either it's unusable, isolated parts of it can be used, parts need modifications, or some of them could get reidentified as related species we don't have restorations of. The fish shown are an unidentified pycnodont based on Gyrodus (left, could be retooled as some related species?), Lepidotes sp. (upper right), Pleuropholis serrata (lower right, looks a bit wonky, we have no restorations of it), and Hybodus sp. (upper left background). Molluscs are Neomiodon (left) and Viviparus (right). They are probably not drawn to accurate scale in relation to each other (was improvised), so the entire image may not be usable. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who have commented on past fish images in case they have anything to add: Fishboy86164577, Ta-tea-two-te-to, Fanboyphilosopher. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Any suggestions about any of these, Carnoferox? Also being a fish editor. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The "Hybodus" is missing an anal fin and cephalic spines. The dorsal fin spines protrude in an unnatural way; instead they should be flush with the fins. The dentition and oral tissue look off as well, but I can't make out much detail at the current resolution. The taxonomy is likely incorrect because Hybodus is a wastebasket genus and the only valid species are from the Early Jurassic. Being from the Early Cretaceous, the Jydegård Formation taxon probably belongs to a different genus. Carnoferox (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely the least developed of them, also why it's almost blurred out hehe. Do you think any of the foreground fish could be used for anything, could be modified into related genera and (from any formation) cropped out on their own, for example. And if so, what could their identities be? FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
You'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable about actinopterygians than me. Carnoferox (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright, not sure if there are any! FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Ichthyosaur Restorations

  •  
    Cymbospondylus had a tail bend, but that is not shown here, nor does the caudal fin correlate to the location of the bend. The eye is also too large and too high up on the skull.
  •  
    This Excalibosaurus has a very weak tail bend and a heterocercal caudal fin, which doesn't seem too likely for a parvipelvian
  •  
    I can't find much information on the skull of Grendelius zhuravlevi, but both G. mordax and G. alekseevi have rather robust jaws, so I'm somewhat dubious of the thin jaws restored here.

I've noticed issues with these three ichthyosaur restorations, which I've listed above. I haven't restored the latter two taxa, but I do have an uncolored Cymbospondylus petrinus ([8]) that I could color and touch up, if it's so desired. Of course, the above images could also be edited, though as I'm not that great at editing pencil drawings, I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to try before I take a stab at it. Feel free to add any other problematic ichthyosaur images that are floating around. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If someone has a reference for the Grendelius, I could fix that one. Any references for the two others? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's a somewhat modified version of the schematic I cobbled together for my Cymbospondylus: [9]. It's mostly composed of the (now PD) images from Merriam (1908), with the unknown parts in blue filled in with Xinminosaurus based on Jiang et al. (2008). For finer details of the skull anatomy, I'd recommend using Figure 6B of Klein et al. (2020), which is the latest reconstruction of the skull of that species. I've never seen images of the skull material of G. zhuravlevi, so I can't say too much about overall proportions, but here are papers with skeletal/skull reconstructions of G. alekseevi and G. mordax. As for Excalibosaurus, I don't think the actual angle of the caudal bend is known, perhaps a closely related taxon like Eurhinosaurus could be used (although the tail bend angle of it is not always accurately represented in displays, frustratingly the paper on it is closed-access). I should also probably note that the head of Excalibosaurus would probably flow more smoothly into the trunk than shown in NT's illustration. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Excalibosaurus doesn’t preserve a tailbend. The closely related Eurhinosaurus however shows a large and deep tail bend in a multitude of well preserved skeletons, very unlike what is depicted. In regards to Cymbospondylus, Mixosauridae is to my knowledge usually placed as more basal than Cymbospondylidae, and Mixosaurus preserves a dorsal fin. Shouldn’t Cymbospondylus be also depicted with a dorsal fin, following phylogenetic bracketing? Fishboy86164577 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The position of Mixosauridae in relation to Cymbospondylus seems rather contentious, from what I understand a more derived placement seems to be slightly more common right now, but it is still sometimes recovered as more basal, so I ultimately don't think we really can say anything about it with much certainty. However, even if Cymbospondylus is more basal than Mixosauridae, that of course doesn't mean that it couldn't have a dorsal fin, so that might actually be the safer option here. In that case, it may not be a bad idea to add dorsal fins to all our "shastasaurs", which unambiguously fall within the Mixosaurus+Stenopterygius bracket. The one thing that I worry about is that cetaceans have lost their dorsal fins four times independently (although as ichthyosaurs are more similar to large sharks in terms of locomotion, which have never been completely without dorsal fins, this may not be as problematic as I worry). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As we can’t predict secondarily lost dorsal fins with any certainty I think the best route would be to include them wherever bracketing dictates. After all, it’s what we do for other taxa. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This publication by Arkhangelsky restores G. zhuravlevi with a very long skull for whatever reason: [10] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 10:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Also seems to place it in the genus Otshevia, as our image's title. So perhaps it's a bit more complicated? FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I updated the Excalibosaurus according to the comments above (and made it blue instead of green), any issues? And yeah, Slate Weasel, I think you could upload your Cymbospondylus here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 
Slate's Cymbospondylus
The Excalibosaurus looks better, although there are still some potentially problematic aspects; the tail should probably be more symmetrical still, and something seems a bit wonky with the proportions: the foreflipper should be about 1/3 the length of the skull, while the skull, at 1.54 m long, should be somewhat shorter than the presacral series (1.87 m long). I also don't think that the previous brown coloration was necessarily problematic (if we're going with blue I'd definitely recommend decreasing the saturation). I've uploaded my Cymbospondylus (with a small dorsal fin added). Unfortunately, for real life reasons, I judge it best for me to go on a wikibreak for a considerable amount of time, starting in about an hour, so I probably won't be able to upload a colored version until around late May, nor post any corrections to it until then, sorry about that :(. Hopefully the image in its present form is still useful though. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 01:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hope to see you back! I shrunk the head somewhat and made the colour less saturated, not sure if it solves all the problems. But I just noticed NT has another, newer restoration of the genus up we can maybe also use:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely looks less jarring. I think that the caudal fin should probably be more homocercal. NT's newer image has somewhat ambiguous licensing, but the real problem is its teeth. That restoration has a mouth full of big, thick stabby teeth, which unfortunately isn't very similar at all to the densely-packed needle-like dentition the animal actually had. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Made the upper lobe match the lower, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Kronosaurus or not?

So everything but the holotype of Kronosaurus queenslandicus was just moved to new genera[12], Eiectus (awful name for such an iconic animal) and Monquirasaurus, and I've changed their Commons categories and moved images around on Wikipedia accordingly. It leaves us with the problem of what to do with the restorations, though, since while we can be fairly sure most of the are based on what is now Eiectus (the Harvard specimen), some of them show Kronosaurus attacking Woolungasaurus, a plesiosaur which appears to not be known from the Toolebuc Formation, where the K. queenslandicus holotype is from, but from the Wallumbilla Formation, where Eiectus is from. And then there are also a bunch of other restorations that have never been reviewed, so here are they all below for consideration. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Somebody needs to halt the preprint just to point out this pliosaur needs a better genus name. It's like renaming Tyrannosaurus to Manospondylus. Maybe I might send an email protesting the authors to change the genus name while its still possible. Macrophyseter | talk 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    So the authors actually responded to me and they share the same sentiment. Apparently they wanted to name the new taxon Mbarasaurus after the Mbara people (which I personally think is an awesome name) but an anonymous reviewer blocked its usage and insisted that Eiectus be used instead. Also, there's been some uproar in the paleo community recently and its possible that people are going to push for the ICZN to resurrect Kronosaurus and erect a neotype. Macrophyseter | talk 23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Wow, that sounds really bizarre, let's hope that name gets, err, ejected! FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hmm, that's interesting, I'm surprised that a reviewer would be that particular about a name. One thing that might be worth noting is that the Ghost Ranch Coelophysis got renamed Rioarribasaurus before the name Coelophysis was transferred to the Ghost Ranch specimens, so there's still some hope for Kronosaurus. Also, I don't have access to the paper, but doesn't Eiectus mean rejected? If so, it's been rather prophetic... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  
    1: I assume this one is based on Eiectus, Slate Weasel? Should be stated in the Commons description then.
  •  
    2: Likely based on Eiectus, but nothing to identify it
  •  
    3: This one is probably generic enough to be used for K. queenslandicus
  •  
    4: The Harvard specimen is even shown in the background...
  • 5: This experimental model is supposedly called "Ava"[1], and probably of better use in the general pliosaur article
  •  
    6: No identity for the plesiosauroid, so it could be anything
  •  
    7: Shows Woolungasaurus from the Wallumbilla Formation, where Eiectus is from
  •  
    8: Also shows Woolungasaurus
  •  
    9: It would appear the Tuarangisaurus is actually Eromangasaurus, whose type species was formerly in Tuarangisaurus, and also form the Toolebuc Formation like K. queenslandicus
  •  
    10: Monquirasaurus
Worth it to note most if not all of these illustrations don’t match up what we know of Kronosaurus/Eiectus skull and known/inferred proportions and/or general plesiosaur anatomy. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also the purpose of this section, identifying issues with individual images so they can eventually be corrected for use. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the description on my life restoration (yet another good idea to list references in the image description), is there anything that needs to be changed about it's proportions? (The stinkin' paper's closed access, so I'm not sure what, if any, changes it makes to Eiectus proportions.) I must say that I don't find the lips on NT's Kronosaurus very convincing−Kronosaurus-type pliosaurids seem to have rather large posterior teeth. The big, croc-like scales on "Ava" are not very characteristic of plesiosaurs at all. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel, your depiction is probably the best of all of them, however the animal’s flippers are broken. Following Liu et al. (2015), plesiosaurs did not have the range of motion to extend their flippers as vertically as shown in the hindflipper of your illustration, or as straight down as in the foreflipper. Also I agree that lips on plesiosaurs seem unlikely, especially with the kind of foramina and interlocking teeth they seem to have. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Good to know, I've found the paper and I'll look into reposing the limbs sometime this week. My restoration does look like it needs a touch-up anyways. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Any corrections to the other restorations? Also, seems like there is a lot of backlash to the new name for the Harvard taxon, and people want a neotype instead... FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Here are the problems I can see with the images shown above (numbers correspond to image placement):
  1. Limb posture potentially problematic (I've updated it since the original remarks, but I'd like confirmation that this position is okay)
  2. Rear part of the skull probably too flat (pliosaurid skulls have a tendency to collapse/implode during fossilization), missing a caudal fin. Also, I think the teeth are too small.
  3. Rostrum poorly defined, lips highly unlikely, seems to have an overbite for the entire length of the jaws (Kronosaurus and its closest relatives seem to have an underbite mid-length), tail too thin and missing a caudal fin, paddles lack trailing edges, green coloration probably unlikely
  4. Missing a caudal fin
  5. Missing a caudal fin, seems to have lips, tooth pattern looks wrong, huge croc-scales don't match known plesiosaur skin (also, for what it's worth, McMenamin is the Triassic Kraken guy...)
  6. Both plesiosaurs missing caudal fins, tail of the elasmosaurid way too narrow, the elasmosaurid also has too thin a neck, which should flow smoothly into the trunk
  7. This one looks pretty good to me, the the tail fins and trailing edges could be better developed
  8. All plesiosaurs missing caudal fins, the skull of the pliosaurid lacks a rostrum, has an overbite for the entire jaw length and lips, tooth pattern doesn't match fossils (also, near-uniform bright green hardly seems probable for a pelagic megapredator)
  9. The elasmosaurid is missing a caudal fin and trailing edges on the paddles, and the skull doesn't attach very smoothly to the neck here
  10. Paddles lack trailing edges
These are the issues I noticed immediately, there may be more egregious issues that could be found by cross-checking proportions with the known material. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
To add on, all but the first and second-to-last illustration lack the correct tooth arrangment known in Kronosaurus. The elasmosaur depicted in the second-to-last piece has a head shape and tooth arrangement not consistent with our knowledge of Australian elasmosaurids and elasmosaurids as a whole. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Are there any of these images that are closest to the mark so they could be fixed relatively painlessly? Because I think it will be too much effort to fix them all with that amount of inaccuracies. The last elasmosaur there seems to be based on a weird foam-like reconstruction of Tuarangisaurus cabazai, presumably because the type species of Eromangasaurus (which lived alongside Kronosaurus) was once classified in that genus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that the seventh would probably take the least modification (some of the teeth are hidden, which I'd assume would make editing a bit easier). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've updated my Kronosaurus (or perhaps Eiectus), and just in time for Kristmas, it seems (apologies for the terrible pun). It turns out that my style has improved (which is a bit of a relief because during the time I went on hiatus, I produced basically no digital art whatsoever), so I also made the animal look a bit more natural and smooth. I'm not totally convinced I did a great job with the perspective on the back flipper, does it look okay? And does this limb posture look better, Fishboy86164577? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    On this note, I want to update some of these images, but I'm unsure how much these "trailing edges" should expand the flippers, any hints? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    Since Mauriciosaurus is the only plesiosaur that preserves them (as far as I know), I'd recommend following it: [13] --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Welcome back! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks! I'll probably only be here for five days or so, but I will hopefully return for longer in May! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Here's an attempt[14] at giving the Monquirasaurus trailing edges (as well as smaller eyes and less apparent temporal fenestrae), any thoughts, Slate Weasel? FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Looks pretty good, I think! Monquirasaurus has pretty skinny flippers compared to other plesiosaurs, so the trailing edges probably don't have to be super extensive. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Cool, then I think I can fix most of DBogdanov's images using that one as a model. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Added larger trailing edges and flukes to 7. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Looks good, the dentition probably still needs modification, as mentioned above by Fishboy. McHenry's thesis ([15]) should be a pretty good reference for the tooth arrangement (pgs. 292-294 of the PDF; 272-274 as numbered), and the task is made simpler by the unfortunate elasmosaurid in its mouth. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'll take a look, will at least be easier than number 2... Too bad we can't just hide their teeth with lips hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Attempted to improve the teeth on 7. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Mirarce by Nobu Tamura

 
Mirarce of doom

I brought this up a while ago, but nothing was done about it: this scale diagram depicts Mirarce as at least three times larger than it actually was. The measurements in Atterholt et al. indicate that the tarsometatarsus was only 4.8 centimetres (1.9 in) long, but this depicts the tarsometatarsus as nearly as long as the scale human's foot. I have tagged it as inaccurate, and I am bringing it up here in case anyone wants to modify it. Also, enantiornitheans generally didn't have tail fans like those of modern birds, so I think that's probably inaccurate as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the best solution is just to remove the human. Could be done with the tail feathers too. I'll do it if others agree. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I just went ahead and did the above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it is good to delete human scale from other images with inaccurate size comparations that I have posted in review. Do you have any opinions about them? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  
    Koolasuchus, compared with skeleton head is too large (estimated head length is 65 cm but scaling shows around 1 m).
  •  
    Kairuku, while height of K. grebneffi is 130 cm, it looks too large.
  •  
    Theosodon, while skull is 32 cm long, but this size looks like similar to Macrauchenia.
Yeah, in general I think it's redundant to have both life restorations with size comparisons and comparisons where the animal is a silhouette. So at least in cases where the former is inaccurate and we have more accurate silhouette diagrams, the humans should just be removed. I can do it for these if others agree. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
So I made a size comparison chart of Kairuku and Koolasuchus[16]. However, regarding for Kairuku, I highly based on the skeletal reconstruction of Giovandaridi et al. (2021) [17], so I am worried that there can be copyright problem and I haven't uploaded that yet... (The figure itself is not used) For Koolasuchus, fleshed out based on skeletal reconstuction of Siderops in Warren et al. (1983) [18] with reference to File: Siderops2DB.png[19]. Then, adujusted ratio based on the reconstruction of jaw of Koolasuchus in Warren et al. (1991)[20]. I'm not used to uploading images like this, so I'd appreciate it if you could decide me to upload. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I can see what you mean with the copyright issue, I think it could be saved if you just change the silhouettes a bit more from the original. Usually it's better to just redraw the silhouettes oneself, then there is a natural variation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I used Paint.net and border the figure of the original paper by myself (using curve lines), simplifying complicated parts such as the tail, and slightly changing the posture for height measurement. Is that can be said as changes? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as it doesn't look like a direct trace, I think it should be ok. I removed the human from the Theosodon, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should I remove the humans from the rest? FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed them, seems there was agreement on it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Tanystropheus skeletal worthy of being un-inaccurate tagged

 

In what might be a first for this process, I feel that it is necessary to un-tag this skeletal reconstruction as inaccurate. Based on my understanding of Tanystropheus anatomy, this appears to be a very good skeletal in basically every respect, it's just labelled with outdated information in the description. The description labels it as T. longobardicus, based on a widespread but recently-debunked interpretation suggesting that the small and large Monte San Giorgio morphotypes are ontogenetic morphs of the same species. The larger morphotypes have been established as a new species, T. hydroides, based on a weird digitally reconstructed skull and histology/ontogeny data. So the skeletal is kind of a hybrid between the two species, which shouldn't be a problem since they're basically identical beyond their size and skull anatomy. It's a great skeletal for T. longobardicus except for the scale bar being labelled as 1 m in the description, and it's great for T. hydroides except for the skull, which has a shape based on smaller specimens. I think it would be wasteful not to incorporate it into the Tanystropheus article (labelled as T. longobardicus), as long as we don't bring attention to the scale given in the description. Alternatively we can crop out the scale bar and/or rewrite the description, but I always feel iffy about doing the latter even when it's obviously incorrect. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't we just modify the scale bar? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah actually I tagged this. I thought it is almost chimera of T. hydroides and T. longobardicus, but it is just my judge so ok to remove. I should have reviewed this before I tagged, sorry... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem, technically you were right about it being a chimaera (T. hydroides scaling and T. longobardicus head), but if you have no problem with the tag being removed we can go forward. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
So should the scale bar be removed, or? FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the scale bar, it can be removed and the caption changed if that's fine. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Euthecodon species

Reconstructions of the three Euthecodon species. Scalebar: 20cm, sources listed in the image description. The dotted line represents tentative sutures based on E. brumpti and grey areas indicate depth and the underline the position of the body outgrowths. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Capromeryx restoration by Woodtux

 
Capromeryx minor life restoration by Woodtux

Added by @Woodtux: to the article Capromeryx without review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The eye looks way too large. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Shrank the eye a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonacynodon ears

  •  
    With pinnae
  •  
    Without
  •  
    With pinnae
  •  
    Without

At Trilletrollet's Bonacynodon peer review[21], I brought up whether the animal would have pinnae or not, as depicted in the PLOS paper's restoration, and the image was subsequently removed. But I think the image could be used, even if we might have to remove the visible ear. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Other than the pinna, which I agree is likely to be inaccurate and should be removed, I have no objection to using this image. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I've now added an earless version above (we once decided only to modify journal restorations as new versions), and will add it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I guess it's the same issue with this[22] restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Went ahead and did it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Mawsonia

  •  
  •  
    Skeletal mount of A. lavocati

At the moment, I feel that there is a problem with reconstructions of Mawsonia. This reconstruction is based on a skeletal reconstruction of "Mawsonia lavocati" in Japanese museums. According to a pdf released from Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History & Human History,[23] this is based on modern coelacanth and complete specimen of M. brasiliensis.[24] But problem is M. lavocati is later described as Axelrodichthys, at least some of that is belonging to Axelrodichthys.[25] Mawsonia itself should be reconstructed from Axelrodichthys too, but current reconstruction looks like chimera between Axelrodichthys and modern coelacanth (for example large-sized second dorsal fin). This recent paper[26] reconstructs Mawsonia and Trachymetopon based on Axelrodichthys as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

These two images [27] [28] seem serviceable if one can extract the Mawsonia from them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, both Axelrodichthys and Onchopristis in the first image is most accurate in commons I think, that Axelrodichthys can be used for size comparation chart for Mawsonia and Trachymetopon. Still for Onchopristis good to wait decision by @Carnoferox:. Not sure about second image, aside from inaccurate Onchopristis, isn't that Mawsonia not based on anatomy of Axelrodichthys? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The Onchopristis in the first image is the best on Commons and isn't terrible by any means, but I do have problems with it. The overall proportions aren't quite right (as it was made before my full reconstruction), the body is too deep, the caudal fin is too prominent, it lacks enlarged dermal denticles, and the rostral denticles aren't rendered very well. I think we'd be better off waiting for new artwork instead of putting this one on the page. Carnoferox (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. @Gasmasque:, I think you are good at both coelacanth and cartilaginous fishes? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd be glad to give Onchopristis a shot, and I can try to do a new Mawsonia as well. I'm a little less confident in my Sarcopterygian reconstructions, though. Gasmasque (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the first Mawsonia isn't even identified to species (the description just says "Mawsonia, giant coelocanth from the Cretaceous period (Albian and Cenomanian stages) of South America and North Africa"), could we conceivably pass it off as M. brasiliensis, if that's what it's based on? Or am I missing something? Is there any other species that would look like this restoration? Or is it incorrect in any case due to the modern coelacanth elements? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Herrerasauridae size chart

 

I made this size diagram of Herrerasauridae. Do you approve? By the way, I can't delete my old size diagrams, does anyone know how? Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gallimimus wikipedista., the legs of all of the taxa seem to be somewhat hyperextended, so it would be beneficial to flex them a little more. The animals also seem a little off-balanced, partially as a result of the hyperextended legs.
I believe the only way to have your older diagrams removed is to nominate them for deletion. You can find out how to do that here. Hope this helps. SlvrHwk (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Kiangyousteus yohii

I just made this speclative illustration of Kiangyousteus, partially based the skeletal reconstruction in Figure 2 of Zhu and Zhu (2013) ( https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12089) and on the more realistic direction several palaeoartists have recently taken to its much larger relative Dunkleosteus. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. DJK (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 
Illustration of the placoderm Kiangyousteus yohii, face based on the speculative reconstruction in Zhu and Zhu (2013)
It is kind of "shrinkwrapped" reconstruction I think. Tail fin should be taller, like sharks. It may be better to place dorsal fin more back. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What Morganucodon species?

 

So I have this pet peeve about too many illustrations of the same taxa, and I'd like us to have illustrations of as many different species as possible instead of multiple of the same ones. Since I did my old Morganucodon watsoni restoration, Nobu Tamura uploaded one[29] of the same species. Since I didn't really take a particular species into account when I drew it, but just slapped the most well-known species name on it, I wonder if I should just rename it into one of the four other species for the sake of diversity. Any suggestions for which one it would match the best? And on a different note, I've modified the restoration dramatically since the reviewed version[30] to make it more shrew-like and give it a spur, and while it is obviously better, it was never really reviewed in this form, except for when the pinnae were removed... So any thoughts on it in general? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think your restoration is much better than Nobu's. There's not really any issue with having two restorations of the same species. As far as I am aware, only the Chinese M. oehleri is known from as comparably good material as the type British species, but I couldn't name the differences between the two species offhand if I am honest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah yeah, after looking at some old papers describing the skull material, it appears only M. oehleri is known from a cranium, while the other species, including M. watsoni, are only known from jaws and teeth. So it appears all skull reconstructions of the genus are de facto based on M. oehleri, and my restoration by extension, and it makes sense to rename it to that, as the head seems to match M. oehleri skull reconstructions pretty well. I agree, it's fine to have multiple restorations of the same taxon, especially if they have some sort of difference in posture or whatever, but if there's a possibility for more diversity, like here, I think it's good to use it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Onchopristis numida/numidus restoration

 
Onchopristis numida

A skate-like Onchopristis restoration I've done to replace the sawfish-like ones used on the site. The coloration is based on a number of living skates, and the arrangement of the thorny denticles along the back is based on that suggested by Carnoferox. Gasmasque (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have already reviewed this reconstruction and I think it is ready to be put on the page. Are there concerns or objections from anyone else? Carnoferox (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, what the heck kind of creature decided, "I'm going to evolve teeth on my back.? (joking) SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Perspective throwing me off a little. Would the right eye not be visible from this angle? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be visible from this angle. Compare it with these photos of a thorny skate from similar angles.[31] Carnoferox (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ophiacodon retroversus

Model of Ophiacodon retroversus from Early Permian of Texas and Oklahoma is ready! It's based on skeletals and description by Romer & Price (1940) [Review of the Pelycosauria]. We already have two reconstructions of O. mirus in the article, but this is the first O. retroversus (Nobu Tamura's old restoration of O. retroversus looks at least too lizard-like). (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov). HFoxii (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanatosdrakon

 

Here's a quick life reconstruction I made of Thanatosdrakon, using more quetzalcoatline traits than the papers skeletal, is this good for the article? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good.--MWAK (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, not so fond of the signature covering the animal, is that necessary? Makes it a bit more like a watermark, which is discouraged here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the signature could be moved to the bottom right? -- TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I entirely forgot to shrink the signature and move it to the feet! Fixed now. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Monkeydactyls" Kunpengopterus

This image added to the page without review. The user who draw that art and added to the page only worked for that, nothing to do other work at all. Is this reconstruction accurate or not? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It has a crest, which is an improvement over out other restoration. But the jaws seem a bit robust? FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the entire animal looks a bit robust. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hanosaurus

 

Dropped by the page today and was met by this fairly garish image. The mixture of spindly flippers/feet don't track with pretty much any basal eosauropterygian, and certainly not with a new specimen described in a preprint: [32] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the background to white so it doesn't burn anyone's eyes when they look at it. Seriously, who thought that bright yellow was a good idea? Carnoferox (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Oddly enough there is a white version already! File:Hanosaurus2.jpg. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Kayentachelys by Nobu Tamura

Is the scute pattern on the shell correct? diagram of the dorsal scute pattern for comparison. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That's definitely not correct. It may be a good idea to review some more turtle restorations so that their scute patterns are properly represented and not just traced over the inner bony plates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Conty~enwiki:'s Proterochersis also seems to have the same issues, the supramarginal scutes shown in the linked figure aren't present and the rest of the scute morphology is also wrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Also Mr Fink's (@Apokryltaros:) Proganochelys also appears to have some inaccuracies do to with the shape of the vertebral scutes (which are also figured on the linked diagram), though the art style makes these difficult to discern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to work revising the scutes for my restoration of Proganochelys.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I am a bit late to this. Is the shell of my Proterochersis inaccurate? I based it on the shell restoration from the paper "Shell variability in the stem turtles Proterochersis spp." (compare this to my restoration when it was on the sketch stage), in which supramarginal scutes are present. If there is any problem with my restoration, I would rather say that they are with the small scutes around the neck (I had some difficultiy to get the axillaries scute right...). (Conty~enwik) 05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading pterosaur wing diagram

 

I think it's about time we retire this diagram of pterosaur wings. The extremely rounded shape of the wingtips, almost semi-circular, is not accurate to the known shapes of any pterosaur wing and I find it to be rather misleading on what is actually meant by rounded wingtips[33] (an example of which would be what is shown on the Zittel Rhamphorhynchus wing[34]). The phalanges in the distal wing are overly flexed in this diagram, and the trailing edge extends too far back from the tip of the wing finger based on well preserved pterosaur wings. 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever reviewed either, just added. Don't think we have an adequate replacement either? This one could of course be modified in Photoshop... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a great diagram, I agree, and the medium is also a little suspect... Tagging. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The 'narrow chord' structure of the wings is disturbingly reminiscent of David Peters' work as well.[35] Carnoferox (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if were to make a replacement image for that section of the article, what would everyone want to see included? Just a labelled life reconstruction like the previous one? Skeletal elements? Actinofibrils? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 00:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be partial to ventral view, life reconstruction + skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Gemuendia stuertzi

 

Hey, I’ve been contributing to Wikipedia and adding some of my paleoart, is it okay if I could add this restoration?

Gemuendina is actual genus name. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I feel it is problematic that adding categories of "lobopodia" and "Humorous paleoart" in your work of completely fictional species. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In fact I would recommend not adding your own fictional species in the first place, they belong on other websites (deviantart, spec evo forums, etc.) instead. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Isn't this Gregorivermis image technically a copyvio from Diary of a Wimpy Kid ?Larrayal (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Odontogriphus

 

Hi, I drew a reconstruction of Odontogriphus, is it correct?, the references are the supplementary files of this publication.--Qohelet12 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the animal should be more flattened, with the mantle clearly covering the ctenidia/gills, while the sole/foot would be the part more clearly involved in moving and interacting with the substrate. Additionally, the radula would be mostly hidden by a small circular mouth, like modern molluscs, and the paired salivary glands on either side of the head would hardly be visible inside the mantle. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to fix it Qohelet12 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. If possible, the only thing I'd change would be to shrink the sole somewhat. The total width of the sole should be about equal to the total width of the mantle, from a ventral perspective (see diagrammatic reconstruction on Odontogriphus, comparing how far out the gills are on your reconstruction vs in the fossils and the diagram). PaleoEquii (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Qohelet12 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wufengshania

 

Reconstruction by @Entelognathus:.Yes, I do not deny that it may have looked like that. However, the problem is that when I look at this reconstruction, it's hard to know what group this belongs. This is a placoderm closely related to Bothriolepis. I know that soft tissue like ceratotrichia or skin on osteoderms may not preserved in fossils of Bothriolepis, but you may need to compose it to make it look more like Bothriolepis. For example, how about to add other one with more dorsal view? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought the picture was of a close relative to the goldfish at first glance... SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ichthyosaurs

I had previously assumed that my uncolored restorations weren't useful until colored, but my Cymbospondylus was nevertheless added to the article, so I've decided to contribute a few more such life restorations. Despite being known from virtually complete skeletons, none of these ichthyosaurs have any life restorations on Commons, so I decided that these would be particularly useful (I'm currently working on Aegirosaurus, not sure if I'll finish it anytime soon...). I just now realize that I never shaded the eye of Suevoleviathan, so I'll probably do that once the next version gets uploaded. Any comments on these four? I'd especially appreciate feedback on the Leptonectes, as I'll probably do another restoration featuring it eventually. I'll also see if I can find time to color my Cymbospondylus and recolor my Mixosaurus this week. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oops that Cymbospondylus being added might have been my fault. A colored version would have been neat of course, but even in black and white it's a great reconstruction and easily the best representation of the animal on Wikimedia. So I think that they are valuable additions regardless of lacking coloration. Armin Reindl (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I'm glad you like it! It is good to know that the uncolored versions are valuable, especially given that my current method of colorizing images makes them pretty difficult to edit afterwards. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Can’t comment on Leptonectes as I don’t know enough about it, but the others look pretty good. Looking at preserved skulls of Guizhouichthyosaurus it should have a larger eye than what’s depicted though. I’d also bulk up the fluke, ichthyosaur fossils preserving soft tissue from that region show a ton of extra surface area created by soft tissue. I’d also bulk up the tissue on the lower jaw of all these ichthyosaurs, you have the issue essentially wrapping the bone with no added muscles underneath. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the Guizhouichthyosaurus, does this look better? I've tried making the head more in line with what's seen in modern dolphins. This probably also needs fixing in my Mixosaurus and Cymbospondylus. I'll try to update these tomorrow, if not, I'll probably get the corrections done in May. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a colored version of my Guizhouichthyosaurus (the lower jaw's also been made more confluent with the body for Leptonectes and Hauffiopteryx). Comments? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    This might be due to shading, but should the tail look more laterally compressed? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be to the degree seen in parvipelvians, but yeah, I think you're right (the fluid mechanics paper's models would at least seem to suggest this). I've made some attempts to modify the shading, although the dodge/burn tool seems to have desaturated the coloring. Does this look better now? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, that looks better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_18&oldid=1152104962"