Here's something I threw together. [1], any thoughts? Based on the fossils, modern restorations, and modern species. Could be coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the limbs are are quite robust compared to living species, but Hume restores them even more so in one of his images. As for webbing, Dubois considered them land birds, and their habitat was forests, there is some discussion of this in the article. Modern restorations show the toes unwebbed, and I believe that is the reason. I await your reply on those issues, but I will fix the knees. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the legs now?[2] It is standing, not walking, so the bend isn't as evident as in those photos, but it should be clear that the ankle is directed backwards, and that the lower leg continues forwards, in a bend. As for leg robustness, you should remember the turkey comparison, which we have discussed at length, I guess it must be an indication of the thickness. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix those issues, and if you look at the image there, I've shortened the legs below the ankle (not the knee, but I'm sure you are aware). As for leg morphology, not much is known, and modern restorations vary a lot. Hume restores the legs very short and thick, whereas a restoration from Probst & Brial 2002 shows the legs very slender. Here is a list of the known elements from a 1999 paper:
MATERIAL.—Grotte des Premiers Francais: r. d. j . tarsometatarsus,
1993-37.
Grotte de l'Autel: r. coracoid, 330510; 1. p. coracoid,
330527; r. carpometacarpus 330511; r. d. j . tibiotarsus, 330513;
r. j . tarsometatarsus, 330512; r. d. j . tarsometatarsus, 330514;
metatarsal I, 330536; j . pedal phalanx 1 of digit I, 330530; j .
pedal phalanx 1 of digit II, 330529; j . pedal phalanx 1 of digit
III, 330532; j . pedal phalanx 2 of digit III, 330533; j . pedal phalanx
1 of digit IV, 330535.
Marais de l'Ermitage: Anterior part of mandible, 1872; 1.
quadrate, 1913; sacrum, 1918; fragment of pelvis, r. side, 1912;
1. scapula, 1909; 1. p. humerus, 1908; r. p. ulna, 1806; ulna, s.,
1910; p. radius, 1871; 3 d. radii, 1808, 1875, 1911; r. carpometacarpus,
1809; 3 r. d. tibiotarsi, 1804, 1805, 1807; 1. tibiotarsus,
1867; 1. d. tibiotarsus, 1868; r. and 1. tarsometatarsi,
same individual, 1801, 1803; r. j . tarsometatarsus, 1870; 1. tarsometatarsus,
1802; 1. j . tarsometatarsus, 1869; 2 pedal phalanges
1 of digit II, 1873, 1874. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is, nothing of the leg is known above the feet, so there's not much we can do, other than basing it on previous reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better with some trouser feathers. You have a look at some more ibis trouser feathers on Commons and see what you think. Cockatoos have flat (not fluffy) feathers surrounding the upper legs. In cockatoos it looks to me like the trouser feathers keep the legs warm. In the last image, I think that the centre of gravity is above the front of the foot, so it looks balanced. I would guess that the bird was not very heavy, if it could fly a little, so would it need very study legs? Would a bustard be equivalent? File:Kori_Bustard_SMTC.jpg. I am trying to think of birds that are equivalent. I do not know enough about it. I am only guessing. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with the turkey comparison then? Would imply legs that are more robust than those of an ibis, no? Julian Hume's version has very short, thick legs:[6] I have no idea where he gets that red head from, though, not mentioned by any contemporaries. As for "my" image, I've now made the pants less fluffy, and more even, like the Australian congener. The legs are a bit more slender also. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is known about the feather covering on the head and neck and any bare skin? The Madagascar Ibis has red skin on its face, but that is the Lophotibis genus. Has anyone suggested that the Reunion Ibis was in the Lophotibis genus? I guess bear skin on the Reunion Ibis would have been black, going on extant species of its genus, but I do not know how extensive the bare skin would have been. Was the bear skin confined to a small rim of bear skin around the eyes or was it a large area? Snowman (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only affiliations that have been proposed are mentioned in the article, Threskiornis and (formerly) Geronticus. No modern restorations give it an entirely naked head, probably because no old accounts mentioned this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you would need to think about a 17th century turkey, because subsequent domestication is likely to have modified the turkey a lot. It might be best to consider wild turkeys or old illustrations of turkeys. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think domesticated turkeys are that different from wild ones. See this article[7]. There is a difference between the two turkey species, of course, but it is the North American one that is mentioned, I imagine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new illustration looks a lot better with some trouser feathers. If it helps, the "trouser" feathers on a cockatoo are not fluffy. Think of little feathers, which are as well formed as wing feathers, that are closely applied to the top of the legs. Also, on a cockatoo, some of the trouser feathers grow out of the top of the leg and surround the top of the leg and are directed downwards to look closely applied to the legs. From a distance the "trousers" can look almost seamless. I do not know where the trouser feather grow from in an ibis; however looking at this image again File:Black-headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus) W IMG 1431.jpg, I would be surprised if there were no feathers growing from the top of its legs. In summary, I guess there is no anatomical reason why you should not extend the trouser feathers downward a little, so that they are a bit longer without being particularly fluffy. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources specifically state its habitat was not wetlands, so it is atypical for an ibis in that way. And even regular ibises, that do live inwetlands, do not have feathers that extend far down the legs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mention wetlands. I said "walked over wet vegetation". Vegetation becomes wet when it rains. It rains a lot of Reunion. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think its safe to say that a bird that lived in mountainous forests on Réunion had less contact with water than birds that habitually live in low wetlands (like regular ibises do), regardless of how much it rained. And my point was, that not even the latter have much feathering on the lower legs, though they should have, following that logic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of such, at least. It seems kind of illogical to keep rain away from the top of the legs only. And rain doesn't seem to have much evolutionary pressure, being irregular and non-lethal most of the time. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your reply would tend to show that you have missed the point. I think that the key feature of the trouser feathers is that they prevent water going upwards between the leg and the body feathers. Getting water between main body feathers would be much more serious, than getting legs wet. This would be bad for feathers and would lead to a lot of heat loss and could be lethal on a cold night especially when food is in short supply. Body feathers are seamless with leg feathers giving the appearance of well-formed trousers and keep water and cold out. These are guesses. What else could they be for? Also, evolution is driven by overall average success as well and fatalities. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not "missed" the point, I'm just raising another point, which is that if relatives that actually live in wetlands don't have it, and if such a feature is also found in other birds where it is unrelated to rain, I don't see what it would have to do with rain in the first place. Especially since no published sources seem to propose rain has been an important factor in shaping the plumage of any bird that I know of. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had some time to take my bearings and focus on the issue. Please excuse my sloppy language earlier calling the visible joint a "knee". You might be correct that the trouser feathers have no or minimal effect on waterproofing and that the main drivers for their evolution may not have been anything to do with waterproofing. Similarly, aerodynamics may have no or minimal influence here, but I do not know. When I examined the well-formed trouser feathers on a cockatoo years ago, I assumed that they were for heat insulation. When I looked at the photographs of the ibis genus on Commons, I also thought that they would be mainly for heat insulation. Knowing the human anatomy for heat circulation in the limbs (which is not covered well on the Wiki), I thought that evolution would not miss an opportunity to use the heat-exchange capacity of the bear skin of the lower limbs of ibises for heat auto-regulation. I guess that the proximal parts of the lower limb would necessarily be warmer and would benefit most from the heat insulation of trouser feathers in a cold invironment. I guess that the trouser feathers would help to support a temperature gradient along the tibial portion of a bird's leg, and so assist heat auto-regulation, both in cooling the bird when hot and minimising heat loss when cold. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, that's where we need to look at close relatives for answers. No ibis has feathers extending that far down. Even what I've drawn is stretching it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have probably misunderstood something, because the tibial portion of a birds leg is above the tibio-tarsal articulation and all the extant ibises have trouser feathers on that part of the leg. See Bird anatomy. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Threskiornis aethiopicus
I think you're the one who is misunderstanding. As you can see on the image on the right, the feathers do not even reach the ankle/tibio-tarsal articulation. And the drawing has the "pants" even closer to this joint than the extant species. The tibiae are also drawn somewhat short, perhaps this is an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it rains a lot in Reunion, but I do not know how this would have affected the evolution of its feathers. I suspect that an element of waterproofing would be involved somewhere. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be safe grounds for illustrating it gliding down from where it could have climbed up to, perhaps from a rocky structure. It seems that a lot of wing sub-fossils are available. The illustration might be useful to show its wings. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn't enough wing material to show it properly, and we have no idea how the wing feathers looked like, so I think it would be too much guesswork. The current folded wings are much safer, when it comes to accuracy. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By complete chance, juvenile Malagasy Sacred Ibis specimens apparently do not have entirely naked heads, but feathers in almost the same arrangement as I've drawn: [8] It seems these feathers disappear with age. So perhaps this was a neotenic trait in the Réunion bird, since no sources mention naked heads. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is similar for the African Scared Ibis juveniles which have more feathers on the neck than the adults - there are some images of them on Commons. It did not know it applied to the Malagasy Sacred Ibis. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the illustration need the size of the bird included in the image description on Commons? Dubois said the ibis was a big as a big goose. How big is a big goose? Snowman (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one knows the exact size, since the fossils are so scrappy. I have seen no modern source that even attempts to make a size estimate, so I think it would be too speculative. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it written above in the examples that the representation of herbaceous plants with triassic / jurassic animals banned? ("Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.") These existed at least since the Devonian. And thousands of small palaeoroots of such herbaceous plants are to be found in a lot of continental jurassic sediments, for example. Igel 14 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say all herbaceous plants, just grasses (which first appeared at the very end of the Cretaceous). I don't know a ton about plants, but ferns were common during the Triassic/Jurassic and their root systems have probably been preserved in sediments. The same goes for other common Mesozoic plants like cycads and horsetails. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There where lots of small plants in the Mesozoic that would look like grass, without being grass. Examples include horsetails (field horsetails can be quite "grassy" to the degree that only the shade of green indicate it isn't "regular grass" to the casual observer), efedras (again only the colour looks off) and clubmosses, which at a distance can look quite grassy. Particularly small, herbaceous horsetails and efedras filled the ecological niche today occupied by grasses. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very "grassy" colours. The problem with the picture is that the vegetation seem a monoculture, which is what you find in some modern day grassy prairies. I am not a palaeobotanist, but I think the monospecies plains is a Neogene phenomenon. If the image is adjustable, I would fiddle with the colour a bit (darker green) and ad a bit of other obvious growth. If you look at the two plant pictures I linked to, you will see some examples of the "not quite grass" grass lookalikes. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, is a bit complicated, didn't look good. Who knows, maybe older grass will be discovered one day.Until then, it could be "proto-grass"... FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! In relation to Rutiodon, it appears the head and neck is a bit too big and long? And I'm not sure, but I don't think I've seen a crocodile with the tail bent that much so close to the base? Usually the "line" is smoother. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this?[16] I've straightened out and lengthened the tail a bit. My original reasoning behind the bendy tail was that phytosaurs seem to have thinner tails than crocodilians (see this paper describing the tail of Mystriosuchus), but they probably still had big caudofemoralis muscles like living crocodilians. The head and neck of Rutiodon are pretty big, about the same length as the trunk in some complete skeletons (see here and here), so I don't think I've drawn it too big. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paper says it was a herbivore. I think it would have had a somewhat larger belly to hold the guts necessary to digest plants. All herbivores, even skinny ones like antelopes, have roomy bellies. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bacground is nice! It has an awfully short body compared to a modern herbivorous reptile like an Iguana. I think the belly might have been even more pronounced, not necessarily bigger, but differently distributed. I may be off though, early archosauromorph were strange critters.Green iguana.Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I read more of the paper and it turns out the author says Pamelaria was probably not herbivorous but insectivorous based on its dentition (small pointed teeth in the jaws and on the palate). Do you think I should re-shrink the belly, or would the size shown now still be reasonable for an insectivore? Smokeybjb (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, sorry I did not catch the insectivorous bit. As an insectivore it has too big belly (the first version were better in that regard). I am a bit confused over the heavy legs. It must have been a very unusual insectivore. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FM. Also, the head does not seem to be at quite the same angle as the body, but it could be twisting it's neck a bit.
The pelage is a feature that need careful consideration. According to Kemp's The Origin and Evolution of Mammals (page 118), no animal south of Morganucodon had a lipid.secreting harderian gland, usually thought a pre-requite for a proper mammalian-style pelage. In the other hand, Brasilitherium was a very small animal and the closets known relative of mammals, so in my mind at least fur is not out of the question.
If it did have fur, then it would be one layer only (no wolly under-fur and covering guard-hairs) like on shrews and opossums. The fur would likely also be short like you have drawn, but lacking from tail too, in addition the feet and possibly the snout, this being a tropical critter from a fairly warm period. I like how you have indicated partially bare temples! With a lack of an Harderian gland, the fur would perhaps look unkempt and somewhat bristly. Like modern rodents and opossums the tail and feet would have been scaly in addition to having sparse hair. It think visible scales would look cool too, emphasising the transitional nature of the critter. It may have had copious whiskers, with sensory hairs on the shoulders, feet and other places. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On this note (and I don't mean to hijack this section or anythig), do you have any comments on this Morganucodon image[21] I updated a while back, Petter? I'm pretty sure it's an improvement over the first version I made, but maybe it is too modern mammal like too? FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I never knew about the Harderian glands! (Also thanks for the link, I could never get my hands on Kemp's book). As for the head, I intended it to be tilted a bit as if the animal were looking up or down at something. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! The scaling is really beautifully done! This is possibly one of the best and most believable depiction of a near-mammal synapsid I've seen! Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it best to make a new entry for FunkMunk's Morgie.
It is a very nice illustration. I think the fur looks good, and I like the small spur! The only thing I'm not too sure about is the shape of the snout. It seems a bit broad, almost rodent-like, and Morgie was by all accounts more shrew-like. Yet it was not a shrew (despite me putting in the Asian house shrew for comparison in the article). The best reconstruction I have found is a bronze-model from the Smithsonian. If you want to change anything about the critter, I would suggest trying to see if could prolong the soft part of the nose a bit, and perhaps make it hairless, like the shrew and many small marsupials.
I must say I am extremely thankful for guys like the two of you taking the time to make all these wonderful illustrations of obscure extinct animals! Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wiskers are good, the drawing (at least to me) seem to indicate the hairline of the fur stop right at the rhinarium. We do not really know where the critter had fur. Comparing to extant mammals of the same size, the feet would be hairless (even more than in your reconstruction), the tail would at best have very sparse hairs combined with rodent/oppossum-type of scales, and the snout would likely have very short hairs or more likely be completely naked as in the Asian house shrew or a moonrat (now there's a primitive looking critter!).
Of course, we can't be sure just how hairless the nose was, but hairlessness in the groups I mention is an aid in making the nose sensitive both to smell and touch. We know from some CT-scan work that the initial growth in the mammalian brain from the smallish reptilian size to the larger mammalian sizes started with the parts associated with smell. The rest of the brain followed later. We can thus fairly safely say that the nose were extremely important in early mammals. Being small insectivores, they likely used their nose much like small mammalian insectivores still do, nosing around in the undergrowth to find small prey. If so, a naked nose without either hair or scales seem a fair guess. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would external pinnae be present in Morganucodon and other early mammaliaforms? I think I read somewhere that pinnae are only useful for amplifying high-frequency sounds, but cynodonts/mammaliaforms weren't able to hear at high frequencies because their middle ear bones were still associated with supporting the jaw and therefore not very good at transmitting sounds. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, nonmammalian cynodonts had no use for pinnae; see my discussion here. Opinions differ on Morganucodon; perhaps it could hear over 10 kHz, which would be sufficient to give pinnae some use. Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), which certainly have pinnae, are limited to 10.5 kHz.
Honestly, I don't have any good answers for you. Shrews use high frequency sounds, yet they have very small pinnae. The otherwise very similar marsupial mice have large pinnae. Monitremes have next to nothing, then again they are all very specialised. The small ones you have given it looks OK to me, but you really the opinion of someone else here. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the hands, feet and tail less hairy, made the snout longer and narrower, and less hairy. Is it ok (may not show up yet because of the cache)? FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great improvement! The nose is perfect! I like the hint of scales on the tail, very neat! I would perhaps consider having the skin a tad lighter, to emphasize the hairless snout. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Echidnas? A pinna is only useful if it's near a tympanum, which would have to be mandibular prior to the migration of the articular/malleus into the cranium. Isn't the echidna's tympanum cranial? If so, it's a poor model for Morganucodon. Peter Brown (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, echidnas don't have pinnae, just long slits behind the eyes. If they are used as a model organism for Morganucodon, the latter should also be represented without pinnae. Peter Brown (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is your point? I presume that "this particular taxon" is Morganucodon, not the echidna family. But which of my claims do you regard as overly definitive? Peter Brown (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the feature is uncertain in Morganucodon, so therefore the condition in echidnas is not necessarily what determines how the restoration should be. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution could be to put some more fur there, obscuring the pinnae/ear slits. Smaller shrews mostly have their ears obscured by fur, there's no reason the same could not be the case in Morganucodon, particularly as it presumably was a burrowing animal. The hair would stop debris from clogging up the ears. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the ear is shown, it has to be in the jaw so as to be near the eardrum. Kemp (2007), Figure 3A on p. 436, shows the position of the eardrum in Chiniquodon, a Probainognathian like Morganucodon and, also like Morganucodon but unlike the echinas, antedating the migration of the angular and articular into the cranium. I suggest that this diagram, not information on echidnas, be used in placing Morganucodon's ear unless, as Petter suggests, the problem is avoided by hiding the ear. Peter Brown (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right about making the snout lighter, will also match the other naked areas better. I think I'll just shrink the ear a bit? Is in the right position? FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see figure 3.7? I couldn't figure how to make Google books open at the right page. I think the ear on your illustration may sit a bit high, and it may perhaps not have had such a pointy tip. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they? Those scales are a bit overdone I'd say. But the ear is interesting. I think the Thrinaxodon condition may be what we see in echidnas, in which case it may represent the primitive mammalian condition, and pinnae only evolving after the formation of the middle ear as Smokey suggested. I'm not sure though, echidnas are really strange. Perhaps the "C" figure could be something to go by? "D" is obviously full pinnae. I have tried to get my hands on the article th efigure is adapted from, but haven't had any luck so far. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An external ear (if any) has to be near an eardrum, which in turn needs to be associated with the reflected lamina of the angular bone, a jaw bone in Morganucodon. So, where was the angular in Morganucodon? I have mentioned that Kemp (2007), Figure 3A on p. 436, reconstructs the position of the eardrum in Chiniquodon, a Probainognathian like Morganucodon; it even tentatively identifies the ear canal. There are surely better sources, though, specific to Morganucodon. I'll be in a university library in a week or so and will see what I can find. Perhaps others with better access can do the literature research earlier? Peter Brown (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend Manley & Sienknecht (2013) to anyone interested in the evolution of ears. Those with appropriate access rights can read it here. These authors' view is that pinnae (external ears) did not develop until the Cretaceous, after the divergence of the monotremes from the therian lineage. Thus, pinnae were not secondarily lost in Monotremata; no monotreme ancestor had pinnae, and neither did Morganucodon. Peter Brown (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manley, G. A.; Sienknecht, U. J. (2013). "The evolution and development of middle ears in land vertebrates". In Puria, S.; Fay, R. R.; Popper, A. N. (eds.). The Middle Ear: Science, Otosurgery, and Technology. pp. 7–29. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6591-1_2. ISBN9781461465904. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Interesting. When I make this change (could Petter endorse?), it'll be the only earless depiction of Morganucodon I have ever seen. FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petter, if you think that Morganucodon should be represented with pinnae, that a pinna is compatible with an uncoiled cochlea, please take a look at the position of its ectotympanic in Figure 2.2a of the Manley & Sienknecht paper when thinking about where to put them. A pinna would have to be close to the tympanum, which would be adjacent to the ectotympanic. Peter Brown (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ FunkMonk: Petter seems to be on Wikibreak (no contributions for two weeks). Do you suggest looking elsewhere for a WP:Third Opinion or shall we wait? We do want someone with access to the Manley & Sienknecht paper. Peter Brown (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram to which I tried to direct Petter shows the ectotympanic beneath the center of the mandible, so that's where a tympanum would have to be, and any pinnae would need to be close by. An animal with pinnae under the chin would look rather odd, but that would be the logical place to put them if they're included at all. I prefer the view of Manley & Sienknecht, that pinnae didn't develop until the Cretaceous and were therefore absent in Morganucodon. Peter Brown (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska in In Pursuit of Early Mammals (Indiana University Press, 2013), p. 218. In her view, the spur was acquired after the Morganucodonta branched off but prior to the appearance of the Docodonta. Following her cladogram and using boldface for groups with the spur:
But how can such a hypothesis even be supported at this point? What's the evidence? See also: http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app51-001.html It simply says "Presence of the extratarsal spur in morganucodontans (Jenkins and Parring−ton 1976) has not been demonstrated as yet since the tarsals are incompletely known in this group." Seems a bit arbitrary to draw the line there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You introduced the spur into File:Morganucodon.jpg last July, thereby advancing the hypothesis that Morganucodon had such a spur. But how can such a hypothesis even be supported at this point? What's the evidence?
There's an important issue here as to how Wikipedia's emphasis on verifiability applies to paleontological reconstructions. Nothing in the standards at the head of this page prohibits introducing features for which there is no evidence for or against, even features that are obviously maladaptive. In a reconstruction depicted in an encyclopedia, though, the reader can be expected to think that there is evidence for any prominent feature shown. Putting an extratarsal spur on Morganucodon contravenes that expectation. Would it be proper to show an extratarsal spur in File:Probelesodon.jpg? No, because only the skull is known. Similar reasoning applies to Morganucodon.
I don't think those are comparable at all. Morganucodon is right outside the clade that you point to has been somewhat arbitrarily selected by one author as where spurs first appeared. That is pretty far from some random cynodont, I'd say. Furthermore, I just showed you a paper that does not rule moganucodonts out of having spurs at all, but if it hadn't been possible and somewhat likely, they would hardly had mentioned them. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I introduced Probelesodon only to make the point that the standards at the top of this page are inadequate. Surely you agree that extratarsal spurs in File:Probelesodon.jpg would be inappropriate, though nothing in the standards excludes them. How would you strengthen the standards to exclude this case? Perhaps you have another proposal, but the answer seems obvious to me: a prominent feature in the artistic reconstruction of an animal makes a claim that the animal had the feature in question and, just as Wikipedia policy requires that such a claim in the article text be verifiable, so a source must be available (though not necessarily provided) when the claim is made in paleoart.
If the standards are strengthened in the manner I propose, however, extratarsal spurs must not be depicted on Morganucodon until such time as the fossil record provides the relevant evidence. Currently, it does not.
If you have some other way of strengthening the standards, please explain. To me, there is very little difference between exhibiting a prominent feature in paleoart and claiming, in text, that the feature was present. The verification policy should apply in either case.
The choice of Docodonta as the most basal clade represented with the spur is not "arbitrary". A Castorocauda skeleton is available with the spur, and phylogenetic bracketing between Castorocauda and multituberculates like Catopsbaatar provides evidence that all other Docodonts had the spur as well. There is published evidence. Such evidence is entirely lacking in the case of the Morganucodonta.
Incidentally, File:Gobiconodon.jpg is defective in that the spur is not present.
As this discussion seems to be going nowhere in this forum, I am continuing the discussion at WP:OR/N.
Lol, why? I think you're taking this too far, and I don't really see any argument against the spur, just an arbitrary choice by the author, and your own persistence. I've showed you a paper with a different conclusion (which is that there is no evidence for either). This discussion is one sided and "going nowhere" because you ignore the paper I linked to. Take also the example of Appalachiosaurus. Its position makes it possible that it could have either two or three fingers on each hand. But because the forelimbs are unknown, the choice is arbitrary. It has been depicted in both ways by professionals. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the point, but where has Appalachiosaurus been recently reconstructed with three clawed fingers on each hand? I thought that it was now agreed that all tyrannosauroid theropods had two fingers. Peter Brown (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you got that idea, but plenty of basal tyrannosauroids had three digits, incl. Yutyrannus, Dilong, Dryptosaurus, and Eotyrannus. The number of digits in Appalachiosaurus is unknown. I believe it's phylogenetic position right now is close to the sister group of two-fingered tyrannosauroids, so whether it had two or three fingers is not knowable without further fossil finds or a refinement of its phylogenetic position. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly are areas in which an artist has to make an arbitrary choice: fur color, for example. In an encyclopedia, however, I feel strongly that prominent features like that spur should be included only when there is a reliable source that affirms their presence. The paper to which you linked, which I am not ignoring, provides no such affirmation. Peter Brown (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It provides no such information, but that is only because it can't, just like your paper, which I think oversteps what it should do: inference with no basis. The fossils and papers leave two possible choices, choosing one for this is not original research. As for tyrannosaur fingers, as I said, it is very relevant, Appalachiosaurus has recently been restored with both large three fingered hand,s as well as small, two fingered hands, again based on nothing but phylogenetics and lack of complete fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my comment on Appalalachiosaurus I noted that it was beside the point. Matt's rebuttal is quite sufficient; no corroboration is necessary.
Encyclopedias have a duty to be conservative, not associating major new structures with organisms unless there are reliable sources. A third finger on Appalalachiosaurus is not a major new structure; some basal tyrannosauroids had them and some didn't. The extratarsal spur is a major new structure and should be associated with an organisms like Castorocauda for which reliable sources are available and with others for which phylogenetic bracketing is available, not with any organism more basal. Peter Brown (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The third finger in tyrannosaurs is the exact same issue. They don't randomly appear or reappear, it has to do with phylogenetic placement. Basal tyrannosaurs have three, derived ones don't. But for taxa in between with no preserved hands, we have no way of knowing. Just like here. If there was an actual argument involved here, I could follow you, but you haven't presented one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modern reconstruction of Platecarpus tympaniticus showing crescent-shaped tail flukeResoration of P. saturator with bi-lobed tail
A 2010 paper indicated that mosasaurs had bilobed tail fins and rather rigid bodies[25], and the former point has now been confirmed by soft tissue.[26] This means that practically all our mosasaur restorations are now incorrect. So anyone up to fixing them with me? Our only accurate restoration can be found in the Platecarpus article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a modification I made of a PD image on Commons, does it look alright?[27] I've only made the outline, not made it match the texture yet, will do when the outline is approved. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some more, can be seen among my uploaded files. The rest are harder to fix, since they have other inaccuracies as well or have backgrounds. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that diagram is completely hypothetical, made before soft tissue was published. The only actual tail outline available shows asymmetrical lobes, with the lower one being larger. That of course doesn't rule out that there could had been more variation, there's just no evidence for it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pseudotribos BW.jpg exhibits external ears. The absence of these non-skeletal elements is implied by the fact that Pseudotribos is more closely related to extant monotremes, which do not have these structures, than to therian mammals, many of which do. Peter Brown (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made this image of Huilatherium[29], a leontiinid notoungulate, mostly based in the skeleton of Scarrittia and the skull of animal. I'm aware that this Wikipedia don't have an article of this genus, but I can translate from the Spanish version. Any thoughts? --Rextron (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find skeletal restorations of either to compare with, but I see you've made a skeletal yourself, based on the fossils, so I guess if those are accurate, this image will be too. And yup, feel free to create such missing articles! FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scarrittia, as far I known, is the only leontiinid with a complete skeleton. To compare with Huilatherium, here is a photo of the fossils [30] and a reconstrution made by Paula Couto [31].--Rextron (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another image of a mammal, this time the giant fossa, it has been made by a project in the Catalonian wikipedia, but here has been reverted. Could be used or it must be modified?--Rextron (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judged on the reason for removal, it wasn't removed for being specifically wrong: "revert image: sources for the art aren't clear, and this species was basically a larger version of its living relative, which is already depicted -- please discuss on talk page before adding again" I guess the rationale is that it is redundant, since it is so similar to the living species? I personally don't see why it hurts, though, the taxobox is empty anyway. Maybe it would be better with a clearer sense of scale, so it isn't just identifiable as that species (and not a normal fossa) by the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been implied by phylogeny for quit some time now that Avaceratops lacks a nose horn, and has a "swelling" there, like all other basal (= non-pachyrhinosaurin, non-centrosaurin) centrosaurines. According to this recent (but not formal) link, it seems like now it's actually based on known skeletal elements. Shouldn't we delete/modify its restorations? Rnnsh (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, are photos, but in fact is only a osteoderm, but in ventral and dorsal views. There are from this article: Busbey, A. (1986). New material of Sebecus cf. huilensis (Crocodylia: Sebecosuchidae) from the Miocene of La Venta Formation of Colombia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 61: 20-27.--Rextron (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The skull is based in the reconstruction by Ralph Molnar [34], but adding all the teeth; the proportions and the position of the bones are based in the Baurusuchus by Felipe Elias [35], and the bones of the tail and the ribs, although the tail is more horizontal; the form of the bones in the coracoid, limbs, neck, back and hips are from the new skeleton of Sebecus; the foot and hand bones are based in Baurusuchus and Stratiosuchus.--Rextron (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably way to late, but with the hindfoot up in the air, and one of the front feet poking below the one sitting flat to the imaginary surface, the whole skeleton looks out of balance. Could the most forward foot be raised a bit? Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://oi50.tinypic.com/2dgu6te.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://oi50.tinypic.com/2l9027p.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://oi50.tinypic.com/34ifjte.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://oi49.tinypic.com/6f039z.jpg){kind=link}
_W_IMG_1431.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://oi48.tinypic.com/xlcswj.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.extinct-website.com/extinct-website/images/T2.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://cdn2.arkive.org/media/E2/E2C0EB6F-0358-494D-B26B-11A69A68BE00/Presentation.Large/Madagascar-sacred-ibis-juvenile.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://oi40.tinypic.com/2q8273r.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/2znqs0z.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://oi40.tinypic.com/5dnnnl.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/wi27p5.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://oi42.tinypic.com/28kkgev.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Morganucodon.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/5w9jq1.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://www.dinoastur.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Montefeltro_etal2013_fig2.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://oi41.tinypic.com/nednyu.jpg){kind=link}
