This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
It seems that the old restoration from back when it was a Lambeosaurus species needs modification. The crest should probably be more Velafrons/Hypacrosaurus-like, and the spines of the caudal vertebrae are way too short. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm quite overwhelmed by the recent input by yourself and Rnnsh! This will be very useful for the articles of the wikis of the other languages! I see that you have already adapted the picture. I agree that a "basal lambeosaurine" skull crest would have been more rounded and that this can be justified as the null hypothesis — even though it is quite plausible that Magnapaulia had some apomorphic crest of its own. That the back crest was much higher than originally depicted, is certain. There are still three mistakes apparent to me. The snout now shows some sudden indentation on the upper beak rim, while the praemaxilla as preserved is much more gradually curved. The ischium protrudes not far enough to the back: with Magnapaulia this was a very long element and its tip should end behind the level of the foot of a hindlimb in the degree of retraction shown (just as depicted by the 2012 study diagram) and not in front of it. The top of the shoulder-blade is shown as an outline below the flesh but is much too low: the preserved scapula lacks the upper end.--MWAK (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed a fourth imperfection: the tail base behind the ischium end is not deep enough. The critter was called laticaudus for a reason ;o).--MWAK (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, how does it look now? FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow again! It always amazes me how you manage to change these images so naturally without leaving a trace of your intervention ~:o).--MWAK (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, all hail Photoshop! FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
