This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Cool! By the way, I moved your Lesothosaurus thread to the bottom of thispage shortly after you started it, if you wonder where it went. That's where the new entries go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone :) long time no see you. so here is the point, i made a tyrannosaurus for a client and he wants to place the image in commons, so i figured i could as good place it here for review. let me know if you think it needs any change -LadyofHats (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a few of those points. The leg musculature is clearly based on humans rather than theropods. Bulging thigh, big calf muscles only on the posterior of the leg. Looks like a human runner, not a drumstick. I think the main issue they seem to have is stylistic. Subtle things like the pose, snake-eye, drool, etc. make it seem a bit cartoonish or monster-like rather than naturalistic. It's a bit like using this restoration for Tiger[3]MMartyniuk (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old restoration
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree it's that stylised, but I can see why it would be an issue. The only other full-body image we have that comes close to accurate seems to be the old one by Arthur Weasley, but it has other problems. The tail is way too thin, and the skull seems too small. The limbs seem a bit amorphous as well. But I guess it would be easier to modify and correct, so perhaps that's the way to go? The rest of the images in the category aren't too great: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:TyrannosaurusFunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Life restoration of Tyrannosaurus rex based on specimen AMNH 5027.
Here's another option, any noticeable issues? I tried to leave some portions of the belly and underside of the pelvis ambiguous as to degree of feathering, but since all we have is a playing-card-sized patch from near the leg, I don't think scales are really an issue. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, haha, that's extensive! I think it's alright, also because it is unclear where the feathers attach to, as they appear long. The image will probably "ruffle some feathers" when it goes up. I don't think I've seen a restoration of Tyrannosaurus with so long feathers before? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this might be one of the only 'serious' restorations like that, but they're really not that much different than Yutyrannus, which liven at a similar latitude at least in the northern parts of T. rex range, despite the baffling number of pictures showing Yutyrannus in an Arctic wasteland... I never understood the argument that we can't have feathers attach to known scaly parts. Based on modern animals we know a) integument falls off fast when submerged (see also Montauk Monster etc.) and b) birds with scaly feet can and do have feathers anchored between the scales, so there's nothing keeping feathers off of even scaly bits of dinosaurs. Feathers and scales are not mutually exclusive even on the same part of the body. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know its a bit late for any modifications, but shouldn't the plumage be a bit moore ratite-like in appearance? Tyranosaurus was extremely robust for even a tyranosaureen, leave far a primitive tyranosauroid like yutyranus. It was also much larger than yutyranus and its arms were smaller in proportion to its torso, further reduceing the ratio between its serfase area and body volume. Given all of this I'd be a lot more comfortable with a restoration with plumage more closely resembleing that of an ostrich or some other ratite, optimaly something like dinoguys giant dramiosaur restorations.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, now it kind of seems like the limbs that are further away are bigger? And that the right foot is closer than the left one. The thighs might be too thin. Compared to this skeletal[4], it seems the limbs might be too stout also, and the front legs too long. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, pretty much everything that could be inaccurate while leaving recognizably "sauropod"-like is incorrect (claw shape and number, tail posture, neck anatomy, head shape, etc.). Also, as FunkMonk noted, all these old restorations of "Giantosaurus" are in fact intended to depict the animal which was later re-named Tornieria ("Gigantosaurus" having been already used for a different animal without the German paleontologists' knowledge). So not only is it generally inaccurate for a sauropod, it's incredibly inaccurate for a diplodocid (and should not be used in any article on the actual genus Gigantosaurus). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of my participation in the en.wiki/pl.wiki interwiki infobox image project (see above), I found many images in use on pl.wiki that had been removed from the en.wiki articles years ago, with edit summaries describing the images' inaccuracy. The problem with this edit-summary removal approach, obviously, is that there is no record on the image pages themselves that the images are inappropriate for encyclopedic use, and they continue to be used on other projects or to be restored to articles on en.wiki that are less watched by dinosaur folks (list articles, articles about fossil deposits, etc.). Could people here make a concerted effort to leave notes on the Commons image pages when removing inaccurate images? I have generally used the fact disputed tag at commons to do this, but maybe there is a better option out there somewhere. I also note that few or none of the images in the category of obsolete dinosaur restorations have any notation on the image page/talk page (obviously image page is better so that it is obvious!), apart from the easy-to-miss category designation, that these representations are incorrect and should not be used. I think it would be a worthy project for the people here (who know more than I do!)_to label these images as obsolete/inaccurate and ensure that they are not used anywhere across the various projects. Thanks for your consideration! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps all the images in the inaccurate paleoart categories[5] should have that template too. And perhaps the rationale for why it is wrong should be written in the description, rather than the talk page, so that they are easier to see. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe somebody savvy with templates could rig one that automatically displays prominently on the image page when added to the inaccurate category? Or, conversely, some kind of template (like the various page cleanup flags) that automatically enroll the page in the category. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could code a cleanup template like that. Before I make it up, would we want a template with a parameter to determine which of the (I think four) separate inaccurate paleoart categories it goes into? Or would it make sense just to collapse them all down to one category? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be enough if they were all just flagged with "inaccurate paleoart" or something like that. And really cool if you could make that template! FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A template for inaccurate paleoart sounds like a great idea! I have some paleoart on Commons that I would call inaccurate, so a template like this would be good to put up until I update them. Maybe a parameter could be created for a brief statement of why the art is inaccurate, such as "pronated hands" or something like that. I think a distinction should be made between "obsolete" and "inaccurate" paleoart, since most inaccurate images are made by Wikipedia paleoartists, and can always be fixed. On the other hand, obsolete paleoart often can't be updated because the artist died many years ago, and it may have historical significance. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, but it's not being added automatically anywhere. I might be able to commandeer a bot to use it to replace the category designations on every image in the inaccurate paleoart category tree, but it's probably better to have a human review the image page/edit history/talk page and see if there's any indication as to why it's inaccurate, and then specify that in the template. (That's what i was doing as I went through adding them.) It does automatically generate the category though, so in the future there is no need to put the category in addition to this template. I'll edit the template to make the non-dino ones point to the other page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the last part you mention makes my above request redundant, if files tagged with your template are categorised automatically, and if the already categorised images are manually changed to the new format, the problem is solved. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Is there a way that one could click somewhere on the template to add a rationale, instead of being redirected to the talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the template so if a talk page exists, it refers you there. If a talk page does not exist, it just gives you a link to edit the image page itself. Do you like this better? Examples of the three behaviors: reason supplied, no reason supplied and no talk page, no reason supplied and yes talk page. The problem I see is that how to add the explanation is not self-evident, and the tag will continue to remind users to add a rationale if they add it elsewhere on the image page. Alternately, I could make it so if the talk page does not exist, users are asked to add a rationale to the talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the rationale field could be inherent in the template, so that it just has to be filled out (similar to how image fields in infoboxes don't show up if there are no images in them)? Don't know if that's possible. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "inherent in the template"... I could make it so there is no commentary whatsoever about an explanation if the reason= parameter is not filled out and the talk page doesn't exist. Is that what you mean? Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you could start with something like (I don't know how to make it show correctly here, so see the raw text): {{inaccurate paleoart|reason=|dinosaur=|skeleton=|historical=}} Which you could then fill out yourself, instead of just {{inaccurate paleoart}} FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is saying inaccurate images should be deleted, just tagged as inaccurate so editors know not to use them in article sections dealing with dinosaur science. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I can see with those specific images is that there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US[6], so they might get deleted for that reason eventually. And very nice work with the template, Calliopejen1, it is really helpful! FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image accurate or inaccurate? Conty (the uploader) nominated it for deletion because of various inaccuracies, but then it was kept and he uploaded new versions. Does the latest version fix the errors or should it still be tagged as inaccurate? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow editors, I'm pretty sure the photo to the left doesn't depict a tooth as said in Altispinax but an ungual phalanx: probably one of the specimens referred to this apparent waste-bin taxon. Also since this species was originally described from Germany and is based on teeth, the fact that this is a specimen housed at the Natural History Museum, London is more evidence of the inaccuracy of the image's labeling. Dracontes (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of what, besides an indeterminate theropodan claw? While I assume it was labelled with the name "Altispinax dunkeri" at the time the photo was taken, by the content of the article one shouldn't expect disembodied claws to jell with shed teeth all of a sudden. I'm not sure if the best procedure would be to ask the people at the NHML what is thought of the specimen now. Dracontes (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly obviously a claw (never seen a tooth with a groove like that, ha ha), but I think the point is just that it's not entirely certain where the item in the image is currently housed because it may or may not be a cast. I don't feel strongly that the image should be in the article (though I see it's at least been relabeled now): it's also not in focus and is fairly blurry at the edges. You could try asking the person who uploaded it, though. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This specimen, an ungual phalanx, is housed in Natural History Museum, London, and is labeled "Megalosaurus dunkeri".
As this species is now known as Altispinax dunkeri, I've titled this picture as "cfr Altispinax dunkeri", because this taxon is based only on a tooth found in Germany; but many other specimens (for example pedal phalanx) have been referred to this species. What to do? :) Best regards ---- --Ghedoghedo (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like one pedal ungual has been referred to A. sp, specimen BMNH 2482 [7]. If that one is in the BMNH labelled as M. dunkeri, that's probably the same specimen. So while there's obviously no way to tell if this came from an Altispinax, it hasn't been reclassified so it may as well be left on that page for now. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wing size and shape a little bit [[8]], but it´s probably still too small. However Xiaotingia is classified as a troodontid, so it´s wings likely were smaller than those of Archaeopteryx.--Ornitholestes (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not that far back. You can see the silhouette of the skeletal indicates it (it's really the ischium, mu mistake), but some of the bone is missing. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the legs should be so distinct. They're also too straight at the knee and hip--right now they're at or beyond maximum possible extension. In that pose I'd expect more of a crouch. The body also looks too slender despite being feathered--this means the feathers are too short and/or down like. They should be feathered more like a modern bird. It's also missing the lower leg and foot feathers. Also note that Anchiornis is also classified as a troodontid and it has fairly large wings. There's also something odd about the neck--it's very straight (not impossible, just an extreme pose) but the head is coming off at a right angle like it has a human head-neck connection. If the neck were straightened that much the snout should be pointing in nearly the same direction. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The head-posture is recontructed like it can be seen in the skeletal drawing. I´ll try to make the feathers look more like the ones of a modern bird and to enlarge the wings. --Ornitholestes (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better like that? I tried to make the feathers look more smooth and bird-like. The posture of the body and legs is like it can be seen im numerous reconstructions of maniraptorans. The knees are similar to theones shown in the skeletal.
Is there evidence for foot feathers in Xiaotingia? I thought they were only present in Anchiornis. Not even modern birds show them, and they limit the possibility of fast running. Therefore, I don´t think they should be reconstructed if they aren´t evidenced.--Ornitholestes (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The posture of the body and legs is like it can be seen im numerous reconstructions of maniraptorans" Doesn't mean it's correct ;) (In fact I'd guess 99% of reconstructions of maniraptorans ever done are wrong in some way). You'll notice the skeletal you used is posed in mid-jump, which explains the extended knees, where as yours is standing still. As for the foot feathers, yes they are preserved in the fossil, at least on the toes. The body feathers look smoother but still look like fur or downy feathers to me rather than modern feathers. Anchiornis had pennaceous feathers covering the body, unlike the downy, ratite or chick-like feathers of say, Sinosauropteryx and Sinornithosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a quick sketch[9] which could end up being a kind of fragmentary metriacanthosaurid when finished. Maybe Shidaisaurus[10]? The leg pose might be too extreme. I made it without refs, but I think I'll use this[11] as basis for further work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I would revisit the pose of the legs as you suggested though, it looks a bit like it's about to break its ankle :) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coloring looks fantastic! Maybe you could address the leg angle concern by keeping the foot planted, and simply rotating the rest of the image around the ankle by ~10 degrees. deBivort20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure precisely what you did (I was surprised to see some cuts higher on the leg than the ankle). This is what I had in mind [15]. deBivort23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I rotated it the other way, and made the leg look less stretched, heheh! I don't think it looks so weird anymore, and I liked that it looked tilted, as if about to turn. Perhaps it's not anatomically impossible anymore?[16]FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was only trying to make a suggestion to address Dinoguy's comment about the broken ankle, which I interpreted as being problematic because of the lateral deviation of the leg from vertical. Wasn't trying to do anything about the leg length. Your newest version looks better in both those respects. deBivort01:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort anyway! Anyone know if the drawing matches the known remains of Metriacanthosaur itself, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks better. I'm not sure how much give there was in the proximal phalanges to allow tilting... do modern birds tilt like that when they turn? As for matching Metriacanthosaurus, I don't have any skeletals or anything but TTD lists a few measurements. Looks like the only externally visible diagnostic bit would be femur length, as the rest of the specimen is mostly verts (the femur should be a few cm longer than the illium). MMartyniuk (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell from that angle, but it looks to me like it's still a straight line from the Ts to the proximal phalanges, rather than a kink to the side at the articulation of the two. Though it's also not clear that it's supposed to be turning... MMartyniuk (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think we should place all dinosaur drawings of 2012 in their own review article. Second, I wanted to make an occasional comeback, with the description of the jurassic Eoabelisaurus. The shape of the skull is partially based on Abelisaurus. What do you think? Conty, 20:00, 22 June 2012
You mean we should archive the old stuff? As for the drawing, looks cool, maybe the snout looks a bit wide due to the bulbous right side, compared to this[19]FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the 2011 images should be laid in an archive of their own. Regarding that the snout may look wide, I tried to draw the skull from a part profile/part front angle. Sometimes I make models of dinosaur skulls in clay to learn how they look in different angels, but I did not do so in this case. Conty, 20:59, 22 June 2012
The colour scheme was nicked from a photo of a rooster, chickens are omnivores, so shouldn't be too far out? Could be display colour. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks amazing! Only concern would be lack of feathers on the manus. Beipiaosaurus shows at least short feathers extending at least partly onto the metacarpals. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, welcome back! I'll move this to the bottom (to the new entries). Apart from the pronated hands, this one is identical to the one in the "new" Gregory S. Paul skeletal book: [21] I think you can ignore the weird hand thing at the right... FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the confirmed presence of wing feathers in Ornithomimus, i'm not sure if this reconstruction is accurate anymore because it lacks wing feathers. 50.138.213.207 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does have short feathers on the lower arms. The new study only suggests adult Ornithomimus had some kind of lower arm feathers, not their length. This could also be a juvenile, or the difference could be due to the fact that it is simply another genus. But I agree, newer reconstructions should have longer wing feathers, I'm just not sure older ones of non-Ornithomimus animals are necessarily wrong. Also, here's a comment from the dinosaur mailing list: "I'm not 100% convinced that Ornithomimus had pennaceous feathers or pennibrachia, even though the distribution and orientation of the markings on the arm is suggestive of that. Zelenitsky et al. (2012) described the markings as evidence of "type 3 feathers or higher," but since there are no barbs preserved, all that can really be said is that they do not resemble the type 2 feathers. The morphology of the individual markings on the adult Ornithomimus forearm also seems consistent with the non-pennaceous type 1/EBFF display feathers of the new Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 2009), for example. Beipiaosaurus is a basal maniraptoran yet has no evidence of pennaceous feathers, so perhaps this is the more conservative interpretation on phylogenetic grounds?" FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was just one possibility. As I said, we don't know how long those feathers would be, we only have quill knobs. Even on Ornithomimus, they could possibly be as short as those on the image, who knows? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only quill knobs? Didn't the original reports of the feathers state that long wing feather impressions were found on the Ornithomimus edmontonicus specimen at the Royal Tyrrell Museum? 50.138.213.207 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual wing feather impressions were found? If so, i close my case and it's an accurate Struthiomimus. I'm just a big fan of winged maniraptors. 50.138.213.207 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No impressions, but a pretty strong hint, I'm not sure quill knobs are present if there aren't pretty big feather shafts also. Anyway, I'm certainly updating the ornithomimisaurs I've drawn in the past. I'm not entirely happy about how they came out[24][25], but at least they're more accurate now. I'll refine them a bit at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could make a case for the scaly hands being inaccurate though. The juvenile specimen preserves feathers on the manus, and there isn't any reason to suppose it adults didn't have them there. Albertonykus (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's reported in the paper at least: "Many of the filaments on the right manus show a central calcite streak, which indicates that the structures had a hollow core, as proposed for primitive filamentous feathers)." Scaly maniraptoriform hands are starting to look more like a meme than anything. Albertonykus (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where on the hand are they? That would have an effect on the margin of error of previous image. I can't really see anything on that image. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, as far as I can see, it appears to be near the base of the back of the hand? Wouldn't rule out scaly fingers, in that case. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no reason to suspect any feathered dinosaurs every had scaly fingers, though some seem to have secondarily lost feathers on the fingers to various degrees. Off the top of my head, known data right now shows fingers feathered right up to the claw on all digits in Microraptor and Anchiornis and ornithothoracines at least. Caudipteryx seems to have had some feather loss on the palm of the hand and underside of the finger, though this may be taphonomic. Confuciusornis seems to lack feathers on digit 1, but that looks like the exception to the rule given current bracketing. IMO it's most parsimonious to think feathered fingers are common to all winged dinosaurs given the presence of feathers on various parts of the hand in most known species and the similarly variable state of preservation in toe integument in this group. Scaly or naked hands/fingers such as in that Ornithomimus image seem to be memes based on old depictions of Archaeopteryx with little scale hands popping out of its wings, or to GSP who was drawing them like that before any feathered dinos were known. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely draw feathered hands and fingers on future images myself, and I don't doubt it was the case, but my point is more that as for now, we can't really go back and remove older images that don't show this feature, since it isn't exactly proved they all had it yet. Once it is, of course we should. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, these Emu images might be a good indication of how the feather attachment to theropod hands could look:[28][29] On the image embedded on the right, it seems even the first finger is feathered, which is often (if not always) shown naked in theropod restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there's no real reason to think most coelurosaurs would have a featherless digit 1. Ornithothoraces have the alula there of course, but even many non-avialan fossils show digit 1 was completely feathered. The only exception I can think of is Confuciusornis. Huge sample size and none I know of show feathering on the first manual digit. Many fossil species are also ambiguous on this point. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought blue coloration was a no-no. Super rare as a pigment (which it looks like in this case), not yet evolved as physical coloration. deBivort16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was due to simple proto-feathers not being able to be blue for some reason. But it seems that more advanced pennaceous feathers feathers have been pushed back, so any animals with such could had been blue. Microraptor was blue[32], for example. But this is fairly new information of course. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, blue skin is A-ok and even appears in mammals, and vaned feathers are present in troodontids so they could certainly be blue (as adults anyway--blue down feathers are a no-no AFAIK). I'd base most of it on Zanabazar anyway, though. There's no overlapping material and they're from the same formation, no real reason to think they're not synonyms. Come to think of it, I probably should have labelled the Zanabazar in my book Borogovia junior :) MMartyniuk (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was suggested by Osmolska 1987 but hasn't been discussed much since. As there's no overlapping material it's impossible right now to support or refute scientifically, but I tend to err on the side of lumping in cases like this (especially after the cautionary tale of Chirostenotes/Caenagnathus/Macrophalangia). MMartyniuk (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty consistent with Xixiasaurus to me, at least in the anterior skull. I might make the skull as a whole a little taller posteriorly and thus more triangular/Sinovenator-ish though, especially given its possibly rather basal phylogenetic position. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned with a size comparison diagram of the Nanotyrannus holotype. My guess gives it a much shorter body length than proposed by Bakker et.al in 1988 (5.2 meters). What do you think? Conty 14:40, 19 January 2013
unfortunately not. I drew the skull and gave it a body, which then was scaled with the skull into the diagram. Conty 18:35, 19 January 2013
I'm guessing the 1988 paper assumed a much longer tail. Anyway this doesn't look too far off. If the spinal column were fully horizontal (how most lengths are measured, rather than taking into account life posture), it would be about 4.5m long. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm not supposed to post here this but, well, I noticed that in the Largest Ornithopods scale, Charonosaurus is over 12m long, probably 13m along the curves, that fits what's said in the article but Godefroit et al. (2000) never made that estimate. they do mention the femur length (135cm) and provide a skeletal, it's shown at 9.1m from tip to tip, probably 10m along the curves and 3.6m tall at most, noticeable smaller than what is shown in the scale (5m tall and 13m long), in case this falls as original research, in the Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs by Greg Paul, Charonosaurus is said to be 10m long too. Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... if the femur is 1.35 m long, anybody who puts this thing over 10m is dreaming. It would need to have the neck and tail proportions of a diplodocid to reach 13m. I've corrected the size estimate on the page and will correct the scale chart shortly. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, guess I should have posted this here before adding it to the article! Chose not to add rectrices as there's as yet no evidence for them and Beipiaosaurus seems to lack them... but maybe they should be added. The outline is basically a direct trace of the specimen in the taxobox but scaled to the humeral length of the larger UC specimen listed. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia's purpose, the size estimate is published, since it is verifiable from a reliable source (GSP isn't that controversial, is he?). But of course, it isn't scientifically verified. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on an asthetic note, what do you think about the colours? Does there need to be more 'contrast' between the different species? Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I'm probably the right guy to ask, because I have difficulty discerning nuances, but they come out fine here. As for the size issue, I'd probably also see what Dinoguy has to say. And welcome back to the image review, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Though the gargantuan sinocanadorum skeleton hasn't been published yet I have no reason to suspect it isn't legitimate. Ity just may not be sinocanadorum or even Mamanchisaurus which seems like it may be due for some 'splodin. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I was surprised when doing my updated sauropod size chart how close in basic size (though not length, due to the much shorter tail) sinocanadorum came to Amphicoelias. This is definitely the first "gigapod" known from decent remains. Amphi doesn't seem so crazy anymore - basically mamenchisaur-sized beast with a longer tail. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Not much room in the article, though. I'm wondering whether this image[34] might have inaccuracies, and could be replaced? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that DiBgd's image is M.hochuanensis; it doen't seem to far off, it would just need a few tweaks. I might create a gallery box for the time being, considering how many species are currently included in Mamenchisaurus there could be several images. I have more of a problem with the M.youngi skeleton [35], most of the dorsal vertabrae are completely disarticulated. The problem is finding any Mamenchisaurus images that are articulated correcly. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the skull in the article labled M.hochuanensis is actually based on M.youngi. The refered M.hochuanensis skull is more boxy like seen here [36]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing some dromaeosaur reconstructions for a design project for school, which I'll reuse for Wikipedia eventually. I've tried to make my first size comparison image, based on the estimates of Dromaeosauroides being "more than three metres long" and "three to four metres long". This one is somewhere in between. I haven't drawn feathers yet but does it look alright besides that?[37] Silhouette is based on Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor, and Deinonycuhus. The sources say the holotype tooth was in the front of the upper jaw, so I've made a white silhouette there, but this image[38] seems to show a different arrangement. When done, I'll try to get the Dromaeosauroides to GA and add the image there. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, if you don't want feathers in your project, may be you could add a feather layer so you can switch between the two. Based on other dromaeosaurs, I'd imagine the tail would be a little shallower. The caudofemoralis only extends down the first quater of the tail. The tooth is quite hard to notice, maybe there could be a larger insert showing the head region? Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good suggestions. I do want feathers, I'm just going to make a selection of different feather arrangements, so I've started out with a "naked" basis. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an insert of the head[39] (hypothetical skull based on Dromaeosaurus, just to show placement of teeth), but I haven't fixed the tail, as I assume it will be obscured once I add feathers anyway. Does it look clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modified into Yurgovuchia
I've replaced the old Dromaeosauroides image with a new one, since I think the skull was too slender on the old image, which doesn't fit withit being similar to Dromaeosaurus. The colouration is based on a Weka, by the way. The old one[40] could perhaps be modified into Yurgovuchia, Adasaurus or something like that instead? FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Pachycephalosaurus reconstruction indeed correct? Skeletal reconstructions show, and the body of the Wikipedia article says so as well, that Pachycephalosaurs carried their necks in an S or U-shaped curve. Presumably this image is showing a Pachycephalosaurus bending its neck downward, but it still looked awkward enough to warrant review, I thought. Qwo (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the point is to show it "charging". In which case it would make sense. But maybe the neck is a bit thick? This image[41] shows the neck better, but it is based on a specimen of uncertain taxonomic placement. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good now, but as always, others may have more input. Looking closer, the foot claws seem to come out at an odd angle, they should be angled more upwards from the base. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, i think it's nice now. Could you perhaps remove some of the dirt and spots on the background? Would make it a little neater looking. Easily done with GIMP, or even MS Paint. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it would be possible to determine its colours at some point, so perhaps it is a bit risky to colour it so boldly? FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the colors will be revealed, but these ones aren't unlikely, are it?. I gave it a symbolic coloration, due to its name (dawn bird). If a color study is revealed, I'll change the colors. Thank you El fosilmaníaco (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks maybe a bit too reptilian. Would probably have had a thicker feather covering, and no scales on the snout. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the profile would be much more bird-like. The arms/hands/fingers are too short and the wing feathers do not seem to attach in the correct places. The retractable second toe is also on the wrong side of the foot. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about halfway through an image of Micropachycephalosaurus. The old one was deleted and the page should have one. Anyone have anything I could base the head on. Should it be pachycephalosaur-like or ceratopsian-like? Currently it has a sort of generic head, more ceratopsian than a pachycephalosaur like Homalocephale or Goyocephale but without a ceratopsian-style beak. What would be good? Reid,iain james (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find any skeletal restoration so I can see the proportions of the skeletal elements in relation to each other. So as for now, I think it looks ok, but I have nothing to base it on. What did you use as reference? FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was originally classified as a Pachycephalosaur I based the proportions on basal Pachycephalosaurs like Homalocephale and Goyocephale. The skull I didn't have much to go on so I just drew what I found as a common skull shape by googling micropachycephalosaurus images. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you should probably not base it on pachycephalosaurs after all. And it's always iffy basing a restoration on other restorations instead of bones, I'll advise against that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yeah, still a bit inadequate to base one dinosaur entirely on two others. I'd try to find references for the particular animal, and then work from there. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a few issues with the reconstruction. Looking at this photo of the skull for comparison [47], the snout in your illustration looks too tall. It's taller than the skull as preserved, which is crushed, so was probably even narrower in life. The eye looks far too small given the size of the orbit, and the pupil may not have been able to rotate so far forward in he socket (like birds, dinosaurs have disk-shaped eyes, not eyeballs, so their movement in the eye socket is quite limited. This is why birds need to tilt the entire head to look around). The feathers also look too small/short. Given the small size of the skull, I'd estimate each individual feather as drawn would only be around a single millimeter long, which is ridiculously tiny. As in fossils of related species, the feathers would be quite a bit longer relative to the size of the animal. I'd guess the feathers should realistically all be at least the length of those few plumes you have sticking off the head. The antorbital fenestra should not be as prominent looking, to avoid shrink-wrap syndrome (the skull openings were probably covered in relatively thick skin and may have only been barely visible in life). Hope this helps! MMartyniuk (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Only thing is that he eye still looks way too small. It should be at least 2/3 the diameter of the orbit (to account for the sclerotic ring/portion covered by eyelids), which as you can see in the fossil is pretty huge. Top to bottom, it looks like the eye should be a bit around than the height of the snout right behind the nostril. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the fossil is incomplete, it is not sufficient to base it straight off that. There must be an estimation of the tooth count somewhere (original paper). FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people seem to be drawing dinosaurs with white or very light gray irises lately. This is very, very rare in modern animals. It should be noted that dinosaurs do not have eyeballs, they have eye discs, and their sclera (white part of the eye) are usually internal in the skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll get on making the crest more round. Dinoguy2, what should I do to correct the eyes? Should I make a colored eye, with a pupil inside it? TheNanotyrant (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Only thing I can think of is that there don't appear to be any epiossifications down at the lower corner of the squamosal, rather it's just a wavy bit of frill and then small epis appear higher up. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Not sure how the actual fossil looks like, but the "bumps" in those places couldn't be withered, eh, epiossifications? It seems most other chasmosaurs(?) have something down there. There are some photos here, but I have some trouble identifying the elements:[51]FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome reconstruction! I love the legs and the "plumage". It looks more accurate now, with these "bumps". Some other details from the original article:
Based on known material:
Attachment surface for the dorsal midline epiparietal (the "eye" of the cyclops) should look like an elongated upside down "teardrop". Additionally there should be space between the distal and dorsal midline epiparietals (I mean that the dorsal one should be placed perpendicular to the midline, then a bit more space, then distal one on the top of the frill). And there should be more space between the two smaller midline ossifications. Also, the midline increases in width near the top of the frill, so the black thick line in parallel to it shouldn't be parallel.
Shouldn't the fenestrae of the frill be outlined, too? They're hypothesized to be similar to these of Pentaceratops (see its rec.), but because of the width of the midline near to top of the frill, they should be located lower, starting at about the upper small midline ossification, beneath the "eye".
Based on their reconstruction:
They reconstructed 3 "bumps" at the lower corner of the squamosal (all were actually preserved), one "semi-bump/ossification" (wasn't actually preserved), and 5 ossifications at the sides of the frill (not 4, although only 3 were actually preserved). The ossification at the "eye" isn't know, but in comparison to closely related taxa I don't think it should be that long/curved upwards (but who knows ;) ).
Thanks for the thorough review! I'll try to fix these issues soon. As for the fenestrae, I'm not sure if they would be visible when the frill is covered in flesh, I examined this old Gregory S. Paul image when I drew it:[52]FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like in all more recent reconstructions (of Xeno., Utah., Kosmo., Rubeosaurus...), and even in this one (G.S. Paul), this region has different depth, but I'm really not sure about that... Rnnsh (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it simply isn't known, and people are just doing whatever they feel like? There wa sthe old idea of the frills being muscle attachments, but that should be abandoned now, right? FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any reason the fenestrae would be visible in life. People draw it like that because shrink wrapping is the traditional art form for all dinosaurs going back to Crystal Palace, where you could see the bones in the flippers and the scleral rings of the ichthyosaur ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now implemented the changes apart from making the fenestrae too visible, and I didn't add the one "hypothetical" bump/ossification, because it isn't really known, and because I would have to stretch the frill too much. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did this drawing[53] of Nuthetes attacking Echinodon as part of a school project, and thought I could donate it here afterwards. But since these animals are pretty badly known, and of uncertain identity, maybe someone would be against the idea? If uploaded, I would give it a cautionary description, such as "Nuthethes restored as a dromaeosaur, attacking Echinodon restored as a heterodontosaur", or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. You probably wouldn't have to put the Echinodon part in it since it's pretty certain that it is a heterodontosauur. The only part that might be to speculative would be the Nuthetes. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem might be the tail of the Nuthetes. Don't dromaeosaurs have tendons making their tails very stiff? If so it looks like it is bent to much. Reid,iain james (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok, we have a few other very hypothetical recons out there. I'd just make sure the word hypothetical goes in the caption somewhere. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Eotyrannus more basal than those two? If it is it might not need them. If not I can add tiny feathers on the body, they might not be as visible as my troodon but at least it'll have them. Reid,iain james (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To adress the querstion above, the skull seems too small, with a too slender lower jaw, the hind legs seem too short and robust, and the tail too short as well. The neck is a bit too short and straight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely illustrated but it looks a little scrawny, any reason the feathers are so tiny? The wings also seem to lack coverts. It looks more like a compsognathid in terms of feather arrangement, I've personally estimated troodontids to look similar to [56], based on related species and patterns of feather development in modern large flightless feathered animals. There seems to be this impression people have that feathers become reduced with size, based on erroneous comparison with mammals, but there is no evidence for that whatsoever, in either fossils or modern analogues. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can update it with that info. I might keep the colour the same because Troodon lived as far south as Wyoming and possibly Texas and New Mexico, which was not polar and might possibly have been more desert-like. It might be that Troodon evolved different coloration in different environments. In polar winter white and grey, in polar summer brownish-red, in forested areas brown and maybe green and in warmer desert-like areas lighter brown. The wing colour is just speculative. Btw, nice drawing, why don't you upload that? Reid,iain james (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah I didn't mean to copy that particular one, just an example of likely degree of featheredness. I might consider uploading some like that in the future, already used in the the updated version of the scale diagram though which people are free to make derivatives of. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, in addition to Dinoguy's comments, the nostril should probably be smaller, and confined to the front part of the naris. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it has blue protofeathers? Blue is okay for the wing feathers and those on the end of the tail, but it should be impossible for the kind of feathers that you have drawn covering the body, but I guess Dinoguy has more to say about that. See also his post here: http://dinogoss.blogspot.dk/2013/09/iridescence-in-simple-feathers-case-of.html "I'm not sure about the kind of bright, matte-blue color found in jays and bluebirds, which I believe are created via a slightly more complex process, but at least iridescent blue should be within the realm of possibility for any stem-bird which can plausibly be hypothesized to retain barbules." FunkMonk (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Troodon didn't have protofeathers, they had feathers pretty much identical to those of modern birds. So blue is A-OK. As I said, I'm not sure about light blue though. I think the issue here is that in this drawing, the feathers look like protofeathers or down instead of the actual feathers that it should have. The way they stick up haphazardly all ofver the toroso is similar to natal down of modern birds, which can't be blue. The extreme shortness of the feathers also makes them look more like natal down than true feathers. The overall effect is that this looks like a troodont with the feathers of a compsognathid, instead of the feathers of a paravian. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice! However, how many fingers did you give it? It kind of looks like three, but that third one can be on the other arm, so that's why I'm asking. I would add some protofeathers, but that's about all. TheNanotyrant (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it two. Also, it might not need feathers, Tyrannosaurus is restored without feathers and it is closely related to it. Only a skull is known but I based the rest of it on Tyrannosaurus which is another reason it might not need protofeathers. Reid,iain james (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all image reviewers. I am going through commons images to see if there are any of pages lacking them. If anyone is looking for a specific dinosaur, I can try to find one of it. Also, if it is inaccurate I will add it here so it can be easily accessed for updating. Reid,iain james (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is probably some images that have been forgotten. But watch out, some images are incorrect, but have not been tagged as such. FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember, if an article is very short, and already has many images, it may not be necessary/possible for it to support more at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my restoration of the spinosaurid theropod Oxalaia quilombensis with protofeathers. As newer discoveries are made, we really have to ask ourselves, "What theropods had protofeathers?" With the recent naming of Sciurumimus, a megalosauroid with protofeathers, the line between feathery and scaly theropods is becoming blurred. TheNanotyrant (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is hard to say these days, but I think I read the identification of Sciurumimus as a megalosaur may be contested. After all, it is just a juvenile, so features may be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to FunkMonks reply, it might be that just juvenile megalosaurs had feathers, and even then it might be feathered to much to be a juvenile. Compare it to Spinosaurus and Irritator, its closest relative Reid,iain james (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with feathered megalosaurs (or any dinosaurs, really...). You can make an argument for the phlyogenetic bracket with or without Sciurumimus and we really have no idea where in the panavian family tree feathers originate. Given distribution of known skin impressions it's seeming more like origins at Coelurosauria, Dinosauria, or Ornithodira are nearly equally likely. Orionides is only two nodes down the tree from Coelurosauria, and the odds that Sciurumimus is THE most basal feathered animal that existed just because it's the most basal one we have at this moment are vanishingly slim.
Oh, and the idea that theropods lost or reduced their feathers as they grew is pure speculation based on zero scientific evidence that I'm aware of. It should be disregarded. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe more of the curved neck should be visible to the right? Otherwise it seems like it turns its neck extremely angled. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my tyrannosaurs to have feathers, here is the Daspletosaurus I linked to on Talk:Tyrannosaurus[62]. I have left a lot of the head clear of feathers as per MMartyniuk's comment on head butting/bitting. There are aparently skin impressions of tyrannosaurs and compsognathids from the under side of the tail that show scales. Whilst I agree with MMartyniuk that it's probably not as clear cut as completly feathered areas and scaled areas, I have left a lot of the underside scaley and featherless. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to retool the old head of Elaphrosaurus, which I had replaced with a more Limusaurus-like head, and make it into something new. Since the Jaime Headden skeletal drawing I had based it on seemed to incorporate noasaur elements, I thought it could perhaps be Velocisaurus. And to do something interesting with it, I tried to show it being mobbed by Neuquenornis. Any issues, with this yet very rough sketch?[64]FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Only major issue I see right now is that enantiornithes didn't have tail fans like that. At most, they'd have a few confuciusornithid-like streamers, though most fossils preserve no long tail feathers at all, and so far there's no evidence for them in avisaurids or the closely related "cathayornithids". Also, the talons look a little too small--N. volans had huge freakin' pedal claws, especially on the hallux. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably too small for N. volans. Including the keratin sheath, i'd expect the hallux claw to be twice the length of digit 1 in life (bony core is 1.5 cm vs 1 cm for the toe bone) and probably quite robust. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditched the bird for now, working on Veloci itself.[66] Is the colour too improbable (only roughly blocked out)? Based on a lizard. Not going for feathers at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think once the Russian ornithopod is published any ornithodiran without a trace of feathers anywhere on the body will be unsupportable (except maybe hadrosaurs?). There go half our images... MMartyniuk (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sauropods are well within the bracket, but are so derived we could probably get away with it... feathered prosauropods seem most parsimonious, though I'm unfamiliar with any known skin impressions. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At least it can be. It's my art, I was unclear about that. (Tomopteryx)
Aw, well, nice! I was "Funk" on the DinoData forum, if you remember. But when the site updated I was unable to login afterwards for some reason... But yeah, go ahead and upload the image, though judged on this skeletal[67], the mandible seems a bit too deep? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember :) I think the mandible depth is just an illusion caused by the lips. I certainly didn't intend the bony mandible to be that thick dorsoventrally. (Tompteryx)
Yes. I could e-mail them to you if you'd like. Additioanlly, someone will have to upload the image for me, I've made less than 10 edits with this account. It should be under the correct permissions, it's under the same as my Talos. (Tompteryx)
Nice if you could! There should be a link to the right if you click on my username. As for uploading, best would be to upload it yourself on Wikimedia Commons, then no one will question the licence, and then you an use it in the future as well. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find your email on your user page. Get it to me somehow and I'll send you the photos. In the meantime the image is up on wikimedia commons and on the Wikipedia page for Orodromeus. I've uploaded another image as well which I'll detail in a new section.
Under toolbox there should be a link saying "Email this user". Don't see it? Otherwise you can just link it here with Tinypic? No big deal anyway. And nice you placed it on Commons yourself, then you can always update it if you get the urge. By the way, what's the stuff on the tail? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence in the fossil for the scaly head in the new Russian taxon? The SVP abstract only mentions scales and scutes on the legs and tail plus the shingle-like dorsal scales. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was an artistic choice, but I can remove them if it's a problem. It shouldn't be, I think Juravenator preserves scales on the snout. Tomopteryx
IIRC Juravenator preserves scales on the legs and tail only, but I'd have to double check the paper. (EDIT: Nope, you're right--it was in the follow-up integument paper). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's what I thought, and the wikipedia article says that, but I just looked over the paper and I can't find any mention of it, or the additional scales on the leg it mentions, so this may be a fabrication Tomopteryx
I was requested on DeviantArt to do a reconstruction of this animal for it's page, which was lacking one. This was the result, figured I'd better upload it here first and make sure it checks out. If this and the above work out then I will probably continue to do reconstructions for Wikipedia. Is there a list somewhere of animals that need attention?
Looking at the Gregory Paul Field Guide skeletal (which I guess you've been looking at as well), I think it looks proper, though the feet appear a bit more robust. But that's probably just a soft tissue "decision", which is not really reflected in the skeleton anyway. And you're welcome to contribute with more images, we have a rather useless old list here[68], but I think most people just look around at articles and see which ones are missing images, and then take it from there. That's what I do at least. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, with the one nitpick I have regarding the tail feathers. Protarchaeopteryx (a likely synonym if not close relative) has distal tail feathers of roughly the same length, which would have formed an oddly square shaped fan in life. It's possible this is a preservation artifact, but in that case I'd assume the feathers decreased in length proximally and that the entire tail was feathered as in Similicaudipteryx. I don't think both a distally-restricted and also lozenge-shaped tail fan is supported by the fossil. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm that's quite a big edit. Is it that big of an issue, display structures are pretty variable? I'll see what I can do if so. Tomopteryx
Display structures are certainly variable between species but not really so much within. The validity in your recon would be down to whether you think it's a synonym of Protarchaeopteryx robusta or not (I see no reason to keep them separate but there's certainly no consensus due to poor overlapping material). Interestingly, I recently read a quick aside in the entry in the book Dinosaurus that the tail feathers might be fake or composited, which could help explain their bizarre arrangement in Protarchy, though the arrangement is similar in all the Caudipteryx specimens I've seen... MMartyniuk (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through Commons and I uncovered this. I wound like to know whether it is accurate or not before I place it in the article. Iainstein (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is obviously supposed to be a thumb spike, and even if t was a hind leg, the shape of the claws would be wrong. Also, I'm fairly certain the crocodile is too lanky. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The limbs on the croc are way too thin, the hindlimb doesn't even look like it attaches to the pelvis (which is visible when it shouldn't be, as is the scapula). Tomopteryx
I've modified an image I once drew of a generic dromaeosaurid[69], and was thinking about having it represent Atrociraptor. The image we have now has several inaccuracies (huge eye, green protofeathers, possibly too large external nostrils), so would have to be replaced anyway. Any thoughts? Here's a very speculative skull restoration for comparison:[70]FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably perspective, but I think I'll have to straighten it more out anyway now that I think of it, and the skull may be a bit too long as well... FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice to me, Funk. The colour scheme reminds me of an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, just without the white stripe on the sides and white wingtips, and I like the Ivory-Bill's colour scheme. If I had to lodge a complaint is that the feathers aren't attached correctly; all avialans tended to have their wings run down to the claw of the second digit (with the third digit practically fused to the second and invisible under the feathers) and the fingers should probably be feather-covered rather then naked (as in troodonts and other dromaeosaurs), but it's great nonetheless. Definitely better then the one we had before. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, surprise surprise, the crest and the leg wings were actually based on some woodpeckers from the same genus as the Ivory Billed! The stuff on the back is made up, and the rest is some sort of grouse. I know it is somewhat frowned upon to base restorations too much on extant animals, but whatever, chimaeras are fun to draw. As for the issues, is there any actual evidence the fingers were fused, and that they were feathered on the tips? FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are fine. I don't see what he means on feather attachment, yours appears to be attached correctly to the second finger as in all your other works. As for the nakedness of the ventral wing, modern ratites show this condition (http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2759/4435592628_8a18dea725_z.jpg?zz=1) as does Caudipteryx, and Confuciusornis has at least digit I bare, so I see no issue with what you've illustrated. Tomopteryx/Tomozaurus
On a spur of the moment (and with a vague idea of how to make it look), I whipped up a new reconstruction for the Deinocheirus article.
Artist's reconstruction of Deinocheirus, based on what was heard at SVP 2013.
Tell me if it looks good enough to include in the article. I know my art's nowhere near Matty-boy, Smokey or Funk in terms of quality, but this should do, at least until we get a better one. And Matt should get what extant bird this colouration is based on in a few milliseconds, knowing him. :P Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we should wait for something to be published in a journal, or a skeletal, since much more than just the sail is different from once thought. I'll just modify my old drawing when the time comes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the illustration already in the article a make over until we get some clearer information. Longer spines near the hips actually just give it a rounder shape, rather than anything that sticks out, as long as it is covered in feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any reconstruction we use should be full body, especially since the head is not yet... announced ;) All of the interesting parts are in the arms, back of the torso and legs, which are cropped out in this view. Also, the wing feathers probably should not extend all the way up the humerus (tertials don't appear until around Ornithothoraces). Unfortunately, I doubt the "sail" would be visible as such in life. Covered in feathers, it would probably look like the hump of a bison. As mentioned, it was over the hips, not the back, probably helping anchor some massive tail muscles? Tripodal feeding...? While we don't yet know what the head is like, it's safe to infer for now similar to other ornithomimisaurs. This one looks like a seed-eating passerine beak rather than a more distinctive ornithomimosaur beak (which were probably restricted to the jaw tips). MMartyniuk (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it definitely does. And since it's quite error-ridden (seriously, I doubt Saurophaganax reached that size)), I'll replace the inaccurate image with the second file Steve put up, as not only is it more accurate but it's also more pleasing to the eye (neon green against red is not good)). Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've posted a lot recently, but is this a reasonable image for the Lythronax article? ((The dark red face is all naked skin, the brown is feathers, and I put a speculative keratin crest and wattle on it, of course, but otheriwse it's pretty accurate to the skull in the article)). The image in the article already is good artisically, but it also has the issue of going against the phylogenetic river, as I call it, in where the depiction is stretching suspension of disbelief by making an animal nested in a clade known for feathers (and literally surrounded by feathered species in it's coelurosaurian group) scaly aside from mohawk-styled quills jutting from the forehead and a hyena-like mane down it's back. As well as that, the eye looks a little too high up on the skull and it seems to be sunken in, too, a classic symptom of shrink-wrap syndrome (you can see the indent just below the eye if you look hard enough and the head follows the skull a little too much) and the (what I guess are meant to be scales) bubble-wrap on it's hide is very odd, but I can't say mine's better artistically, just in accuracy. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the main problem with the image in the article is that the scales look way too rough and irregular, it looks unnatural. And there's no ear hole! As for this one, it is just a bit hard to make out what is what. You wouldn't know it had feathers just by looking at it. And no ear either! FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current restoration's integument is totally inaccurate for any non-ceratopsian dinosaur. Tyrannosaur scales, in particular, are so fine you reportedly can't discern them from a foot away (see *cough* Larson's summary of the Dueling dinosaurs, where he mentions this as a common characteristic of the group. Unless it's an extreme close-up, tyrannosaurs should not be depicted with visible scales. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it any better now? I added some scars and tried to make a gradient effect from the feathers to the naked skin, but Paint.NET only gives me so much to work with and I can't figure out GIMP for the life of me. It can also hear now. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the ear behind the eye? It should be placed like this, right outside the back of the silhouette of the skull: [72] Also, still rather unclear that any feathers are present, just by looking at it. Needs some fuzziness or something. I'd expect the mouth to extend further back along the jaws as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually been working on my own full body reconstruction of the animal which I planned to put up when completed.
All I have for the moment is this LQ photo of the work in progress (http://imageshack.us/a/img703/6020/mwls.png) but I can have it up in due course. It's up to you guys what we want to use, we could even try to get permission from Atuchin to use one of his reconstructions from the press releases. User:Tomopteryx
.png)
![[1]](http://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/alamosaurus-skeleton-reference.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/shock77/shock771206/shock77120600036/13952293-mighty-cartoon-tiger.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://paleopedia.free.fr/image/Pisanosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[9]](http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/6021/yancopy.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www.ava.nazwa.pl/dinozaury2/php/images/rsgallery/display/090228sjnbt01.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.dinoweb.narod.ru/sinraptor.heping2.gif){kind=link}
![[12]](http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2924/yancsopy.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5720/yandcopy.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2913/yan2cosspy.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8114/yancsopydebivort.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3220/2952280317_92730b07c4_o.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/6871/yanw.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/theropoda/images/A_comahuensis.gif){kind=link}
![[20]](http://oi47.tinypic.com/1y4huv.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.reptileevolution.com/images/archosauromorpha/diapsida/archosauriformes/dinosauromorpha/lesothosaurus588.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2884/tanycolagreus.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinornithomimus.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/files/2012/10/feathered-ornithomimus.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://oi45.tinypic.com/25qu1bt.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XhUTu6L4GYU/RX8-AnuW77I/AAAAAAAAABA/8pQ_CfuFVCg/s1600/Emu%2Bwing%2Bfeathers.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/wp-content/blogs.dir/471/files/2012/04/i-6e1981fc674825c3ecb250a944055e5f-Ozbert_wing_and_neck_base_3-5-2009.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://oi45.tinypic.com/2gvlji9.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6fVePgcYTJc/ShBlgx1HeDI/AAAAAAAAB7I/ejhfI5P5x10/s1600/Borogovia.JPG){kind=link}
![[33]](http://oi46.tinypic.com/35lxhqx.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mamench_DB.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sauropods.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](http://oi41.tinypic.com/2uom1vk.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](http://www.naturbornholm.dk/media/dino-dromkranie-500px.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](http://oi44.tinypic.com/352412g.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](http://oi40.tinypic.com/11wan3c.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauria_jmallon.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Yinlong%20skeleton%20s.JPG){kind=link}
![[44]](http://qilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/homalocephale-calathoceros.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://gigadino.pagesperso-orange.fr/images_dossiers/pachy1.JPG){kind=link}
![[47]](http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/aorun_skull_fossil.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](http://qilong.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wulatelong-skull.png?w=640){kind=link}
![[49]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/2z7lz5v.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](http://oi41.tinypic.com/2zefsie.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](http://oi39.tinypic.com/qzgaiu.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Palaeo/daspletosaurus_v0018_a-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tarbosaurus_Steveoc86.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](http://oi47.tinypic.com/6712s4.jpg){kind=link}
![[66]](http://oi39.tinypic.com/rhr0gi.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/109/f/5/orodromeus_makelai_skeletal_reconstruction_by_ornithischophilia-d4vq9ap.jpg){kind=link}
![[69]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/2j5011t.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/047/e/d/Atrociaptor_marshalli_skull_by_Paleoartists.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allosaur_size.svg){kind=link}
![[72]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lebendrekonstruktion_T.rex_Sch%C3%A4del_im_NHM_Wien.JPG){kind=link}
