As Ichthyovenator's FAC begins to draw to a close, something I realized I should do is update these two old images of mine. Found some new photos of the undescribed material from the holotype and am currently working on a completely new skeletal and restoration. As for issues with the current images, with the skeletal: The dorsal rib may be incorrectly placed, and shows a morphology very inconsistent with that described by Allain and colleagues (such as the pointed tip), also, the pubic shaft doesn't quite match the fossils. With the restoration: the thigh is far too narrow given the length of the illium, the calves could use a bit more musculature, the shoulders seem almost non-existent, and the hallux is oddly thin and splint-like. With both images: the pedal unguals should probably be flat-bottomed given what we know about spinosaurid feet, and the overall anatomy is reconstructed too heavily based on Baryonyx, which is not awfully likely given Ichthyovenator's reclassification by Allain (2014) and Arden and colleages (2018) as a spinosaurine. There are some additional problematic aspects as well, but those will be addressed when I upload the new images here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼04:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as basing it on Baryonyx goes, bear in mind that baryonychines are more plesiomorphic than spinosaurines, and so a basal spinosaurine such as Ichthyovenator would probably look more Baryonyx-like than Spinosaurus-like overall. It would be a good idea to make sure it isn't incorrectly incorporating any actual baryonychine synapomorphies, of course, but an overall baryonychine-like build seems plausible to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if Suchomimus might be slightly better than Baryonyx, as it has a sail and is occasionally found to be closer to Spinosaurus than Baryonyx (not often though). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Suchomimus is definitely one of my more major references I'm using for the anatomy of the new reconstruction, especially since it already has somewhat shorter legs, for the rest I'm using spinosaurine material from Brazil and Africa. Also, on a more important note, Ichthyovenator also seems to have had a tail fin, based on this skeletal at the Paris museum[2], email correspondence with Ronan Allain, and of course, further supported by the discovery of one in Spinosaurus[3]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
New material can also be seen in a lateral view in this tweet [4] and could probably be used for the skeletal updates, in order to try and stay ahead of the publication game :) IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep! I found that post a few days ago, and someone else referred me to it yesterday. Nice to see that I still would've found out about it even if I couldn't track it down myself. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
After a week of work, I give you all the "new" Ichthyovenator! Spino isn't the only one who gets to have fun with tail fins y'know. Let me know your thoughts before continuing with the restoration. References are all up on the commons pages to avoid adding a big wall of text to an already very long review page. Tried to stick as best as I could to the Paris museum skeletal while making the reconstruction more spinosaurine, as the diagram seems to have been made back when Ichthy was still placed in Baryonychinae. The diagram was a little distorted due to the camera angle but I managed to correct that with some editing software, and then superimposed the fossil pics on it to make sure the proportions of the bones were right. I also carefully cross referenced everything with the Tokyo mount to identify which bones were which (especially on the tail) and where they should go, thus resulting in the same fin-shape seen in the diagram. I identified the holotype rib from the mount but left most of the other ones out since their placement was more ambiguous. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks cool, I wonder if the hallux should be larger and more similar to the other toes, as we talked about once? Could be the standard configuration for spinosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, the foot was based almost entirely on Spinosaurus, but with a somewhat smaller hallux. Perhaps I'll enlarge it again then, since Hartman made the hallux on his Baryonyx skeletal pretty big as well.[5]▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼10:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There were some spinosaur tracks from Spain that showed this too, I believe. It's probably safest to apply it to all spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to ask why the caudal with the longest spine is a mid-posterior caudal instead of an anterior one as in the mount. As well, I feel the bones of the skeletal might actually be "over-detailed", as many of the small marks do not add any information beyond noise. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
While the bones are drawn after the mount, their arrangement was based on the Muséum national skeletal[6] (also in the ref list). Looking closely at the caudal neural spines, you'll see the inferred fin-like structure in the middle of the tail, which only the tallest caudal matched when I scaled the diagram to it. This is also present in the illustration accompanying the exhibit (better angle of it here[7]), and was confirmed to me by Allain as the most up to date interpretation of the tail. I agree about the details though, makes things somewhat ambiguous, especially in places like the neck vertebrae, I'll lower the opacity on them and see if that helps. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼19:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, forgot to ask that. The discolouration and dark patches on the holotype images from the paper[8] don't seem to quite match that of the museum's display[9], but I'm not sure if that could be due to extra preparation done on the bones or the different lighting in each photo. Anyways, managed to finish some more touch ups to the skeletal today. Added the teeth and right hand; made the fingers longer and the hand claws straighter to match what we know about spinosaurine hands (based on the possible Irritator/Angaturama postcrania and Spinosaurus neotype); and added a human silhouette for size comparison; also reduced the opacity of the details to make the skeletal cleaner, per IJReid's suggestion. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
One thing I was wondering about is that the new Ichthyovenator images make it look very speedy, but spinosaurs don't really seem that adapted to running, with small legs and almost tetradactyl feet, not to mention potentially massive tails. I wonder if it should maybe have a more neutral posture? FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I had the impression it was in a walking pose, especially since I checked out some videos and images of ratites walking to end up with the final posture. Though looking at it again, having the arms held back and the lower leg pulled so far up may give the impression of it running. This is a pretty major change though given that I've already detailed, coloured and shaded the illustration, so if it is necessary I probably won't be able to do it until a while from now. Sort of overwhelmed with projects lately... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼14:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe all that would have to be done is move the front leg a bit back, to make it look more balanced. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
One thing that might be best when updating own images, PaleoGeekSquared, is to upload them over the originals, to prevent the outdated versions to be used on other language Wikipedias. I just had a similar issue with the Camarillasaurus image, which is used in a lot of other Wikipedias as Siamosaurus also... FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized I'd made the mistake of uploading them separately, so had to remove and/or replace the old images on all the other Wikipedias. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼15:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
One solution could also be to "merge" them, by uploading the new version over the old one, and then deleting the other upload as a duplicate, then all links will redirect to the "proper" file. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Skeletal, which could be updated using figures from the paper as reference[1].
Restoration No. 1 has been edited
Flipped version of restoration No. 1 used for cladograms
Restoration No. 2, which interestingly, already has a deep tail, though not as extensive
Restoration No. 3
An isolated version of restoration No. 3 used for cladograms
According to this, a new model's being worked on, so hopefully we can get a picture of it soon after it's finished.
Image just added to the article reflecting the new skeletal
Spinosaurus size comparison
Gustavo Monroy-Becerril's restoration based on the new tail remains
An underwater variation that has yet to be edited
Nobu Tamura's 2014 restoration has been edited
ABelov2014's 2018 restoration has been edited
Luciano Vidal's 2018 restoration
TheSpecman34's Underwater restoration with speculative poo eating fish
A recently uploaded restoration of Spinosaurus predating on a lungfish by Denny Navarra
Spinosaurus with contemporaneous taxa (new version)
Given the recent description of new Spinosaurus tail remains by Ibrahim and colleagues (discussed here on the talk page[10]) (link to journal article[11]), revealing the presence of a deep paddle/fin-like structure, many of our images are no longer up to date. Most urgently, those of Spinosaurus itself. Thus I've opened up some new subsections under the previous Ichthyovenator header (based on a suggestion by FunkMonk') to organize ourselves in regards to updating the images that will be impacted or potentially impacted by this new discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a pretty big deal! To begin with, I think that model is nice as a historical illustration, from that brief moment in time where Spinosaurus had this "intermediate" guise... What was it, only five years it was depicted like this? DBogdanov's image should be easy to fix, the others will be harder. I also wonder what's up with the hands in the new skeletal, but it may just be simplified overall, judging on how the skull looks:[12]FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Im already updating chart but since i dont have acces to the paper i dont know if anything besides tail have changed? Does this affect posture?KoprX (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Much of the new restoration is also a probably unrealistically bright shade of green. I guess it should probably be fixed. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, and with the tail fin added it's definitely more accurate than any of the other ones we got. Just used it to replace DBogdanov's image in the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The size comparison looks fine, but I have multiple issues with the restoration with the fat tail we now have. The dip along the top of the tail is probably too pronounced, and the dip underneath shouldn't exist at all, as the caudofemoralis and muscles below it would completely fill that out. While the rear sail is not necessarily wrong (Hartman suggests the longest spine could be a sacral) the front sail gets too tall and squared too fast, and the head shape still looks weird as in the previous restoration. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
On the rear sail I followed Ibrahim restoration, so you mean that there is the problem with restoration itself not with my chart? Also what's wrong with the head exactly?KoprX (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have written that as one reply. All my criticism above is directed as the life restoration, I have no issues with the scale chart. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point. And also I agree, the sail shape in the new life restoration is quite off compared to the skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well i can include neotype but it would be almost exactly same size as holotype so it will be just a replicate silhouette. I'm not sure if this will look good.KoprX (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, Gustavo Monroy-Becerril aka GusTrex has uploaded a new restoration based on the based on the new tail remains, as well as some variations of it. Any thoughts on them? I have also taken the liberty of adding three older restorations up for review that could be salvaged (as well as flipped images used for cladograms).Monsieur X (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I just saw several cladogram images of Spinosaurus being replaced by Robongio with that new restoration and the tail seems to take too much space when placed in a cladogram. I'd say the restoration itself is OK, the issue is just that it appears a bit too large for a cladogram image of Spinosaurus, although maybe we can use for other stuff? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at them now, Gustavo's restoration lacks the hallux on the left foot, but looks ok otherwise (though the sail might be sloping too much too early compared to the skeletals provided in publications though). Nobu's looks good for the most part, and convenient that it has the tail obscured, though the head's a little weird, not sure why though. Abelov's seems to have a pronated right hand and the tail is indeed too short, but otherwise would make a great palaeoecological restoration. Vidal's one was reviewed previously and is all over the place in terms of proportions and anatomy (neck and tail are too short, head is the completely wrong shape, pronated hands, etc.), probably too much to be salvageable. I'll try fixing the errors in some of these images if I have time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think Gustavo's is the one we should go with right now, the issue of the sail isn't settled nor will be so it is fine for now and can be edited later when more publications come out. Nobu's is alright because the tail is obscured, but ABelov's does not have a deep enough tail and the dorsal spine also extends too far over the sacrum and tail. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Taking a closer look, you're right about Abelov's one, I'm not sure why I thought the tail was deep enough. Guess I'm still not used to Spino's bizarre new anatomy, haha. Will be fixing Gustavo's one first then, the hallux should be easy to add. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the GusTrex image should be used already, and the Abelov and NT one's could be modified (tails). But the Vidal image has various wonky aspects. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Much better, I wonder if NT's image needs a bit more fin to the tail? And maybe Abelov's could get the green tint removed that all his images seem to have? You can autocorrect levels, tone, and contrast in Photoshop, that usually makes his images look less tinted. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll give it a try later, it's pretty late right now. However, I thought the green tint was intentional due to the swampy environment depicted in the painting? Monsieur X (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
In this case it could work, but notice that most of his images have a tint, even the ones above water, and he seems to be removing the green tint digitally also in some of his "blurred" versions of the paintings.[13][14] Not sure what's going on... I think it's just the lighting conditions when he photographs his paintings. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the tail on Nobu's artwork, as well as the crest so it can be more visible. I've also tried to auto-correct the colours on ABelov2014's painting. I hope its to your liking. I used the auto white balance & auto color balance settings on GIMP. I'm kinda shock how washed out the orginal was, I'm too used to the edit versions of ABelov2014's paintings. Monsieur X (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice, yeah, much sharper and clearer. I think that's why he also often uploads digitally blurred versions of his images, because the photos he takes of the physical paintings are usually unsharp. But I think stuff like you did is much more effective at making them clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's good, I'll take a crack at editing the other Spinosaurus restorations later & will edit the colours on Belov's paintings in the future if they're still quite washed out. Monsieur X (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed GusTrex'sz image still needs a hallux, I'll add that if no one else has a work in progress already. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Needs quite a few fixes first, though, I'm on it. But I think I'll only fix the version with the transparent background for now, the others will be a bit difficult. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
While we're at it, what do we think about the fuzz on No. 1 & 3? There are plenty of fuzzy aquatic animals around today, but...
The only definite carnosaur (assuming spinosaurs are carnosaurs) skin impressions are scaly (admittedly they're very restricted)
Ceratosaurs also only preserve scales (if spinosaurs aren't carnosaurs, then they're between two scaly taxa)
The placement of Sciurumimus is ambiguous & as are Concavenator' feathers
Since this is rather inconclusive evidence, I'm not really sure how plausible feathers are, but what do other people think? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
On 1, the DBogdanov image, the tail is already inaccurate enough that we have to tag it as such, but I don't think the fuzz is too bad, since it is very sparse, and since it could be primitive within theropoda. But I always thought the fuzz pattern on 3 looked extremely unnatural. Very clean cut and strangely distributed, like it had been shaved everywhere except the head and neck... And the tail is also wrong in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, it is known that Carnotaurus was scaly, not the whole Ceratosauria. Seems quite a stretch - like assuming the first sauropodomorphs had eusauropod-like integument. In fact, Carnotaurus skin impressions don't reveal whether the dorsum was also scaly or not, as Andrea Cau pointed out.[15]. Kulindadromeus shows widespread feathers/feather-like integument and widespread scales. Doesn't Anchiornis show scales growing beneath feathers? I don't see how Carnotaurus makes the small amount of fuzz in those image unlikely. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Another strange thing we might have overlooked is that in the newer skeletals (including the one here), the fingers are extremely long and slender, with the second and third fingers far exceeding the first finger in length (including claws), unlike how they have been restored before. May this be based on some undescribed specimens, and should we act on it, or wait? FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, some others online have picked up on this, and at first I thought it was speculation. Then I realized Ibrahim and colleagues' 2014[16] paper on the neotype mentioned that given the morphology of the referred ungual and phalange (shown here[17] in green and red as the neotype), Spinosaurus may have had longer, more slender hands than other spinosaurids. This also seems to have been the case in Angaturama, as seen here[18], where it looks like I may have made the keratin sheath too long and recurved, and the way the ungual is restored in the skeletal mount[19]. It's also the reason why I redrew the hands on Ichthyovenator above, making the claws straighter and the fingers slightly longer. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Just gets weirder and weirder, hehe, but at least it seems the proportional relations between the fingers in the skeletal is largely speculation. I also noticed the shinbone of the GusTrex restoration is proportionally much shorter than in the skeletal above, can others confirm? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I just did a whole lotta edits to the transparent BG GusTrex, mainly modifying the limbs and claws. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Changes look good and very clean. Another, more minor detail I noticed is that the teeth of the lower jaw are poking out at a weird angle and are very recurved, even moreso than baryonychine teeth, when they should be straight (as seen in this 3d skull reconstruction[20]). The image is already more accurate than our other standalone reconstructions though so I'll start replacing now in the cladograms at least. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Another thing that could be fixed in the Abelov image, Monsieur X, are the feet; the hallux seems too small and the claws too curved, compare with the recosntructed foot here:[21] That's one of the major things I had to change in the GusTrex, for some reason it had extremely long, curved foot claws, in addition to the completely absent hallux... FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks better, I think. Those other restorations seem to have taken it into account, but the claws on DBogdanov's seem a bit too blunt? FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I may not be an expert at these things, but I'd say the tail is more precise than before (based on the new tail remains), though I do agree with FunkMonk about the claws being blunt, at least a bit. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
They are less blunt now after the edit, so that's good. But there's one thing I've thought about the DBodganov image since it was uploaded; does the really tight skin over the neural spines look plausible? Especially how the silhouette becomes jagged instead of continuous seems a bit, I don't know, skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur, that always looked rather jarring to me. Though Ibrahim et al. hypothesized in 2014, via comparisons with extant reptiles like crested chameleons, that the spines may have been tightly-wrapped in skin, they've still given their reconstructions a higher amount of soft tissue than seen in the DBogdanov image (such as in this recent model [22]). So yeah, the sail could probably use some smoothing out, the tallest dorsal even seems to be poking out of the flesh entirely, Dimetrodon-style. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼10:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I had mistakenly thought the sail on Bodganov's restoration was already quite close to the recent paper, thanks for noticing that for me. I have gone back & edited the sail to look less tight & to better match the skeletal reconstruction & 3D model provided with the 2020 paper, I also tried to make it similar looking to the basilisk lizard. Any thoughts & critiques? Monsieur X (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Forgot to mention, great work on these edits by the way! They're very cleanly done and seamlessly match the original art style. One last suggestion before this is good to go for article use is the fingers could be lengthened and the hand claws made straighter, as seen in the new skeletal([23]); apparently the referred claw and phalange seem to indicate this sort of morphology. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words. Sorry for the wait, I've edited the claws to more closely match the recent skeletal. Any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The transition from the tail to back neural spines seems very abrupt, I wonder if the base of the individual dorsal spines should be less apparent? Or maybe the individual spines should just all be less visible? Could be painted over with a low opacity brush or clone tool, for example, to stand out less. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Much better, the trnsition from tail paddle to spines still looks a bit too harsh, like the skin suddenly becomes transparent by the back, so maybe the lines at the bases of the spines should be completely erased? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Would someone edit GusTrex's restoration at the tail to make the thicker parts of the tail extend to the beginning of the tail (it's nearly at the middle on both sides now) like in the skeletal of Ibrahim et al. 2020?
It's fine if there's a dip, since the skeletal in Ibrahim et al. (2020) has it as well, but it should be where the tail begins, not close to the middle of the tail.
As for the dip on the upper part of the tail, I think that's probably subjective. It could have a dip, as in the paper's model and skeletal, or it could be drawn with some soft tissue/musculature filling in the gap, as in GusTrex's restoration or my Oxalaia below. There should almost certainly not be one under the tail though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼13:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Another new Spinosaurus restoration by Denny Navarra has been uploaded. Any thoughts & critiques? Looks mostly decent, but I'm not too sure about the arms & tail, but it could just be me. Monsieur X (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks great, was gonna put that one up here but looks like I forgot, haha. The hands and arms seem alright to me, but the hallux on the right foot is again missing and the dip at the bottom of the tail could be lessened. The tail also seems a bit short, even accounting for perspective. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a subtle perspective issue with the jaws, like they are from slightly different angles. Weird with all the missing halluxes... And I don't think the dung fish image is an improvement over the Abelov image as suggested by the IP... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded a new restoration of Spinosaurus with contemporaneous taxa based on Joschua Knüppe artwork and restoration by Gustavo Monroy-Becerril. HFoxii (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Knuppe seemed pretty annoyed about the splicing of someone else's recon into his diagram, on twitter. While he recognizes that we are entirely allowed to do it since it's Creative Commons, I would say that it would be best to respect the authors wishes and not use the edited version. Not to mention the spliced-in recon looks pretty bad given the drastically different style. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
In any case, I think the new version should have been uploaded as a separate file. And I'm not sure we needed to modify the file, since it is not used in the Spinosaurus article anymore, and we should probably extract the images of the other shown taxa for use in their articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Given how heavily these are already based on Spinosaurus, and the fact that Oxalaia remains its closest known relative besides Sigilmassasaurus, they could probably use tail flukes as well. Both images are very speculative as it is though, so these changes are not quite as urgent. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Started work on the new Oxalaia. I've donemorerevisionsof this very speculative restoration than anyone reasonably should (and that's not even including the ones outside of Wikipedia) but heck, it's good drawing practice. The anatomy for this one's still mostly based on Spinosaurus, except on the 2020 Ibrahim et al. skeletal this time, with more rigorous scaling and not such an oversized head. Among the more noticable changes, the hands are now longer and their claws straighter, the metatarsals aren't posed so vertically anymore, the sail doesn't extend so far back anymore, and of course, it has a paddle tail now. Let me know your thoughts. Oh, and Slate Weasel, could you please modify the tail in the diagram? Thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
My only comment is that the underside of the base of the tail shouldn't have a dip, because of the caudofemoralis and lower muscles. But that's it the rest looks good to me. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I made a new Spinosaurus silhouette recently. I'll see if I can modify it tomorrow (shouldn't take too long, hopefully) so that it matches what's known of Oxalaia. I will be extremely busy over this week and next though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks nice overall, Thanks! I would make the dip over the base of the tail slightly less pronounced though, as suggested for Mariolanzas' Spinosaurus above, since there would likely be more musculature and soft tissue there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Took me a while but finally got around to colouring, detailing and shading the restoration. Definitely looks much more natural overall than my older one! I'll get to work on a skeletal for the Khok Kruat spinosaurid and a Siamosaurus size chart next. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Will be updating Spino with the tail paddle in this size chart soon and also implementing the changes I'll be doing for Ichthyovenator above. Perhaps I'll also add Oxalaia to it as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems possible, though ambiguous given the caudals we have from Romualdo Spinosaurinae[24]. Either way, I've started the updates on my chart. Modified Spinosaurus based on Ibrahim and colleagues' new skeletal, adding the tail paddle, making the sail more M-shaped, and giving it a deeper torso and more prominent shoulders. Also lengthened the hand and reduced the curvature of the claws, based on the new skeletal and what Ibrahim et al. (2014) inferred for the morphology of the hand from the few bones known. Also gave the other spinosaurs flat-bottomed foot claws as well, and fixed the incorrect scaling of all the taxa, which Eotyrannu5-2 rightly pointed out above, given that I'd failed to account for the curvature of the spinal column and just measured standing lengths. Mind the broken measuring bars, gotta fix those; looks like exporting SVGs from Krita isn't perfect yet. Let me know how the changes look good so far. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
How does Abelov2014's anachronistic comparison fair? Does it need to be edited in anyway in the wake of the new discovery? Monsieur X (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What about shrink wrapping? Abelov art strikes me as one of a primary examples. Sunken feneastre seems to be fix but still should Suchomimus hump be that sunken? It looks like bone covered in skin whit no soft tissue.KoprX (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Monsieur X has fixed most of the sunken fenestrae (see version history), but there are probably more things to adjust (it could probably also get some auto level correction, to remove the green tint). FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A non-tail paddle related restoration. This illustration of a Siamosaurus/generalized Sao Khua Formation spinosaur feeding on a sauropod carcass has some issues. Most notably, the hands are pronated (perhaps they could be hidden behind the carcass?); the sail could be smoothed out and those protruding spines removed; and the tail seems too short and thin, even accounting for perspective. Perhaps Monsieur X would be up for it? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I always assumed the arms were just lifted, so that the upper arms were horizontal, and the lower arms just sticking forwards? And are the spikes unlikely? Seems the "official" newer Spinosaurus restorations have spikes on top of the neutral spines too?[26]FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that could make sense, sort of like the arms in this image I'm assuming is what you mean. The angle makes it rather ambiguous anyways so guess that should be ok. Iguana/croc-like spines on the sail aren't too far-fetched imo, my problem with them is that in this image they're drawn to look almost as if the neural spines themselves are actually poking out of the skin, which seems like something many readers would get the impression of. So perhaps the "dips" between the spines could just be smoothed out and the spikes kept. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼19:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the kinda pose I meant, though those ornithomimids do seem to have prnated hands... I see what you're getting at with the spikes, and it that case, the easiest and probably best looking would be to just remove them. One thing I always wondered about is why the paper doesn't outright label it Siamosaurus? If it's based on those teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The Siamosaurus article now has no less than three life restorations, so I thought of retooling my old illustration as some other spinosaur, and the only ones needing one are Camarillasaurus and Sigilmassasaurus. Since Sigil would, whatever it is, probably look mostly like Spinosaurus, the more basal Camarilla would probably be the best contender, given the long legs and "normal" tail on my old restoration. Any thoughts on this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, perhaps make the sail a bit less "spiny" along the edge but really with the incomplete nature of it thats about all that should be changed? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I overhauled the image and renamed it, how does it look? I made the spikes much less apparent and more irregular. The head is slightly shorter, to make it look a bit more basal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
For the Irritator at least, I fear that it's even less accurate now. Here's a skeletal diagram of the Santana spinosaurids (which probably are all Irritator). The humongous snout comes form a time when the holotype of "Angaturama" was thought to come from an animal about the same size as the holotype of Irritator. The nasal crest seems to be rather bizarrely shaped as well, but I don't know enough about spinosaurids to know if that's a genuine issue or not. I've yet to check the others, although Ichthyovenator and Baryonyx may be lacking some jaw muscles (concave posterior skull). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Overhauled the restoration now used in the description section for Siamosaurus digitally, with colour, additional scenery, more Phuwiangosaurus (with redone anatomy based on the skeletal Slate Weasel referred me to), and a Sunosuchus. I made the tail somewhat deeper, since according to Arden et al. (2018)[27], tall caudal neural spines were a basal condition among spinosaurs. Siamosaurus according to their cladogram was still pretty basal within Spinosaurinae though, so still kept it less deep than that of Ichthyovenator. Let me know if that looks good. Also, given that their analysis is that this is a basal condition (even cropping up in Suchomimus somewhat), there are probably indeed implications for Irritator as FunkMonk pointed out before; since it's placed between Ichthyovenator and Spinosaurus in both the cladogram and geological timeline. Though our hands are already rather full at the moment with restorations so we should probably deal with the ones we have up here first before expanding further. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼19:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice transformation! Some of the greens are very saturated though, almost neon like, I wonder if it would look more natural toned a bit down? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of activity this month, life's been pretty busy. I've finally gotten around to making a new size comparison, though. The jogger and cat from the Podokesaurus size comparison are back for this size comparison of Laquintasaura. I don't really have much to say about this one. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Tethyshadros size comparison
Slate Weasel created this size diagram for the Tethyshadros page a while back, but I've been working on expanding the article (at User:Lusotitan/sandbox2) and the new paper from earlier this month estimated the total length of the animal at 4.5m - quite a bit larger than what is illustrated, which seems to be a little over three and a half metres. This paper is by the same guy who did its original description paper, so I see no reason not to go with his newer number. The silhouette may need updating as well; this same paper estimates the tail to be 56% of the body length and "over 3.5 times the length of the trunk". The paper has a skeletal that could be used as reference. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Can't say much about the diagram, but this could also be an opportunity to fix the life restoration we have.[28] As far as I can see, the forelimbs seem attached to the body too far from each other, and the footpads of the hind legs look very unnatural. Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's an attempt to fix the distance between the arms and the odd footpads:[29]
The neck has a really unnatural looking "kink" in it, as well as really tall neural spines for some reason, and I think it [the neck] is too long overall (comparing to the skeletal). Head might be too big? Hard to tell. Tail probably needs extension per my above explanation. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot, the image is in so low resolution that it's easy to modify without it being noticeable. By kink in the neck, do you mean the shadowy area that indicates it is just a flap of skin rather than muscle that stretches to the back of the head? There is of course also perspective, so I'm not sure the head is too big, it's just closer to the viewer. Opposite for the tail, but it could of course still be made longer. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it's about the general shape of the neck. Down at the bottom it's very thick, almost bulging, and then it takes an unnaturally sharp turn upwards and the width of the neck decreases a ton. I wonder if this could be fixed by cutting out the thinnest portion in the middle? I already mentioned the neck seems a bit long. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I think we're talking about the same thing, just in different words. The shadow I'm talking about is what makes the upper part look like a thin flap of skin. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's a version with some changes[30], the upper neck does not look as narrow anymore, is shorter, and the tail is longer. I disagree that the tall neck has anything to do with too tall neural spines, hadrosaurs are commonly shown with a bridge of muscles and skin connecting from the back to the back of the head.[31] Likewise, a horse does not have very tall neural spines on the neck vertebrae to account for their deep necks, it's just muscle.[32] In this sense, the skeletal diagram in the paper looks very unnatural, it wouldn't be able to hold its neck up with no nuchal muscles, ligaments etc. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention, I'm definitely interested. However, the remains are from multiple individuals at apparent different sizes so idk how to get the correct proportions, should I based it on Gobihadros or the Paul 2016 Bactrosaurus skeletal? (sorry I wasn't able to find online images of it). קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς19:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd probably try to have a more generalized silhouette in this case intermediate between Bactrosaurus and Gobihadros (man, the Gobihadros material is exquisite!), with the proportions adjusted for Gilmoreosaurus where needed. Specific parts that should be relatively easy to determine include things such as the robustness and shape on the individual limb bones and the height of the neural spines. I'm not sure if there's anything in the literature for this taxon suggesting what sizes the different bones belong to, but that could also, hypothetically, be used for determining proportions. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep it was scaled to Holtz, but thanks to your input, I have realized that there are no (apparently) 8 m long specimens; several individuals are about 6 m if scaled. Should I keep this estimation? go straight for Paul 2016 (6.2 m)? or maybe include both as upper and lesser estimates? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς02:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I personally would shoot for the estimate that better matches the bones. Also, wouldn't Gilmoreosaurus have had cheeks? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The cheek argument is something that has been losing strength over the time. Cheeks are a nearly mammalian tissue that is unlikely to be present in reptiles, if any, not to mention that numerous animals without cheeks can actually chew or at least partially, and several others with them can't hold food from spilling out. If you ask me, I stick to Nabavizadeh reconstructions [33][34]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
He has clarified somewhere that he doesn't rule out some sort of tissue between the upper and lower jaws, they just weren't analogous to mammalian cheeks and the muscles they consist of. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Even though he doesn't completely rule out the presence of bucal tissues, I don't think that justifies reconstructions like this [35][36]. My Gilmoreosaurus has, lets say, the minimal amount; mostly similar to Mark Witton's Edmontosaurus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, one last thing while we're on the topic of bactrosaurs. The Gobihadros image has a slight error. It says MPC-D100/744 when it should say MPC-D100/746. Could someone make this quick fix? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Uh... why MPC-D100/746? Slowiak et al. [37] provide a length estimate for 744, as a presumably more mature specimen of greater size than the holotype. They don't discuss 746 at all. However, the paper seems to think that the holotype is 763, so if anything 763 should be corrected to 746 (since 763 is only a skull). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, guess I was mistaken then. I assumed the holotype would've been one of the specimens included and that "744" was therefore a typo. Good catch about the holotype though, guess that'll have to changed instead. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oof this caught me off guard. Probably I'm missing something about this discussion, but the three specimens (and sizes) were directly taken from Slowiak et al. 2020. As far as I'm concerned, the small MPC-D100/746 was described as the holotype so I kinda don't get the confusion. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Scott Hartman recently (well, relatively recently) put out a new Trike skeletal ([38]), depicting an old adult T. horridus, which, I believe, indicates that my silhouette for this taxon is inaccurate, as it currently has various subadult characteristics, so I plan to update it. Additionally, I found a Torosaurus skeletal in Hunt & Lehman (2008), and am curious as to how accurate it is, as Torosaurus is another taxon that I'm interested in creating a size comparison for. Any thoughts on these two ceratopsids? Oh, Styracosaurus may get an update to, it's not really up to my current standards. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that Torosaurus. It feels more schematic than rigorous. The caption also says "general form of skeleton modeled on Pentaceratops sternbergi", which doesn't gel with contemporary phylogeny. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, this sure isn't Torosaurus (I don't think that it will come until much, much later on), but here's an updated Edmontonia size comparison, and this seems to be as good a place as any to put it. How does it look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks nice. But what is this plateau just above the pedal digits? The digits, especially digit III of the right foot, seem to be disarticulated from the metatarsus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Those are scutes. I often use those of terrestrial birds [41] as reference. This restoration is based on a skeletal that I'm about to finish (just a little bit more!). I can assure you the digits are not disarticulated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, most modern-day theropods seem to have this tissue "formation" on their feet. Not very prominent on smaller animals but notably in large ones. Maybe the previously linked image is a good example. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so it is a skin fold! You are right, they appear to be common at least in emus. But then, I think it should not be visible in the right foot, since that foot is held straight, see for example here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
As I stated at the peer review, "Some of the claws seem very curved, for example, while ornithomimosaurs are known for their straight claws (except maybe the hand-claws of Deinocheirus)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The hand claws were based on Deinocheirus given their close relationships, but it may be unlikely since Garudimimus was more gracile than the latter. Regarding the pedal claws, Garudimimus had rather curved unguals, so they should be fine. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The hand claw looks extremely long and hooked, even longer than those of Deinocheirus, so yeah, I'd say they would need to be more standard ornithomimosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, Falcarius is more basal than Jianchangosaurus, and no premaxillae are known, so it's definitely possible that Falcarius had a premaxillary teeth. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of the rather bizarre sauropod Jobaria tiguidensis. When scaling the skeletal in Sereno et. al. (1999), I noticed that it didn't match the bone measurements very well, so my scaling resulted in quite different proportions and ended up closer to Paul's estimate. It's too bad that not a whole lot's been published about this taxon, considering how complete it is. Anyways, how does the diagram look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't carefully checked the proportions myself, but I don't see anything objectionable about it. Unfortunately, there probably isn't much better we can do until Sereno properly describes it. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The look of Spinophorosaurus has changed radically the last year, and not only is it not thought to have the tail spikes that gave it its name (they are now thought to have been clavicles), the overall posture has also been changed from horizontal to more vertical, and our old NT restoration reflects the old view. I thought of doing it myself, but I won't have time for it any time soon, so I wondered if anyone else is up for it? The latest skeletal reconstructions can be seen here[42], here[43], and here[44]. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I think this has sat waiting long enough, its not nearly finished yet but it is at the point where I think the anatomy can be reviewed before completing it, and it may even be usable once I start editing and colouring and at least make it flat. IJReid{{T - CD - R}}20:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! The legs look really skinny? At least the hind legs look like they taper a lot more towards the feet than in other sauropod restorations, if you compare with the soft tissue outline on for example this reconstruction:[45]Jens Lallensack should probably also have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
One thing I significantly changed from the paper restoration was the feet, which for some reason were facing out to the side instead of the front like we know from footprints. I can adjust the width just above the ankle, but I don't think the calf was parallel like the paper has it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick edit later I've cleaned the background and rotated it so its actually horizontal now. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't the fourth and fifth toes be somewhat visible? I seem to remember that coming up with my Bajadasaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking good! My main concern are also the feet. I agree, digits four and five have no claw, but should be visible – at least we see them in well-preserved tracks, so they do not seem to be hidden in soft tissue. The left foot looks a bit simplistic, especially where the claw attaches, but not sure how to fix. In general, the claws should be much more recurved, especially the first. The claws could also be more inclined; in tracks usually their inner sides are impressed because they are usually flexed/drawn against the foot pad and point laterally. Sauropods also have a huge fleshy pad under their feet; this could be indicated by drawing the heel with a bulge, rather than the simple rectangular profile. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Feet have now been redrawn and hopefully the lateral angulation of the unguals is more clear now. Colouring will likely happen within the next few weeks. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe check the length of the shin bones in relation to the femur. In the skeletal, the femur extends below the body line, the knee joint is below the elbow. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep it appears I was done dirty by the awkward posture of the hindlimb once again, will fix that up promptly. Hopefully the feet are better though. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Could it perhaps be flipped the other way so it can easier take the place of the old restoration, and so it does not look as close to the skeletal? FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Restoration
A new restoration was just added to the article by Tostitodon, but it should of course be reviewed. It generally looks good, but I'm concerned if the eyes are too large compared to what would be indicated by known sclerotic rings of relatives. And I wonder what the other animals are? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi HFoxii, sorry for the late reply. It appears that this stegosaur is described in this paper: [48], and there still seem to be quite a few issues with the model. The hands are missing digits IV & V, the legs appear to be undermuscled, the concave belly seems rather strange, the tail appears incongruously deep, and the tail spikes (which aren't actually known, it seems) are peculiarly small and spindly. As for the shoulder spikes, it's not clear if this taxon's a stegosaurine or a basal stegosaur, so I don't think that their presence can be ruled out, although neither can their absence. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Brachiosaurus restoration
A digitally-painted side profile illustration of the sauropod dinosaur Brachiosaurus altithorax.
Hello! I recently made a Brachiosaurus side profile view that I believe is suitable for the page about the genus or Brachiosauridae / some other cladistic ranking relevant to the animal. Please provide feedback if necessary. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it looks better than the ones we already have, so I'd think we could replace one of those used in the article if everyone else agrees. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, and make this the image under description. I wonder if the skin looks a bit too tight around the narial openings? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The base of the tail is a bit odd-looking; it looks like the ischium is too long. The proportions of the forelimb also look a bit off-the forearm looks a bit long and the manus looks a bit short. Looks fine other than that. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Rectifiable, if you guys would like to see those adjustments. Wouldn't be difficult to adjust. I go back and forth on how bulbous to make the soft tissue around the nares, but it could be rounder. The perceived ischium length is the soft tissue "padding" I added up to the cloaca. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the nose area is probably bulbous enough (if we're talking the profile), it's more the shading in front of the eye that makes it seem very concave. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The feet currently look like they're digitigrade, but shouldn't they be semi-plantigrade? Compared to both my and Hartman's skeletal many proportions seem somewhat off - the neck, for instance, seems a bit short. Also, the forelimbs seem really, really robust, much more than in Hartman's and nearly twice as much as in mine, based on humeral length. There also seems to be a huge amount of soft tissue - I'm not sure how plausible this is. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks much better! I haven't done a thorough check, but the only thing that jumps out at me is that the arms could be a bit longer. Also, my Brachiosaurus skeletal still needs to be updated after the new Spinophorosaurus paper (although I probably won't get to it until the summer), so I'd mainly follow Hartman's skeletal for the moment. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with this one? It is obviously a potentially valuable image, but ThePaintPaddock seems to be gone. ~If making the arms longer is the last issue, we could do it, but wouldn't that also mean we need to make the hindlegs longer for balance? Or shoulæd the body be tilted more upwards too? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Sorry for the radio silence. These emails have been missing me. I'll render out a new one fairly soon with the adjustments closer to the Hartman skeletal. The way I painted it in Photoshop doesn't lend itself well to warping to change proportions. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, the image you made already looks better than what we have in the article. I was thinking (if I had to fix it) the legs could be cut and moved down and then the missing middle parts could be painted in, but you're of course welcome to make a new one. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. Here's a work-in-progress of the new one I'm making. Let me know if this fits the bill better. Will be continuing work on this tonight; might make parts of it more robust, but not as much as the old one. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks nice, though I'm not really a sauropod experts, so let's see what the others say. I wonder what that spot at the back of the head is, a pattern or ear? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
What you saw before was an ear. I've redrawn it and am very happy with this product. Let me know if there are any further suggestions. I added some speculative osteoderms / feature scales to reflect the relationship between macronaria and titanosauria.ThePaintPaddock (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me overall, though it would of course be good to get more opinions, the ankles look very narrow compared to some skeletals, though? And I'm not entirely sure, but wouldn't the individual scales have been smaller, I think I read they would almost not be visible at a distance, maybe your old version was closer to that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the ankles could have more flesh. The fore and hindlimbs should probably be of roughly equal robustness, based on Hartman's skeletal and my own. While interesting, I'm not sure if osteoderms are a good idea for Brachiosaurus, considering that they're unknown outside of Lithostrotia, including in some well-preserved taxa (i.e. Euhelopus, Europasaurus, and Giraffatitan). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Pararhabdodon size redux
Slate Weasel, you made this size comparison of Pararhabdodon a while back, going with the six metre estimate of the holotype. However, a recent paper on the taxon found the holotype to be not be fully grown and estimated an adult would probably be closer in size to mainland forms like Corythosaurus and Tsintaosaurus. Think you could add a secondary silhouette mocking up an adult at eight and a half metres or so? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the silhouette (it was in dire need) and noted the specimen number and its immaturity in the key. Is the ~9m estimate actually based on any material? I'm rather wary of adding hypothetical adults to size charts (I think that this issue came up when Siats got a chart), but I can if it's need. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's hypothetical, but it's extrapolated in the paper, not on our end, so I would say it is fair game. I do understand the concern about it, but that's why I suggested a secondary silhouette (perhaps in gray or semi-transparent) that could be labelled as hypothetical. I feel it's important to make it clear that this isn't a dwarf animal despite living on an island. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't look obviously inaccurate, I wonder if that thick "brow" is accurate, and shouldn't instead be a more prominent lacrimal horn?[49]FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Buriolestes skeletal (again)
I wanted to discuss this with Marissauro, and I figured that this would be a good place to do so. As a whole this skeletal is very good, but I'm not confident with the current skull shape which seems to be at odds with published material. Marissauro argues that the skull, as typically reconstructed, is deformed and flattened. The 2018 description of Buriolestes material did say that "part of the skull roof suffered dorsoventral compression during fossil diagenesis. Hence, despite the excellent preservation, its height does not reflect the original condition." However, I assume that the skull diagram presented within the paper (figure 3B) corrected for deformation, since it is somewhat taller than the figured specimen and is corrrected for bone displacement. Moreover, press release art regarding Buriolestes consistently reconstructs a low skull shape, including Marcio Castro's New York Times illustration for the braincase study published today. Marissauro's June 15 revision to their diagram would be an over-correction as I see it. Marissauro has said that their skeletal has been approved by Müller and other colleagues. While I don't doubt this, and I certainly think the skeletal is very well-made and generally accurate, I don't know if Müller et al. approve of the June 15 revision with the tall skull. Elaboration would be greatly appreciated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
As I said, the skull present in the 2018 (and in the 2020) paper didn't corrected the dorsoventral deformation. That skull was made combining the "lower skull" bones of the holotype (premaxilla, maxilla, jugal....) with the "upper skull" (nasal, frontal, parietal....) bones of the referred specimen, and it is more like a "free-hand" style than an actual tracing of the bones as I did. However, the nasal and frontal of the referred specimen are severely broken. Their skull reconstruction didn't correct that as is stated in the paper itself. "Behind the curtains" of the 2018 article, originally Müller and co-authors didn't intend to include a cranial reconstruction of Buriolestes in that paper (if you compare the reconstruction with the skeleton in Fig. 1 you'll notice differences). They only did include the reconstruction because one of the referees asked for it. So they did it as fast/straightforward as possible. On the other hand, the skull of my reconstruction was based primarily on the holotype (which preserves a frontal+parietal that wasn't dorsoventrally flattened) and then I filled the gaps with the referred specimen, but I did correct the deformation (based on close-related sauropodomorphs), hence the differences between them. If you compare the available skulls of Buriolestes (ULBRA-VT280 and CAPPA/UFSM 0035) with those of another sauropodomorph which I also have first-hand access and that preserves more than a single skull, Macrocollum itaquii (CAPPA/UFSM 0001a and CAPPA/UFSM 0001b; see Müller, 2019), you'll notice that it is possible to trace the differences in the shape of the cranial bones caused by dorsoventral compression. We actually published a paper related to this topic (though not focused on the skull) in 2018, you can access it here. So we used this knowledge and the compared anatomy of close-related taxa (obtained through either high-resolution photographs or first-hand access to specimens) to remove the deformation of the skull of Buriolestes. Do you guys prefer a reconstruction with the deformed skull? I currently have a paper under review (which includes Müller and other authors of the papers on Buriolestes), that presents this same skeleton of Buriolestes in one of the figures. This paper is not focused on Buriolestes, but would it apply to you?--Maurissauro (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd certainly be open to having your updated reconstruction on the page once the paper is accepted. I'm just wary of the implications of introducing a novel reconstruction through a Wikipedia page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I disagree. In any case, I won't add this image to Buriolestes' page again at least till the mentioned paper is out.--Maurissauro (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I also think we should wait until the paper is published, and in my opinion this reinterpretation deserves some elaboration in the peer-reviewed literature. Nevertheless, I appreciate your points and your in-depth explanation on the prevalence of sedimentary compression on fossils from this system. Are there any other prominent specimens which need to be reinterpreted due to the discovery of this taphonomic situation? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding dinosaur skulls I don't think so. Skull material is rare, articulated skulls are rarer, and articulated skulls preserved in dorsal or ventral position are even more rare. Other dinosaur skulls from the same geological units are often disarticulated or preseved in lateral position. However this sedimentary compression is usually seen in postcranial elements. For the record, I don't think there will be a paper in the near future that will deal with the specific matter of the reconstruction of Buriolestes. But if it happens, betcha we'll make sure to include this topic. Accordingly, I'll also remove all my skeletals in other pages related to Late Triassic dinosauromorphs, such as Guaibasaurus, Gnathovorax, Ixalerpeton and so on. None of them have been published and since I made them from scratch, most include something that you would consider "novel", and I don't want to cause any more trouble in this sense. Many will appear in the paper I mentioned above, so maybe when it is out I add the skeletals back to their respective pages. I usually post and update my skeletals on deviantart, it is possible to keep up on them there.--Maurissauro (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The postcranium is similar, but the skull is mostly different between reconstructions. As with the skull of Buriolestes, the Gnathovorax skeleton (the skull above all) was reconstructed in a "free-hand" style, as it was intentionally meant to be "illustrative" not rigorous as are my reconstructions. So it falls into the same problem that was stated above by the other users. It differs from the published version and didn't appeared in a published paper yet. The first version of my skeletal and skull of Gnathovorax were based on the published reconstruction and the newest versions are more rigorous in relation to the fossil material.--Maurissauro (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't generally have any issues with your work, since talented skeletal artists like you are always appreciated on the site. We do have to uphold Wikipedia policy regarding original research, but in my opinion your interpretations typically aren't problematic or in defiance of Wikipedia regulations. The Gnathovorax skull revision looks quite nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, skeletals are only problematic if they directly contrast with the published photos or descriptions of undeformed fossils in question. As long as the estimated skeletal anatomy is reasonable based on that of a taxon's relatives, there should be no problem. I think your skeletals deserve to be more widely used, especially for taxa with insufficient imagery at this point. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Ildar Gismatullin (Ildarotyrannus) uploaded some of his reconstructions to Wikimedia Commons. I talk with him about it on Vkontakte; he allows the use of these images under a Creative Commons 4.0. license, but does not permit removal of the watermarks. HFoxii (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps making the lips blunter would help? It almost looks as if it has a keratinous beak at the moment. Proportionally the Eoraptor looks pretty good. I'm not familiar enough with the other three to comment on them. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
These are speculative ornamental scales, not osteoderms. I think, this detail is not too speculative, because it's in line with our knowledge about early sauropodomorph integument. Ildarotyrannus (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
It technically isn't November yet, but I thought that I'd nevertheless start today with Gnathovorax, which doesn't fit in to any of the six groupings that I used last year. I'm planning on doing the size comparison-a-day thing again this November, split into six sets of five like last time. Next up will probably be Chromogisaurus. Any comments on the Gnathovorax? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
November has officially begun with Chromogisaurus, as promised. The missing bits have largely been filled in with Saturnalia. Comments? Tomorrow will bring Unaysaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Didn't realise it was that small, even though I restored it! Anatomically they look fine, but there is something awkward about the stances of the two with lifted feet, like the feet wouldn't be flat like that when lifted from the ground, and the legs seem a bit stiff? FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I've reposed the Chromogisaurus, does this look better? As for Gnathovorax, do you think just bending the toes a bit more might do the trick? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems to have somewhat the same effect as before, I think the toes on the raised foot would have to be curled a bit down either way (or the entire foot rotated downwards). If you look at photos of walking birds, they never have the foot planted horizontally in the air when walking. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Huh, never noticed that before, good to know. I've made some more adjustments to Chromogisaurus so that the foot's angled downwards. Gnathovorax updates will come soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
It's only day 4, yet I've already screwed up and put a typo in a filename. While we wait for the file to be moved, it seems pertinent to note that I've finally drawn an animal that's more than a meter tall! Anyways, Efraasia seems to have come out here a bit smaller than expected, although the 6.5m estimate appears to be for a different specimen than the skeletal reconstruction is based on, the latter of which is said to be a "small adult". I am wondering, though, if it might be good to add the big specimen to the chart. Next up will be Jingshanosaurus (my attempts to do Lamplughsaura went horribly wrong, meaning that it won't be continued until I figure out what exactly happened). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Continuing on to the theropods, here's a Lucianovenator for day 11, scaled to the skeletal diagram (w/ scale bar) in the description paper. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Like above, I think the foot on the raised leg of Liliensternus should have the toes curled, see for example this emu in similar pose:[50]FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a Sinosaurus for day 13 (because there simply aren't enough orange non-tetanuran theropods beginning with 'L' to keep this up). Comments? I've also rotated Liliensternus' foot back more, although perhaps not enough, looking at the emu again. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not really the foot itself that needed to be rotated, but the curve of the toes, so that the upper edge of the foot becomes convex instead of concave. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I've rotated the phalanges to be more like the emu's. It appears that emus are a really good reference for this sort of thing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks better, yeah, "ratites" in general are a good reference for dinosaur legs, I find... Because you can see so much of them without feathers covering, and they're pretty heavy. Two-toed ostrich feet are kind of useless as references, though... FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's an Appalachiosaurus for day 14, marking a discontinuity with the taxonomic extent of the parts from last year. I wasn't quite sure of what to do with the hands, so I made them as unobtrusive as possible. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The legs seem very hyperextended, I think the knees at least would be flexed at all times? But the front leg looks like it is stretched painfully straight... FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
It was originally thought to have had very long arms due to some misidentified bone, but for now I guess you can do whatever phylogenetic bracketing implies... I shrank the arms in my restoration and removed one finger accordingly back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I've increased the arms in size a bit, but Appalachiosaurus is at a really terrible spot on the cladogram for making inferences about its arms, being directly in between Dryptosaurus and Tyrannosauridae. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
My mistake was assuming I could trust the unknown portions of the paper's silhouette - Deinocheirus reveals that not only the tail could be lengthened, but also the head, neck, and torso! I think you solved the problem! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Would be pretty difficult I think, is it even likely it walked quadrupedally? Also a bit odd its foot overlaps a stone in the foreground. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
With half the month behind us, it's time for part 4 (now exclusively for maniraptorans). First up is Gobivenator, a well preserved troodontid. Comments? Next up will probably be Rahonavis, and Oksoko avarsan and Alxasaurus will almost certainly pop up later on this week, too. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That is a good point. On the subject of those images, though, I do wonder how probable the extensive leg-wings in NT's restoration are on a cursorial animal... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's Oksoko for day 18. Comments? Oviraptorosaurs are underrepresented in size charts, it seems. However, tomorrow's chart will be another oviraptorid, and one whose name's apparently quite fun to yell... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I think so, but I haven't checked in detail yet. Is the paper's skeletal missing this part of the crest (that's what the silhouette's based on). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I've done a closer check, and it seems like the difference is due to different levels of keratin (the head has sufficient space for the reconstructed skull). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Now it seems one of the halluxes of Alxasaurus is pointing backwards, but when planted on the ground, all toes would point forwards in therixinosaurs, as far as I gather, being planted on the ground. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yay it's finally done. Only a few things; though the neck may look short, it is based on the cervical series of Ornithomimus, Struthiomimus and loosely on Harpymimus. I also used these taxa as reference for the thoracic configuration. Most cervical vertebrae of Garudimimus are more matrix than actual bone and their overall shape is badly preserved so, I tried to illustrate what is considered as bone in Kobayashi & Barsbold 2005. Last but not least, the ischium is based on some ornithomimids and Deinocheirus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It is kind of confusing that you use grey for both mirrored bones and unknown bones. What is the rationale? Why show for example the ischium in grey and not other unknown bones? FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's more relevant to show correlated bones for the sake of completeness, i.e., if there's a left leg, then restore the right one based on these elements. This also applies to the ischium. Sure, other vertebrae could be added, but I didn't want to put in the time to try and restore the entire vertebral column. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I appear to be running out of viable stegosaurian options for making charts! Here's a Chungkingosaurus, based upon the measurements from Dong et. al. (1983), and a good deal of Huayangosaurus, which, thankfully, matched up pretty well with Holtz's estimate. Assuming the scale bars are accurate, then Chungkingosaurus has enormous plates compared to its relative, which are quite different in shape regardless of this. I improvised most of the plates based on a combination of the illustrated Chungkingosaurus plates and how plate anatomy changed from plate to plate in Huayangosaurus. I do notice that Maidment & Wei (2006) illustrated a Chungkingosaurus plate with a scale bar that may indicate a signficantly smaller size, although I'm not sure if that scale bar actually goes with that image. Any thoughts on this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've just noticed in the text that they pointedly disagree with Dong et al.'s assessment of the plates as large, having examined the material. I might be inclined to shrink them down. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've shrunk the plates. Scaling them to the scale bar in Maidment & Wei (2006) reduces their size by about a quarter, making them similar in size to those of Huayangosaurus, so this shrinking definitely seems probable. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Our current Pinacosaurus size comparison seems a bit wonky (especially the neck and feet), so I've created a new one for day 22. The silhouette's scaled to the holotypic skull length, and it came out at almost exactly the estimate length! Comments? Echinodon should come next time unless something goes terribly wrong. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks nice, there are two things that could be discussed, first, it appears the three first fingers may begin too far into the hands, that some of the metacarpals have been incorporated in the free fingers? This diagram may give an idea of what I'm thinking of[53], in the size diagram it looks like all the fingers begin at the same point, when the metacarpals should really be inside the hand. This skeletal may also show better what I mean, as it shows soft tissue silhouettes between the fingers:[54] Then I also wonder if the gap in the upper jaw would be so exposed in life, and not overlapped by tissue. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a very droopy-looking Mosaiceratops for day 25. Comments? I couldn't find a ZooBank registration number in the Mosaiceratops paper - I fear that this one may also be a nomen nudum... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Erythrovenator jacuiensis
This is my skeletal of the newest theropod from the Triassic of Brazil. What do you think? Since it is heavily fragmentary, I used other theropods such as Coelophysis and "Syntarsus" to fill the gaps.--Maurissauro (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
That's just weird. Pretty sure none of these basal theropods have semilunate carpals so I don't see why it's even posed that way. The range of motion at the wrist would be really limited [55]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There are other weird features in that 3D model, such as the gigantic eyes (hardly leaving space for the sclerotic ring), so I wouldn't take it too seriously. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It's the final part! Here's a Changmiania for day 26, a exquisitely preserved little ornithopod with some interesting features. I've restored some obscured regions with Orodromeus. Comments? I now realize, should I have drawn it with fuzz? Tomorrow will hopefully bring Macrogryphosaurus (and Kronosaurus and Tylosaurus updates at WP:PALEOART). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems like you've reconstructed the predentary as it was preserved. I'm not sure the caudoventral process of the predentary is supposed to hang off the bottom of the dentary like that? The official reconstruction does not have this feature so I think it's taphonomic. Also, the autapomorphic sigmoidal shape of the ventral border of the lower jaw is not very evident. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best if you added specimen numbers, "immature" is such a diffuse term that it means little, anything in between that and adult size, or smaller, would also be "immature". So it's best to add that it is the size of particular specimen, not an arbitrarily chosen size. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's the penultimate size comparison of this project, depicting Probactrosaurus, a seriously underrated ornithopod that I didn't really realize wasn't Protohadros until a couple of days a go. Comments? Tomorrow will likely bring some penguins (in addition to the final size comparison). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's plain old Bactrosaurus for day 30 (Probactrosaurus has quite literally lived up to its name). Bactrosaurus is pretty weird. Comments? That's it for the month, strangely no hadrosaurids popped up this time around. I can't promise that I'll be able to do this again next year, but next month should hopefully involve the conclusion of a huge project I've been working on centered around Iguanodon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Unaysaurid skulls
The skull of unaysaurid dinosaurs. Known elements represented in white and unknown in gray. The scale equals 2 cm.
I'd like to include this diagram to the Unaysauridae page. Unknown elements in Unaysaurus were filled with Macrocollum. Jaklapallisaurus has no published skull remains to my knowledge. In a recent paper [57] we recovered Guaibasaurus within Macrocollum and Unaysaurus (Jaklapallisaurus was not included in that data matrix), so it makes Unaysauridae synonym of Guaibasauridae, however Guaibasaurus also does not preserve skull remains, so it can't contribute to this.--Maurissauro (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the squamosal is fused to the quadrate in the skull diagram of Unaysaurus, but I have yet to find any studies which support that trait or even suggest that the squamosal was preserved in the first place. The front of the snout also seems to be much less concave in photos of the fossil. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The quadrate and squamosal are not fused. The squamosal is labelled in Leal et al., (2004), it's partially covered in matrix. The premaxilla is partially broken in the fossil, but the preserved portion was traced directly from it.--Maurissauro (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I was using McPhee et al. (2019), which did not describe some portions of the skull fragments presented by Leal et al. (2004). Maybe the fossil was damaged in the intervening years. Still, it would be useful to add a black line to separate the squamosal and quadrate like in Macrocollum. As for the snout, I was referring to the articulation between the premaxilla and nasal, which appears to be smooth and slightly convex in most sources but is strongly concave in your diagram. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, nice with the new teeth! Now you don't have contours around the grey areas between the dentary and the lower parts of the mandible, which makes it look kind of disconnected. I realise it's because there is some distance between where these parts connect and the viewer, but maybe if the grey there got an outline too it would look more like it is connected in one piece?
Thanks! I did now reconstruct it based on the jaw of the other side, which preserves the articulation better. Hope it looks better now? I don't want to draw additional lines because these would imply bone margins when there are none. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
A redescription of the Carnotaurus holotype skull was published this year[58], which indicates the teeth were reconstructed in plaster, and may therefore not be accurate (see talk page discussion here[59]). Jens Lallensack noted that this seems to contradict the original description, which implies the teeth were more complete. But if we accept the new interpretation, the tooth-shape is probably wrong in most of our reconstructions, including photos of skeletons. So I and Jens are unsure what we should do, just report there are discrepancies in the sources, as Jens did, and let the images be, or should we change them in reconstructions so they look more like regular abelisaur teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Thankfully most restorations don't show teeth, having looked at the skeletons the teeth on the lower jaw look questionable even without the knowledge that they were made in plaster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Other workers have been reluctant in even mentioning the teeth in Carnotaurus, though at least one paper (and Paul in his book) did follow Bonaparte's reconstruction and stated the teeth were slender and long in contrast to all other abelisaurids. Sometimes, however, it is incredibly hard to distinguish between real bone and plaster, especially when you are not expecting it (or only examine a cast of the original). The 2020 paper (the new reconstruction) is based on a CT scan though, so it is difficult to argue against that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
As pointed out, our main restoration at least doesn't show teeth, but these two show them poking out.[60][61] Perhaps not a big deal, but maybe they wouldn't if they weren't so long. Then there are these diagrams, where the teeth could probably easily be shortend.[62][63]FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what's being requested here. I can try and fix the diagram if Fred is unavailable, although I'm stronger with SVG than PNG. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Even Scott Hartman is doing it these days[65], and he's pretty much the standard now... And in this case, where the tooth shape isn't known or is unclear, it is a good way to circumvent that issue (plus, the teeth were black in this one)... FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, but the teeth were already black in Headden's original, so it was a can of worms I didn't find necessary to open, hehe... But if anyone else wants to add them, they're of course free to take a stab. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughts, since it is a diagram that is supposed to only show known material of the holotype, and not a complete reconstruction, wouldn't it be misleading to make the teeth white? We don't even know their shape or what is preserved of them? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, well I have uploaded a couple of images to commons, the one from Mosaiceratops had already been revised, but I had never uploaded it, Boreonykus was a quick drawing that never came up because it was possibly a chimera, but now I pass here to see if they have anything to modify. Please any comment is useful. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I see no issues with either, although the left outer toe of the Boreonykus may be too thick even with foot pads. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The pennaceous feathers on the tail and wings of Boreonykus are laying in the incorrect order, with the outermost feather in the wings above the innermost, and reverse in the tail. Instead, the pennaceous feathers of all known maniraptors are the opposite. --Luxquine (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded to the page without review. Looks good overall, though the forelimbs are rather small compared to the skeletal from the paper[66]. Can't really spot any other issues so I'll let someone with better knowledge of compsognathids take it from here! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the artist. If the skeletal is scaled properly and distortions from an angle is accounted for, it fits the known proportions of this animal. Please note that much of the arm will be hidden or smoothed out by fur-like structures, especially in an animal with longer filaments along the spine. Apologies for uploading to the page without review; I was unaware that this was a requirement before uploading. --Luxquine (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The hand looks like it's more than half as long as the skull in the skeletal, while it's much shorter in the restoration, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the piece to display a smaller head. Now that I look at it, it seems that I have squished the muzzle. If others feel this is incorrect and it merely had to be scaled down, let me know. --Luxquine (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Animantarx
In 2008, I made this drawing of Animantarx (see original here). I recently thought I had learned enough about ankylosaurs to make a correction. Do you think it can be acceptable by now, or could it get better still? Conty~enwiki06:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The perspective also seems a bit odd wit the feet and spikes. For example, the back feet are both turned the same way, one even seems to be a copy of the others, and the spikes don't seem to attach to the same parts of the flanks on each side. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You are right, FunkMonk: the hind feet are copies of each other (the original right foot did not look so good...). I will think about this as well as the spikes if I edit further. Conty~enwiki19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Some other things to note: Currently, the fingers all seem to be the same length, whereas they vary quite a lot in shape and size on ankylosaur hands. The feet look almost columnar, while I believe that the toes were quite a bit longer in life and the feet less specialized. Additionally, if Sauropelta and Gastonia are anything to go by, wouldn't the armor extend all the way to the tip of the tail? The beak currently looks like it's covered in skin, while it would have been keratinous in life (although I may be misinterpreting the image). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on this skeletal for quite some time (since September, I think, although it may not have been until October), and it's come together pretty well so far: [67]. Some of the neural spines probably still need de-crushing (the different stroke thicknesses don't actually mean anything), and I've yet to complete most of the presacral ribs, toes, humerus, anteroproximal corner of metacarpal V, and the skull. I've based the diagrams so far on [68] and [69], and all material is from Iguanodon except for the terminal phalanx of manual digit IV, which I modified from what I think is Mantellisaurus. Any comments/thoughts/suggestions? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hard to say at this stage, but I'll probably have more to say once the missing elements are added and it can be evaluated as a whole. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's the next update: [70]. I believe that I've got all of the postcrania in (except sternal ribs, but I'm not sure where to find a reference for those - does anyone know of one?). Other than fixing the multitudinous layering errors and maybe fixing up the anterior caudals a bit more, I think that the postcrania are done. The skull is still very much a work in progress, but I think that this whole thing should be completed relatively soon. Any thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks god so far, but it makes me wonder if we have a photo of the holotype? Since you must have been looking at images of it, do you see it in the Commons category?[71]FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure, the publications didn't feature a quarry map of it, unfortunately. I could do a more thorough search for it over the weekend, though. On the subject of mounts, though, [72] looks like it may be helpful for fine-tuning the feet, ribs, and caudals (the tail is highly composite). This specimen also could be useful for cross-checking proportions. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I wish we had a higher res version of that last drawing, if we could find out what publication it was originally from, it should be possible... FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
[74] This is likely the last WIP I'll post before actually uploading the finalized version. I've finally finished the skull, decrushed the dorsals, caudals, and humerus, rescaled the neck, tail, and feet, and revised the ribs. Comments? Does anyone know of any references for the sternal ribs, sclerotic ring, or scapular angle? I'll probably revise the ischium and sacrum prior to the final version, as well as flattening out the distal manus. Grayscale material is from Iguanodon, green is from Mantellisaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me (I'd check it against for example Hartman's skeletal[75] to be sure, seems you're missing sternal ribs?), only thing I wonder about is if the lower arm should be rotated a bit up, since it now looks like it reaches further down than the feet? I don't know if any specimens preserve a sclerotic ring, but Hartman's could maybe be used as a guide. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The torso and neck proportions are different in my skeletal, although the rest lines up a lot better than previously. If there's nothing to base the sclerotic ring on, then I'm fine with excluding it. The reason the hand stretches below the feet is that it wouldn't have walked on its very claw-tips, and I just haven't posed the manus in a way that reflects that. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's the completed skeletal. It was originally going to be uploaded on winter solstice, but it turns out that that was yesterday. Comments? For whatever reason, it looks really awkward to me, but I can't figure out why... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To me, the leg placement seems a bit odd. Like it is not very balanced and might slump on its butt. I think the back legs could benefit from being moved further back, right now it makes little sense for it to be slightly lifted when its that far forwards (compare with Hartman's leg position). FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
For me, the issue is the forelimb posture. It seems like the hands of Hartman's Iguanodon are slightly larger, but either way it seems here that it is standing on its toe tips. Perhaps the back needs to be angled a bit further down anteriorly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Despite sauropods now taking over, Jingshanosaurus retains its title of the largest depicted dinosaur so far in this project. Here's a Europasaurus for day 6, which, surprisingly, no one has yet create a chart for despite its size being so distinctive. Any comments? While Jingshanosaurus keeps its title for now, I'm pretty sure that tomorrow will bring some more prodigious sauropods. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Havent exactly been active with university ongoing. I can't really comment beyond existing skeletal reconstructions since the material is more or less individual elements. But the body doesnt quite look right, the neck may be too long and/or thin. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I've made the head larger, which seems like it may have been causing some issues with the neck. I made some minor adjustments to the back, but I wasn't exactly sure what to be aiming for. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's Kaatedocus for day 8 (I'm still working out some scaling issues with Phuwiangosaurus). Comments? Phuwiangosaurus should come tomorrow, and Wintonotitan after that. I'm not totally sure what to use for Wintonotitan' neck, would Euhelopus be okay? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find non-lithostrotian, non-euhelopodid somphospondylians that preserve adequate neck and foot material - do you have any recommendations? (I also updated Barosaurus since I drew most of it for Kaatedocus anyways.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Phuwiangosaurus has finally arrived for day 9 - I had considerable trouble figuring out how it was estimated at 19m. In the end, I just kept it at the size as indicated in a diagram (Fig. 3) in the first paper I cited, which has a ~1.25m femur, matching that of the holotype. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have finally finished up Wintonotitan for day 10 - I used the neck of Europatitan and the limb proportions of Chubutisaurus (the skull and feet are still from Euhelopus but modified to be a bit more standard). It seems like it came out too long - any reccomendations for how to solve that? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for referencing my skeletal ;) I think official reconstructions just give it a really short neck for whatever reason. Of note, the redescription of Wintonotitan[76] finds Ruyangosaurus as its sister taxon in one analysis, not sure if the latter would be useful in any way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I totally forgot about Ruyangosaurus somehow! That may be a useful model for filling in the posterior cervicals. I'll probably get around to updating the chart later this week or over the weekend. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I've played around with Ruyangosaurus a little bit, and it doesn't seem like it would greatly impact neck length. As for Phuwiangosaurus, what would the best basis be for restoring the skull and feet? (The forelimbs are currently based on Wintonotitan.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In Moore et al. (which gave us back mamenchisaurid-grade euhelopodids) the analyses find Phuwiangosaurus close to some pretty unhelpful taxa, like Tangvayosaurus and Qiaowanlong. But it seems to show up as a relatively basal titanosauriform in many of the phylogenies I'm looking at, so Paluxysaurus might be a good bet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
If we're trying to avoid using Euhelopus as a basis given its phylogenetic instability, I would personally recommend using Sarmientosaurus as a basis for non-titanosaur somphospondyl skulls—if Euhelopus is not a titanosauriform, Sarmientosaurus is the most basal somphospondyl with a more or less complete skull known, and it appears conveniently transitional between brachiosaurids and titanosaurs. Ornithopsis (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I've created a new speculative somphospondylian skull by trying to create a Sarmientosaurus-Paluxysaurus combo - how does this look (applied to both Phuwiangosaurus and Wintonotitan now)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
As long as they are tagged we should be fine, as we use a different one in the article. But he can maybe be contacted to fux it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Without any intention to rival our troodont artist Audrey.m.Horn, I decided to update my 2009 restorations of Sinusonasus and Saurornithoides (apparently, paleoartistry is a matter of learning). I am aware that my updated Saurornithoides still need updates to its left wing (feathers attached to second digit), but is there anything else that you think could be improved? Conty~enwiki07:10, 09 January 2021 (UTC)
Uh-oh, my old Sinusonasus had extended tail feathers. I might restore that detail. If we go back to the early 2000s, dinosaurs the size of Saurornithoides were often depicted without contour feathers on the tail (like those we see at Dinosaur-world), so I might be biased. I have also had the idea that a long tail without so much large feathers would have been more effective in reducing air resistance while at the same time retaining balance in a non-flying, cursorial animal. Is it reasonable? Conty~enwiki17:58, 09 January 2021 (UTC)
Certainly a valid consideration, hence "debatable". For what it's worth, the Jianianhualong describers considered its asymmetrical tail feathers to have possibly assisted cursorial locomotion. But derived troodontids were leggier than Jianianhualong so it's plausible that there was a difference. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to a proposed Sauroposeidon size chart update in which I've added in the Paluxysaurus material [77]. Both silhouettes are based on a composite Paluxysaurus skeletal that I created [78]. Sassani also created one, with the exception of a few differing assumptions, they're similar [79]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree it looks inconsistent, but because of all the uncertainties of reconstructing Paluxysaurus (cross scaling multiple disarticulated specimens), I don't think it's wise to show the skeleton. The viewer may perceive it as more factual than it is. The four holotype vertebrae are at least one specimen and articulated. Also, the Paluxysaurus skeletal is drawn in photoshop, converting to vector will be a pain. I could remove the vertebrae from the type specimen since there is a photo of them in the article already? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, though, that this looks odd. This question is obvious and will always come up, and irritate the viewer. Maybe just have both without skeleton, then? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the original image (with no Paluxysaurus silhouette, but with bones shown) is more useful than an image with both silhouettes but no bones shown. It shows us at a glance both what material is included in the holotype and where in the body it is, and how big Sauroposeidon could get. The two-silhouette, no-bone version just shows us how big Sauroposeidon can get, as well as the moderately unhelpful information that immature specimens were smaller. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I won't include the smaller silhouette for now. I usually prefer to show multiple specimens or growth stages where possible. I like to remind the viewer that animals don't spend their entire lives at the largest possible size. Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ceratosaurus nasicornis walking
Added to the Ceratosaurus article and several others without review. I don't really have any comments on the Ceratosaurus, but overall I am impressed with the rendition of cycadeoid Bennettitales in the background of the of the image. I'm not overall massively familiar with the flora of the Morission Formation, I guess the palm-like trees are Araucaria? which is accurate to the known flora. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
From the website, it looks like the uploader @3depix: is likely to be the owner of 3depix website, so I am pretty sure that this is not copyright infringement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I was struck by the teeth, which has an odd middle way between being covered by lips and jutting out. Seems kind of unlikely that it would be that uneven? FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The teeth in Ceratosaurus are very long compared to other theropods. If we assume that only the longest were sticking out, I don't necessarily see a problem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I wonder where it should be placed in the article? Perhaps the best place would be under paleoenvironment. The rest of their images[80] also need review, a dedicated section is probably warranted at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Request: Savannasaurus size comparison and life restoration
Unfortunately, while the original description of this taxon is CC, the life reconstruction that appears in press releases does not appear in it! I think there are a few issues with it anyway, notably the large scales and the skim-feeding pterosaur in the background. The article is fairly lacking in images at the moment so these would go a long way. Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been working on this skull diagram showing the skulls of 4 different species of Mamenchisaurus. [81]M. youngi is based on Figure 2 in Pi et al. 1996. M. jingyanensis based Figure 1 in Zhang et al. 1998. M. sinocanadorum based on images in Russel and Zheng 1993. M. hochuanensis is the awkward one. It's based on images of the referred specimen ZDM0126 by Ye et al. 2001 [82]. Unfortunately, only one skull measurement is provided, a narrow part of the parietal measuring 46mm. The parietal is shown in a dorsal view photo, and all the photos of skull elements are said to be 1/4 scale; so I've had to trust the different photos are scaled correctly in relation to one another. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Since it seems very likely the genus will be split up at some point, I wonder if it makes sense to keep these in one image? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The genus is really in need of revision. But until that happens, I think that a single image is better for a direct comparison in the Mamenchisaurus article; splitting the image afterwards should be easy enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that it shows the differences between them. When the genus is revised I could either split or rename them (On Twitter, Holtz reported from SVP that the M. constuctus type specimen is lost!). That said, I was thinking about putting the word Mamenchisaurus in quotation marks like Paul does in his field guide. I'd be happier doing that if more mainstream research did it though. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the published literature doesn't use quotation marks for the most part, I don't think we should. After all, we don't know which, if any, species of Mamenchisaurus are actually not close relatives of the type species at the moment. If the day comes that there's a taxonomic revision of Mamenchisaurus, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. The specimen ZDM0126 probably is not M. hochuanensis, although that falls into the same "taxonomic revision needed" category as the genus classification. Your M. sinocanadorum is lacking the vomer, pterygoid, and ectopterygoid. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still looking into how best to show those. The issue is, Russell and Zheng don't show the pterygoid in lateral view. Due to these bones' fiddly 3d nature, I'm reluctant to try and guess what it looks like in lateral view. They tentatively identify a bone as an ectopterygoid; however, they don't specify the orientation, so it's not clear which view is most appropriate for a lateral illustration. I'm tempted to leave them out, for the time being; it's fairly conventional for these simplified diagrams not to show the inner bones. I've been working on expanding the Mamenchisaurus article, has anyone published scepticism of ZDM0126 referral? Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paper I'm aware of to suggest ZDM0126 wasn't M. hochuanensis was Sekiya's 2011 redescription of Chuanjiesaurus—Sekiya doesn't explicitly say it isn't M. hochuanensis in so many words, but includes the two specimens separately in two different phylogenetic analyses and finds them not to form a clade either time. I'm aware of the convention of not depicting the inner skull elements, but I feel like not showing them in M. sinocanadorum—where no exterior skull elements are known—risks giving a wrong impression of how much is known. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, those papers will be useful! I'll attempt to illustrate those bones, but I'll probably grey them out or something. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's an update [83]. I've attempted to illustrate the pterygoid and the ectopterygoid... I honestly don't know if they remotely resemble the real bones. The ectopterygoid I'm particularly unsure of. I've added a question mark to M. hochuanensis since Moore et al. specifically cast doubt on the referral. I make sure these points are discussed in the image description. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Aletopelta is quite a bizarre ankylosaur, and a little difficult to put together. I assumed 2 cervical half-rings and a Cedarpelta-like skull (although modified to be a bit more generic here). Any comments? I'm considering revamping my Gargoyleosaurus and Europelta size charts sometime soon, too. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Bicentenaria is not very famous at all, and I was surprised to learn how complete it was! It came out pretty close to the 3m size estimate when I scaled it. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't really know much about the anatomy of Lythronax (though I do really like it, hehe...), but yeah, I agree with Hemiauchenia, the current article already has sufficient images, and it also already has a life restoration, so making this image as good as possible is probably just a waste of time. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Back in 2010, I tried to make a drawing of Scipionyx for Wikipedia (read the discussion here). As I have grown more skilled at editing drawings in the computer, I thought I could finally give this a lift. Besides the points made in 2010 (mostly the large eyes...), is there any other details you think could be made more accurate (I plan to change the manual claws a bit)? And is it in some way possible to upload the new version as a PNG file? Conty~enwiki 18:57, 9 December 2020
Happy New Year! I do not know how to make a review page for the new year and decided to write here.
Back in March 2020, user "Kiwi Rex" had an issue with my one of my restorations of Dilong from 2010 (the "Dilong TJV 50"). I decided to take action during the New Year Holiday and make a new version. In the past, the most obvious problems with my dinosaurs used to be the size of its eyes (to large, until I learned about the secret of inferring eye size from the sclerotic ring) and comments about theropods having to "skinny" toes (which could in part be an illusion created by my pencil having a broad tip).
When I made this new restoration, I wanted to make think if "everything":
Angle/posture: reconstructing dinosaurs from other angles than pure profile can make things more lifelike (but also more difficult for laymen to determine body shape...). In this restoration, Dilong is shown mostly from the front, but with the posterior of its body (i.e. the hind part) turned ~30 degrees to the right (the distal part of the tail is turned a little bit more). The head is also turned to the right (~50 degrees). The viewer is also looking at Dilong slightly from above (as if its body was tilted ~11 degrees downwards relative to the horizon). The legs and metatarsals are also bent a little bit, which makes it difficult to see how long the hindlegs actually is. Also note that the upper arms are hold to the body, causing the lower arms and hands to point downward.
Feathers: my previous drawings of Dilong have shown much of the body outline (a case of "shrink-wrapping", I guess). Here, I tried to make the coat of feathers thicker, causing much of the upper arm to disappear into the fuzz. I also wanted to make the coat thicker around its belly and upper legs and tried to think of a kiwi. In hindsight, I have been wondering if this was a good idea: I imagine Dilong as a predator to have been the "red fox of the Early Cretaceous", a small predator which have to be fast and agile to catch its dinner, but also to avoid ending up as dinner to someone else. However, while the fox is very furry (especially during winter...), the legs can still look rather "skinny" (the same can be said about the wolf). If this is an adaptation to ease movement of the legs while running and leaping, should I try to make the "pants" of Dilong more flimsy?
Feet: as I said, some people have thought my theropods have to skinny feet. I have tried to make it better here. Still, Dilong have very thin legs (see image of fossil). Should I make the legs and feet of my new restorations thin like a chicken (compare a skeleton with a living animal)?
Lips: there was some issue about the lips of my old restoration. I am aware this is matter of scientific debate (a real scientific debate, hats of to Scott Hartman for pointing this out). My new Dilong have lips, but only to the degree that they are supposed to cover half the length of the longest upper teeth (take a look at the restored skull). Conty~enwiki15:40, 04 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a significant improvement. My understanding of lips, however, is that the exposed portion of the upper teeth would be sheathed into the tissue of the lower lip, as is the case in e.g. monitor lizards: [85]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Lythronaxargestes! I will, however, let the lower lips wait for a while (in case the drawing get more comments). Conty~enwiki18:55, 04 January 2021 (UTC)
I have now added lower lips on the "Dilong TJV 50" image. I have also edited the older restoration "Dilong paradoxus VQER 35.JPG" (see original and older update). I have lately been wondering whether the lacrimal crests of Dilong were protruding and possessed some kind of keratin, and decided to include it in the update. What do you think (I have an updated version without prutruding crests ready)? Conty~enwiki17:40, 04 January 2021 (UTC)
Late comment... I don't mind the crests. If we wanted to be entirely rigorous, we would have to look at the bone texture of the lacrimals to infer what the overlying keratin, if any, looked like, but for now this seems like reasonable speculation. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Now in running pose[86], which matches the meaning of its name better, mainly based on the middle Coelophysis skeletal here[87], since they are supposed to be proportionally very similar. I wonder if I'm going over board with the feathers in such early theropods, but who knows if they weren't a primitive feature... FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding feathers - the evidence more strongly supports Ornithodira being ancestrally feathered.[88][89] The idea they evolved separately 3 times is based on questionable claims such as "Sauropodomorpha and Ceratosauria are featherless taxa". No one can affirm this. Eusauropoda is not the same as Sauropodomorpha (who can say Saturnalia lacked feathers?), and Carnotaurus is not the whole Ceratosauria. Even so, the extensively scaly integument of Carnotaurus can't be used to predict the total absence of feathers as it is not know to have covered the whole body.[90]Kulindadromeus was extensively scaly and extensively feathered at the same time. How useful can a method based on a false dichotomy be? Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm also going by similar thoughts. And as far as I know, we don't know anything about the integument for early sauropodomorphs either, and we do know taxa within the same clades can be both extensively feathered and possibly not, such as with tyrannosaurs, meaning it could have been lost multiple times. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why anyone thinks this is radical. Bird "scales" are modified feathers anyway. There are even Early Jurassic tracks indicating the presence of feathers in a large, relatively basal saurischian. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Which tracks are those? I only think I've heard of a resting trace formerly assigned to Dilophosaurus that was once suggested to show feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
They were described by Kundrát (2004) [DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.20014]. Those tracks were likely made by theropods, but the exact identity is not known. Persons & Currie (2015) included them in a cladogram showing the distribution of feathers in Dinosauria but mentioned this evidence is controversial.[91]Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's AC 1/7, formerly assigned to Dilophosaurus, now Fulicopus. The most recent dedicated studies consider the impressions sedimentological artifacts.[92][93] In any case, yes, even Triassic dinosaurs could have been ancestrally furry. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I was only aware of that study by Martin, which was published a few months before that of Kundrát, so the situation seemed slightly more divided. Yet, Lockley et al. (2010) only wrote "Gierlinski (1994) has achieved a certain notoriety by suggesting that specimen AC 1/7 shows traces of feather impressions. In our opinion these fine parallel striations are probably traces of scales that appear elongate as a result of the motion of the integument (skin) against the substrate." Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Heilmann actually criticized the attribution of that track to Podokesaurus on the grounds that the proportions didn't match, so I guess it's not certain... But I'll see if I can somehow consolidate the two. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Here the outer toes of each foot are shorter, any better?[95] There is a bit of foreshortening on the left foot, which might make the toes appear shorter than on the right... FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
That was the idea, yeah, that the toes were splayed, but sicne it did puzzle you, it shows it wasn't clear enough, and the ambiguity isn't really necessary. So I tried to shorten all the outer toes in this version, as it seems coelophysoids had very long middle toes anyway.[96]FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
So this is kind of weird, shortly after the Podokesaurus article became FA, a Massachusetts lawmaker nominated[97][98] it and Anchisaurus as contenders for state dinosaur, and the restoration above has been used on US tv[99][100] and other things... And some of the exact wording in the article us used sometimes, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and I also wonder if she would have called it "furry" if it didn't have extensive fuzz in the image, it's not actually known from any of its relatives, so I don't know if I should feel remorse for potentially miseading the American public, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This is going on a bit of a tangent, but I notice that the whole Triassic Kraken madness got removed from his page, with no more elaboration than "inaccurate account removed". Should it be added back, or has it been removed for the same reason we wouldn't cite, claims of hematophagy in the Jeholopterus article? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed up this old Europelta size comparison of mine. To be frank, I don't think that it looked too good at all before, especially in terms of the limbs, but hopefully it looks more realistic now. Any thoughts? I'm thinking of making minor alterations to my Gargoyleosaurus and Ankylosaurus size charts pretty soon (perhaps tomorrow), and then I'm thinking of creating a size comparison for Ankylosauria! I plan on featuring Ankylosaurus (ankylosaurin), Pinacosaurus (basal ankylosaurine), Aletopelta (basal ankylosaurid), Edmontonia (derived nodosaurid), Europelta ("struthiosaurine"), and Gargoyleosaurus (basal nodosaurid) to show morphological and size-based diversity. Any thoughts on this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what it is, but the hindleg in the background looks a bit stiff, like it is completely extended (in a straight line from the hip to the ground). I wonder if it should look a bit more bent? FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
We have uploaded a lot of abelov2014's[102] nice, freely licenced art from Deviantart, and it seems he keeps being productive, which gives us plenty to upload. But as before he has a tendency to include animals that did not come from the same formations together, and sometimes there are minor anatomical issues that need to be fixed. For example this one[103] looks great, but features two animals that did not live together (check comments for identities). Other times, like here[104], there can for example be overly visible fenestrae in the skulls. We can of course also sometimes crop out or reidentify animals that don't belong with the others, or extract parts of single animals we want to use. So it would perhaps be nice to go through the images that have not been uploaded yet and identify those that are fine to upload as they are, which that could be corrected, and which that are to inaccurate to use? Below are some images I have uploaded and sometimes modified which haven't been reviewed yet but I thought looked fine. Feel free to add more to the gallery. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just uploaded the image of pteranodontians, and I know this may not be related to reviewing, but can someone tell what genus of mosasaur is that in the image, I'm not really good at identifying them, and the source of the image doesn't say anything about it. I've just added "mosasaur" to the description and image name for now, but anyone is free to change it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's ok the name isn't more specific, after all, the source doesn't specify, and it is a mosasaur after all. As long as it doesn't name a wrong genus... FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Abelov's art is way too shrinkwrapped for my taste. He also seems to reconstruct the paleoenvironment as a lush green forest even if that contradicts the known paleoenvironment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
In some cases, such as the image of Nyctosaurus and both species of Pteranodon, I would consider the anachronism to be acceptable if it's clearly presented as a "montage" image. You see that kind of thing in books often enough. In others, where an anachronistic interaction is happening, it's an issue—but then it comes to the question of whether we need the image at all. I don't think we should be editing images as a matter of course; I think we should only do that if it's the best way to get an image we need. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, on that note, I can see that Albertosaurus and Lambeosaurus weren't cointemporaries. And then we could maybe change the Albertosaurus into Gorgosaurus, perhaps... They were considered part of the same genus once in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Talarurus and Tarchia
TarchiaTalarurus
I made several restorations of Tarchia in the past, but most of them have now been removed from Wikimedia. The first that I uploaded is still in use by many sites, and I wanted to make an update before it is removed as well. I intend to do some further editing (especially the tail club and the armour on the back and the head, see image description). I recently also updated my old Talarurus restoration. Is there anything that you think I should focus on with the Tarchia? And was the Talarurus update unnecessary, considering that better restoration alreday existed? Conty 07:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The hybrid of paper and digital drawn looks ugly as there is obvious colour clash, and it would be better if the remaining paper drawn sections were re-drawn digitally to fit better with the rest of the image. This could maybe be sped up by using automatic vectorisiation software. If they were fully digitally drawn they would be very nice images. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The neck looks really long on the Talarurus? But yeah, you could blend the new and old colour by using brushes, or completely painting out the original colour. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Tarchia should probably have its cranial armor more demarcated, it looks smooth at the moment, and its forearms look undermuscled. Also, Talarurus seems to have rather thin shins for an ankylosaur, and I'm not sure if it's too laterally compressed or if it's just not a super broad ankylosaur. Also, perhaps the shins and thighs could get some more detailing, too, as well as the feet of Tarchia, kind of like the texture on the latter's forearms? Ankylosaurs are definitely some of the hardest dinosaurs to draw! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for feedback! I will consider the idea by Hemiauchenia (I actually had the intention improve the quality of the ”blended” ’’Tarchia’’, but wanted to get some initial comments. I will focus on the texture of the skin, the armour on the muzzle and try to make the colour of the osteoderms more similar). On the body shape of ’’Talarurus’’, it seems to have a very barrel-shaped body and ”long” neck (see links to images of skeletons in the description)? Conty 16:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Osteoderms of Tarchia are now updated. Head and skin texture will be the next step. Conty 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The feet of NT's ornithopods often look a bit wonky... I think in this case the hands are too robust, and the feet too small maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! I'll fix'em up later. I had somehow mixed up ornithopod with ornithischian! And I call myself a life long Dinosaur fan! :P Monsieur X (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, ideas about the anatomy of Dilophosaurus underwent quite serious changes [106], but the life restorations in the article were never replaced. Perhaps this restoration by Петр Меньшиков is suitable? (Yes, I know it's better to replace the black background with a white one). HFoxii (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
As discussed on the talk page of that article, ideas about how Dilophosaurus looked were hardly affected by that paper (only for those who thought the Jurassic Park version was accurate, perhaps). The main difference is that it suggested the crests had a slightly different shape (the small "spikes" pointing backwards would be an artefact of preservation), which was already reflected in the newer restorations.[107][108][109] But even then, the only known crest (a single crest on one skull known since the 1960s) is very badly preserved, the exact crest-shape still isn't known, and the one depicted in the paper is entirely hypothetical (this is all that's known[110])... We still have some older restorations that show the spikes (which can be fixed), as well as the reconstructed skeletons, but I think those are ok since they just reflect how the specimen is actually preserved, without too much conjecture. As for this image, it actually looks very skinny compared to the newer restorations, and it looks like the hallux may be positioned somewhat off. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
On that note, do you think the size diagram [111] in the Dilophosaurus article needs to be updated? Primarily the skull shape and how thin the body is... SlvrHwk (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say so, I've started updating some of the other restorations, maybe someone wants to fix the size diagram or just make a new one... FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think that the original is bad, just that the diagram should be changed to more accurately represent the most recent research. SlvrHwk (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Admittedly many of the characteristics of Marsh & Rowe's reinterpretation are not reflected in the current Dilophosaurus imagery on Wikipedia. In most mounts or life restorations, the crests either have the little "spikes" or are much lower than the fossilized extent in UCMP 77270. Some of the skull diagrams have inaccurate characteristics, such as the massive premaxilla, long nostril, large orbit, low crest, and fairly thin lower jaw of the Headden diagram. I should note that Marsh & Rowe (2020) has been made CC-BY 4.0 recently; we can make use of a lot of its figures, including the Engh skull diagram in Figure 66. This can be discussed elsewhere if necessary, but I'd support a complete overhaul of the Dilophosaurus imagery on its article. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, didn't see the license had been changed, that certainly makes it much easier to find new imagery (and could have saved me the time it took to make the damn map, haha). I'll look into it, but I'm not sure what you mean by the older restorations showing too low crests; we have no idea how tall they were, as can be seen in the diagram.[112] The very tall crests are artistic licence on Engh's part, and he has a thing for extremely flashy features. Not saying they weren't much larger in life, but I don't think we can say lower ones are wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Engh's restoration does expand the size of the crests, but I'm specifically referring to the fossil itself (UCMP 77270, fig. 36), which was the basis for Engh's skull diagram and does show much taller crests than much of the imagery on the article. The feathered restoration in the description, Headden's skull diagram, the restorations in Development and Paleopathology, they all have very low Guanlong-like crests which don't look much like UCMP 77270. The Engh skull diagram in general corresponds closely to the fossil material. And though Marsh & Rowe (2020) gave few paleobiological inferences in their paper, all the press release material did follow their conclusion that Dilophosaurus had a much more averostran-like build than its previous coelophysoid-like appearance. Our scale diagram is definitely too thin, and the arms on Nobu Tamura's restoration (as well as the one currently being reviewed) are puny. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
So...here is a new size comparison diagram I created for Dilophosaurus[113]. I'm sure there are several things I need to correct, but this is an option. I used the same exact measurements as the original diagram, but in the article, very different measurements are given. ("Largest known specimen . . . measured about 7 meters in length," while the diagram shows the largest specimen at 6 meters, and, "The . . . holotype specimen . . . was 6.03 meters long," while the diagram shows it just over 5 meters.) What lengths should I use? And, with some changes for better accuracy, can this be used in the article? Thanks, SlvrHwk (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC).
I think it looks good, though the crests should probably start closer towards the snout tip than now (they seem pretty narrow here), Iin Engh's diagram you can see their base begins in front of the nostril, above the third upper tooth:[114] I've added some of the images from the paper to the article and will add more. I'm unsure if Engh's images in the paper are entirely free, their captions just say "Art used with permission by Brian Engh", but I've added them for now, he can of course bring it up if they are not covered by the licence (we've had such problems before). As for the restorations in the article, I think we can enlarge their crests as needed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I've now added a lot of images from the redescription to the Dilophosaurus article. I tried something that hasn't really really been done elsewhere, by adding many images of skeletal elements into sort of "galleries", which I think is a nice way to feature as many images as possible without screwing up the layout. I've also removed some of the more inaccurate images. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I've also modified most of the older restorations to show crests that align more with the new interpretation and covered their teeth, if anyone has comments. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is my (slightly) updated Dilophosaurus size comparison diagram, with small changes from the previous skull and crest. I decided to go with the lengths given in the article instead of the original scale diagram because they seemed to fit the fossil material better. Thoughts or comments on accuracy, format, colors, wording, etc.? -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, but it's kind of confusing that they are on top of each other like that (especially their legs), could they be spaced more apart so the silhouette of each is more clear? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Much easier on the eye, but I think the borders should be removed, they are discouraged by the guidelines, and they don't add anything, since the thumbs automatically have borders. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Anatomically, the antorbital fenestra is very prominent here, and the foot on the ground appears to be angled in the wrong direction. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice (generally)! Regarding the foot, you could turn the unguals to the same angle as the torso (but would the current angle of the foot have been impossible for an abelisaurid?. I also wonder about the hands: would the fingers have been divided in real life, or would the soft tissue fused them into a "paddle" with claws (Carnotaturus possessed claws, in case anyone forgot it). Conty~enwiki17:40, 04 January 2021 (UTC)
As the skeletal diagram in the article is reconstructed the way it is, should I show Sarcosaurus in the size diagram as more"dilophosaur-like" to show the differing views? Or keep it consistent with the skeletal? SlvrHwk (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking the same, maybe like a robust coelophysoid to make it as generic as possible? Crests would be too hypothetical, as it doesn't seem dilophosauridae is necessarily a natural group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this has been mentioned somewhere, but cranial ornamentation is likely to be plesiomorphic for advanced neotheropods, although the exact form of the ornamentation is of course hypothetical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Also note that while Zupaysaurus was originally thought to have had crests, these were later suggested to be displaced nasal bones. I'm not sure if that was suggested for Megapnosaurus too, but it is oddly not surrounded by crested taxa. So it seems to be kind of random in that part of the tree. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Zupayosaurus was recovered as the most basal non-Coelophysoidea (which in this analysis includes Megapnosaurus) neotheropod, both of the advanced neotheropods that are basal to Sarcosaurus, Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus have substantial cranial ornamentation . I do agree that it's a toss up and I wouldn't include substantial cranial ornamentation, but I don't think that subtle ornamentation would be unreasonable either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is a draft of the size comparison diagram I have been working on: [115]. A couple things:
• First, I included small "crests," but if you don't like them, I can remove them.
• Second, I had some issues with the scaling - does it look right here?
• Third, should I change the colors of the legs to be consistent between specimens? (i.e. Remove the "shadow" for the farther leg) Or is it clear enough as it is?
• Last but not least, are there any issues with accuracy that I should correct before uploading it to Wiki? Should it be more robust?
Looks beautiful. I only wonder, why did you choose these particular taxa? Ideally, there should be some reasoning behind it (e.g, the most complete taxa known?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Are there any good references for Struthiosaurus? (I thought that Gargoyleosaurus would do just as well here, but it seems like Struthiosaurus is actually smaller than I thought.) I seem to recall that there were some objections raised about the skeletal diagram in the article a while ago. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, this month's project is off to a pretty clunky start (i.e. it should have started a couple days ago) as my schedule's been a little demanding, but nevertheless, it's started again with this overhauled Demandasaurus skeletal! To my great joy, I found the thesis that described the Demandasaurus material in detail. It is written in Spanish, which I unfortunately can't read, but it has images of all the bones, and the tables were easy enough to comprehend. I also found another paper containing measurements for the ischium (back when Demandasaurus was just the "Spanish rebbachisaurid"). I filled in the unknown regions with Nigersaurus, expect for the estimated dorsal neural spine height, for which I referred to Katepensaurus. Any comments? A lot of March this year will focus on updating my old rebbachisaurid skeletals, but a few new ones should pop up as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Here Volgatitan model obtained by me with the permission of the authors. In addition, the article Sibirotitan also uses a model of this dinosaur that has not actually been reviewed. It has been marked for deletion for almost half a year now, although there is no reason for this. HFoxii (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Article about Pararhabdodon lacks any reconstructions, whereas on Wikimedia Commons has long been uploaded photos of a model of this dinosaur. It would be nice to add them/one of them to the article if there are no anatomical problems here. HFoxii (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The alternate position is only based on one paper, I'd hardly call the tsintaosaurin idea busted yet. Not to mention Arenysaurini provides no crest material to base off instead anyways, leaving Tsintaosaurus as a more than viable reference. Anyways, it was used in the article for years, I just removed it recently because the spot it had been occupying in the discovery section was better served by new stratigraphic diagrams. The plan was to put it back into the description section once I expand that, which I've yet to get around to. It could probably replace something in the classification section in the meantime. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I also doubt the sculpture was uploaded with the author's permission, especially since all the uploader's other uploads have been deleted, and FOP Spain wouldn't apply to it since it's inside a building User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the uploader, Apotea, is somehow associated with the company that made these models, Quagga, because they often include a link to their qwebsite, and all models they have photos of are by that company... This could potentially mark them safe from FOP issues, if the owner's of the copyright are the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sinovenator
I have made a new restoration of Sinornithoides to replace my old ones from 2009. It ended up as a kind of "Archaeopteryx is going roadrunner". What do you think? Conty~enwiki20:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have been thinking of the motion lines, I might earse them. I have been somewhat uncertain about the folding of the wings: one study suggested that Sinovenator probably had a "carpal range of motion... similar to that seen in Deinonychus". Ken Carpenter have argued that Deinonychus could not fold its limbs, but Gregory Scott Paul and many others seems to insist it could. Any suggestions? Conty~enwiki08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Carpenter appears to have been testing pronation under the assumption that the forelimbs were pronated? Senter also points out some anatomical inaccuracies in his work. I don't think there's much reason to think that the forelimbs weren't folding. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The paper describing Notatesseraeraptor is now open access, see pmc. Would it be possible to create a size comparison? The paper contains a skeletal restoration with an outline [116] but does not provide a scale for the figure itself, though the paper notes that the individual was likely 2.6-3 metres in length. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Old skeletal
Old restoration
New skeletal
New restoration
Size chart by KoprX![Skeletal, which could be updated using figures from the paper as reference[1].](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_skeletal.jpg/120px-Spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_skeletal.jpg)
Skeletal, which could be updated using figures from the paper as reference[1].
Restoration No. 1 has been edited
Flipped version of restoration No. 1 used for cladograms
Restoration No. 2, which interestingly, already has a deep tail, though not as extensive
Restoration No. 3
An isolated version of restoration No. 3 used for cladograms
According to this, a new model's being worked on, so hopefully we can get a picture of it soon after it's finished.
Image just added to the article reflecting the new skeletal
Spinosaurus size comparison
Gustavo Monroy-Becerril's restoration based on the new tail remains
An underwater variation that has yet to be edited
Nobu Tamura's 2014 restoration has been edited
ABelov2014's 2018 restoration has been edited
Luciano Vidal's 2018 restoration
TheSpecman34's Underwater restoration with speculative poo eating fish
A recently uploaded restoration of Spinosaurus predating on a lungfish by Denny Navarra
Spinosaurus with contemporaneous taxa (new version)
![Skeletal, which could be updated using figures from the paper as reference[1].](/wiki/File:Spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_skeletal.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Size chart
Old restoration
New restoration
Family size chart
Abelov2014's anachronistic comparison of Suchomimus, Spinosaurus, Irritator & Baryonyx
Sao Khua Formation palaeoecology with Siamosaurus, a sauropod and Kinnareemimus
Old Siamosaurus; retool as Camarillasaurus?
Mario Lanzas' Spinosauridae Family
.png)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Ichthyovenator_laosensis_65849.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://pm1.narvii.com/7065/67d1bc582d8ac6b222ec489e5e5fea2ba731160br1-651-407v2_uhq.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/first-spinosaurus-tail-found-confirms-dinosaur-was-swimming/#/spinosaurus-mm9074_graphicteaser.png){kind=link}
![[17]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QvDXo7_IWpg/XqPUgZA8NcI/AAAAAAAAI2Q/AbWydpl09506I8kG72uX7v831fPY9trVACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/spinosaurus%2Btail%2B2020.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritator#/media/File:MN_4819-V_manus_skeletal_by_PaleoGeek.png){kind=link}
![[19]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Irritator_challengeri_mount_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinosaurus_foot_restoration.JPG){kind=link}
_by_PaleoGeek.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-530Jyvf0HEE/Wuw2wnrdloI/AAAAAAACkZU/Hxi-knQ38kssUjNDepoplcAUFGL_pgY_wCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/LPP-PV-0042-Romualdo_Spinosaurinae--2018_Aureliano_Ghilardi_Buck_et-al--.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tethyshadros_NT.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horse_anatomy.svg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Probrachylophosaurus_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prosaurolophus_Maximus.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garudimimus_sketch.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garudimimus-sketch2.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dromaius_novaehollandiae_-zoo_-two_feet.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinophorosaurus_size_diagram.PNG){kind=link}
![[49]](https://i.imgur.com/1Gf9FBs.png){kind=link}
![[50]](https://static1.bigstockphoto.com/4/9/1/large1500/194401036.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://i.imgur.com/6B8FAvy.png){kind=link}
![[53]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heterodontosaurus_limbs.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-bUyzKVoAAeb11.jpg){kind=link}
![[60]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus_head.jpg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus_sastrei_Andrey_Atuchin.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus_reconstruction_Headden.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus_Size_Chart.png){kind=link}
![[64]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus_reconstruction_Headden.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BT53w560bzI/X8Q7Q40C4PI/AAAAAAAAA2g/y2TI_Lv0qUspYrv34fac1wonC3Y4Z1TjwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Iggy%2BWIP%2B1.png){kind=link}
![[70]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BRv82i7uJOg/X9LEj3xLldI/AAAAAAAAA3A/46SgLOJO_GAzQ9UeWMHymOpkQu4cd8NBQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2710/Iggy%2BWIP%2B2.png){kind=link}
![[74]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T9pbzPKqmQk/X95yqsouBxI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/5S1YuGxq4c8pcIr6FvHobPV36gU9mvsHQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Iggy%2BRescaled.png){kind=link}
![[85]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BXWyYc-ynzE/V_kwr6eZDlI/AAAAAAAACZM/YeOy6nHVGukqxo1zMlmYUk5j7HN_aw8ZQCK4B/s1600/Lip%2Bme%2Bup%2BScotty.jpg){kind=link}
![[86]](https://i.imgur.com/OrZfHJa.jpg){kind=link}
![[87]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/b3/d0/13b3d0c4ad32345d1cc81ac7cb4f8ab4.jpg){kind=link}
![[94]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grallator_cursorius.jpg){kind=link}
![[95]](https://i.imgur.com/93wYaWT.jpg){kind=link}
![[96]](https://i.imgur.com/a8OkkGH.jpg){kind=link}
![[107]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_wetherilli.PNG){kind=link}
![[108]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_pathologies.PNG){kind=link}
![[109]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_Qilong.jpg){kind=link}
![[111]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Dilophosaurus_scale.png){kind=link}
![[112]](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20200819123930851-0013:S0022336020000141:S0022336020000141_fig66.png){kind=link}
![[114]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_cranial_reconstruction.png){kind=link}
.png)
![[116]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6669044_EMS83244-f001.jpg){kind=link}