Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2008 - December 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:

WP:DINOART

Dinosaur Image Review Archives

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.

If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.

Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page:

Criteria sufficient for using an image:

  • If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria for removing an image:

  • Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
  • Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
    • Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
    • Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
    • The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
  • Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
    • Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
    • Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
    • Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
    • Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
  • Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
    • Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
  • Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
    • Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
    • Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
    • Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.

Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction.

Click here to submit a new image for review
  1. ^ Per following policy discussions: Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 60#Proposing changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology.2FPaleoart review, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 60#Illustrations violating NOR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 4#Illustrated reconstructions of extinct species, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive66#Reconstructed dinosaur images in FAs

Herrerasaurus and Spinosaurus hands

[edit]

Hi, I've been fixing existing images made by the Russian user DiBgd, he tends to draw too pronated hands and dangly tails, but otherwise his drawings are really good. He has no account either here or on Commons, so I haven't tried to contact him about it. Here is an image he made which I added to the Herrerasaurus page a while ago, but it seems to me now that the left hand might be too pronated. Any thoughts? It can easily be fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The left hand does look fully pronated, yes. The foreground hand might be fixed simply by (lets see if I can actually explain this in writing...) overlapping the upper outline of the radius with the forward outline of the humerus, rather than vice versa. With the bicep intersecting the lower arm the way it does, the radius and ulna look clearly crossed, and while the hand itself doesn't look too pronated, it's this inability to cross that prevents pronation altogether in most tetrapods. Pronation happens at the elbow, not the wrist (try it! Bet you can't rotate your wrist independently of you forearm ;) ) Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for fixing these images by the way! Sheep81 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've done some hand sketches, here's the right hand of Herrera[1] and right hand of Spino[2]. Is that about right? I'm thinking of drawing dinosaur illustrations from scratch for Wikipedia, I don't have proper skeletal references for them though, but I was told it could be provided here? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The best site for seletals is http://www.paleograveyard.com/. However, it seems to be down at the moment. I (and a few other people here) have many of them saved, let me know if you need anything specific and I'll upload it if I've got it! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awright, and thanks for the link. I'll certainly need some of those skeletals, because I have no books with skeletons of any of the dinosaurs in need of illustrations here... And yeah, Dinoguy, seems like I'll need to draw the entire arm of both the dinosaurs, due to the apparent radius/ulna cross. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job not only of drawing the hands but making them blend seamlessly into the original artwork. Thanks a lot. As far as Stauriko, I'll check when I get home tomorrow but the hands are unknown as far as I know. Making them look like Herrera is probably not a bad idea. Sheep81 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the hands! I think it's a safe bet to include the two vestigial fingers on Staurik, yes. I don't think the tail is a problem. It was only rod-stiff in dromaeosaurs, and even there there's good evidence they could flex significantly on the lateral plane. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the image of Syntarsus/Megapnosaurus he made, and I'm not sure whether the hands are wrong or not. Are they? Sorry to flood you guys with questions, but I know you're leagues ahead of me when it comes to up to date dino-knowledge. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow, thanks for all the hard correction work Funkynusayri, and your pics also look great! The hands probably do need correcting on syntarsus. If you ever do any theropod drawings just play it safe and keep the hands un-pronatated. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Off the top of my head, I think cerapods (or maybe just ceratopsians) and sauropodomorphs (at least those more advanced than the massospondylids) are the only archosaur group (let alone dinosaur group) capable of achieving pronated hands without sprawling, by crossing the radius/ulna (or... whatever the heck sauropods were doing). Not sure about thyreophorans. For some reason I have this meme in the back of my mind that ornithomimids could do it too, but I can't remember where I heard that or if it's accurate. Plms should otherwise always face medially. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, on Syntarsus, I was unsure whether the hands there could pass off as being, I'm not sure how to say it, turned down in a bird-like manner, in the same way as on this skeleton reconstruction of Velociraptor on the right, by maybe drawing an extra finger and making the lower arm appear thicker. How many theropod families were able to do that? And how much could the hand itself be moved, without crossing the radius and ulna? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its mainly restricted to Coelurosauria. More specifcally, Maniraptora. Ken Carpenter did a paper on hand movement. here [3] (check out figure 7, A and B. It shows the hand movment of Coelophysis, a close relative of Syntarsus. But I don't think it says how much pronation it can do? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume that syntasus hands were the same as Coelophysis....To me, it seems the amount that the wrist is 'fexing' (using Carpenters termanology), is with in limits (judging by fig.7B)..So to me the 'hand movments' are fine is, it's just the old pronation of the lower arm bones that is the problem in the pic. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I was thinking more about the fingers in relation to the arm. I've changed the Staurikosaurus and Syntarsus images now, are they proper? On the Staurikosaurus, I just used the hands from Arthur Weasley's Herrarasaurus, they're in the same posture. He's credited in the description of course. If anyone knows of other pictures that need fixing, please show them to me and I'll see if I can do it. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both look great! (Though digit 3 looks a bit long in Staurik? Probably just a perspective thing). Thanks again! Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're within known constraints. But the lambeosaur has other anatomical problems. The skull looks wrong based on the skeletals I have, and the hip is on a weird angle and way too high on the body (in fact it seems to lack a ridge of neural spines beyond the torso).Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, because I chopped some of the tail of Dilopho off because the image was removed from the article due to floppiness. As for Lambeosaurus, I think the image should just be removed then, the technique used on it makes it too difficult to change it for me at least. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people may have the wrong idea about tail stiffness in dinosaurs. They weren't like spaghetti strands, but they would still have been fairly flexible, as far as I know, especially at the tip (though some of those curly sauropod tails as in WWD probably over do it). Some species had physical tail stiffening features, especially dromies, which I bet is where the confusion comes from, but even there, they had a pretty good degree of lateral flexibility, they just couldn't flex vertically. Hadrosaur tails were stiffened by ossified tendons, but only the proximal end. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homalocephale head

[edit]

I saw an illustration of Homalocephale was needed, so I made a sketch of the head[7] based on the drawing of a skull[8] which was previously on the page. I'll finish it if the direction is approved. I didn't have an image of a lower jaw, so I just based it, and the neck, of other drawings. Thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on the accuracy, Funky, (because I can't) but I really like your artistic style. Yeah, sorry, I can't offer anything else. Your head does really resemble what that skull might look like when covered with flesh, but I can't say whether or not that skull is accurate. Have you looked at The Graveyard? Their site is offline right now, but it's in the Internet Archive. They have many recent skeletals. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to archive Paleo Graveyard here. Link to their Homalocephale calathocercos reconstruction here. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the links, and wow, that's one thin neck on that reconstruction! Is there any anatomical rule of thumb when it comes to neck thickness? And I see the head is slightly longer in the "unknown" part of the skull, is their guess as good as ours, or should I draw the head longer too? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When parts are unknown like the neck or the snout in this animal, you can really reconstruct it however you want I think, within limits obviously. The best way might be to compare it to other species where those parts are known. I think your neck and snout are fine, maybe the neck could be a bit thinner. Sheep81 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awright, and many thanks for the info. Here's the Homa with a thinner neck, based on the one on Paleograveyard. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • After looking at some reconstructions of other Pachycephalosaurs, it appears that the neck of this Homalo might be too long? Or is it within the reasonable? Otherwise it's finished. Is it ready for the article? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachiosaurus head

[edit]

Drawing dinosaurs is fun, heh. I'm drawing Appalachiosaurus based on this[10], and I'm just assuming that the different scaly crest formations are pure speculation, and pretty much up to the guy drawing the dinosaur? Would it have had feathers? This is the drawing so far, any mistakes?:[11] Funkynusayri (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get you the skull reconstruction from the actual paper tomorrow. Sheep81 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't memorized all the details but it might be easier to draw from. Sheep81 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go easy on the feathers, if you use them. Dilong was (probably) a basal tyrannosaur that had them, but tyrannosaurids apparnetly had scales. Maybe you could go the naked, scale-less skin rout and hedge your bets? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Greg Paul wrote a paper, or at least discussed this in a book, at some point. Apparently there's good reason to think that the rugose nature of some areas on the skull supported keratinous crests or ridges in some species. Not sure if that's actually the case here or if it's artistic license, but it does match the pattern I usually see for tyrannosaurs. For what it's worth, I also remember him making this argument for dromaeosaurs, though all the feathered dromies I know of show feathers covering most of the head including the area these ridges would be found. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Love the style. One accuracy thing, the muscles that wrap around the back of the skull are missing. In the past I made the exact same mistake. Check out this older page of image review[12], scroll down until you see the spinosaurus skull. I made the exact same mistake. Look at the image here as well [13]. Would that be difficult to fix. As for the eye....I think what you have now is fine. I still have that same problem. In some images you’ll notice an orbital ring present. The eye goes in there...somehow....Does anyone know exactly how it functions? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this more like it?[14] Funkynusayri (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that’s better. The ear placement seems about right also. thanks! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! To answer the question about the sclerotic ring, the eyeball goes inside (a commo. mistake is to make the eyeball the same size as the ring--it should only be as large as the inner hole). The eye should go in the upper part of the orbital opening (think the top half of the 'keyhole' in dinos that have keyhole shaped orbits). Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that clarifys things. Thanks Dinoguy. (Ack, now I have to check all my pics) As for your pics, I'm happy. I don't see why you can't put them in. Thanks for all your hard work.:) Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take any pictures we can get. For example in Species of Psittacosaurus Arthur just did head shots. For others he has done full-body shots. For Majungasaurus Arthur drew a head shot AND a full-body shot. As far as the to-do list goes, article editors will put up requests on that page, and the artists can take those requests at their leisure. Sheep81 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ok, is there any reason why specific artists are assigned to specific requests, or are the undone requests there up for grabs? And by the way, got any skeletals of the requested dinosaurs left? I can't find any on Paleograveyard. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, sorry. The requests are first put in the top two sections. Whichever artist wants to take the request can just cut and paste the request into their own section so everyone knows they're working on it and we don't get duplicated work. Sheep81 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratopsian poster II

[edit]

Here are the Centrosaurinae + Avaceratops drawn to scale. The ceratopinae are next. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring is all digital. I used Paint Shop Pro but Photoshop will do as well. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's beautiful, I especially like all the different poses. Sheep81 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, fantasitc work. I love the variety of colour schemes, especally the crest of Einiosaurus. I'd still love to see one of these posters up for a featured picture. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, but I am not sure how to get it featured... ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate it for you AW. de Bivort 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes de bivort, please do that!! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will - but it needs to illustrate an article first - this is the major pre-req for FP candidacy. de Bivort 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about in Centrosaurinae ? ArthurWeasley (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both posters could go in Ceratopsia as well. I've just added the first poster there. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wide use isn't needed, they just need to be appropriate illustrations for their home articles - which they are! The FPC crowd doesn't respond well to nomination spam, so let's nom one now and the next in a couple weeks. I'll start with the one that is in Ceratopsia currently. de Bivort 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I'll go support it! Funkynusayri (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Segnosaurus sketch

[edit]

[15] Any accuracy stuff? What should the feathers be based on?

Looks good. Check Beipiaosaurus for the feathers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, anyone got a Dryptosaurus skeletal? Funkynusayri (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a skeletal on Paleograveyard but the site is down :/. Anyway,this one is known from rather scrappy remains: fragments of lower jaw, limb elements, a few tail vertebrae and other bits. I would probably base it on what is known of Eotyrannus.ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have a slight problem with the neck. Although as far as I know, there aren’t any studies of Segnosaurus' neck. It seems to me that it may be overly flexed. I don’t know of any skeletal reconstructions show the neck in that position, the most raised I have seen show the neck coming strait of the shoulders like seen here. [16] Here are some other reconstuctions [17]......On a completely different note, Look its wolverine! [18] Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other minor nitpick is the position of digit 1--in the walking/running skeletals it droops and hangs back a bit as in 'normal' theropods, but I believe segnosaurs were otherwise fully 4-toed, so in a standing position all toes should contact the ground and point forward. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, nitpicking is all I want. The neck thing is what happens when you draw on too small sheets of paper... I think the curve was based on this skeletal[19], but I can see I've exaggerated it quite a bit. I'll try to fix it. And the toe too. How about this neck?[20] And if I ever get down to colouring it, it should be based on this.[21] Funkynusayri (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new neck looks much better!, thanks. Oh, and those colours you suggest would look good! ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks Good!, Another thing, Shoulder blades. Is it possible they could be move them closer together? I'm about to post a message on the image review talk page for more details about what i'm talking about. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Ken Carpenter's site, he wrote a paper redescribing Dryptosaurus in 1998 (I think, or '99). All his papers are freely available on his website. Sheep81 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new chest. Any more accuracy stuff? Is the tail too flexible? I'm learning a lot from these corrections. And thanks, I'll check that site out, Sheep. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats better. The flexibility of the tail seems fine. However (Sorry I keep bringing new things up) looking at the skeletals shown here [22]. One thing therizinosaurs have (but not all) is a sharp upturn at the base of the tail. Also, although the animal is incomplete, check out what is known of segnosaurus' tail, it suggests that it is a little longer than what you have. I think that would be it....Again sorry for not bringing this stuff earlier. It’s looking really good! Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, no problem at all, I'm learning more about graphics manipulation every time I add something. I've rarely used Photoshop and stuff like that in the past, but while making these drawings and changing them afterwards I've realised how useful it is. Thanks you for the guidance. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing--Segnosaurus has a lower jaw with a distinctive, gentle arc to it (not as strongly arced as some therizinosaurs, but it's there). Yours has a sharp 'kink' instead, with the apex too far toward the tip of the snout, from the looks of it. See the Jaime Headden skeletal posted above for what I mean. Great progress so far though! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tail looks much better. There is another image showing the lower jaw here [25] Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The missing parts are in white there... the discrepancy may be in the interpretation on the missing part on the bottom of the posterior portion past the teeth. The entire posterior portion of the jaw past that seems to be a broken off separate piece, so it's position is likely uncertain. Anyway, the new version looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I missed the white spots because I focused too much on the tip of the jaw which seemed to be missing. I'll give up on drawing Dryptosaurus, looks way too incomplete from what I could find. I think I'll do Saurornithoides instead, I have found skeletals of junior and mongoliensis, which one would be preferred? Funkynusayri (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saurornithoides huh? Cool! Would be great to have a comparison image of both... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awright. There's a thing I should maybe had asked about before I drew Segnosaurus and which might be relevant for Sauror, has it ever been examined whether maniraptorans had skin extending from their wrist to their shoulder, like modern birds have? Like on this image: [26] I don't think I've ever seen a reconstruction with that feature, but it seems about as useful for flightless species as very long primary feathers. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt this is known for very many groups, but here's an article on the propatagium in Archaeopteryx.[27] It also looks like there's a clear impression of a propatagium in Microraptor gui, but I don't think it's actually addressed in the description. Infer from that what you will... Also, note that in the Archie article, they find that the first and second digit are joined together almost to the claw. I think GSP toched on this in DOA, and it would readily expalin why in many maniraptorans/early bird fossils, the third digit crosses the other two (it was probably the only free finger!). Also note this quote: "Heilmann1 postulated a similar structure probably because the deep follicles that anchor long primary feathers require this morphology." In other words, quill knobs may be a solid indicator of an avian soft tissue structure for the hand/arms. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, wow, the validity of all reconstructions made until now could be in peril! Wikipedia has renewed my interest in dinosaurs quite a lot, it's pretty hard to find books about dinosaurs that are up to date here in Scandinavia, so I'm very happy that I've pulled myself together and asked about all sorts of stuff on the dino project, I've learned a lot the last few weeks. What's the best place for dinosaur related news on the Internet? Funkynusayri (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DML is by far the best source of info. New papers get reported on regularly.[28] The theropod Database also has a lot of great info, especially regarding known specimens of each genus, references, etc.[29] Can't go wrong with DinoData either,[30] and of course Thescelosaurus! is great ;)[31] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velafrons

[edit]

The newly discovered hadrosaur, based on the JVP paper. That would be a juvenile. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Matches the skull restorations I've seen at least. One thing I'd double check, as I've been reading a lot about forelimb motion in theropods lately, is whether or not the wrists could hyperflex as you have it in ornithopods. It's not very hyperflexed here, so my guess is it's within range, but something to double check sometime (though I'd kind of expect the wrists to be more vertical and columnar in a neutral standing pose). Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've "unflexed" the wrist a bit. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I can’t find anything on this animal...I don’t have access to JVP. :( Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanrosaurus readi

[edit]

Based on a skeletal reconstruction by Hartman, shown here [32]. On wrist orientation, Hartman told me that they were held roughly at 45 degrees and would allow for quadrupedal walking. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing job! Looks fine accuracy wise, beautifull atmosphere as well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - very beautiful - please tell us more about how you made it. de Bivort 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, its mostly painted in Photoshop, with a bit of photo manipulation blended into the foreground. (The foreground was originally entirely painted but I thought it looked a bit rubbish.) Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Love it! ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks pretty damn good! I was impressed by the "realness" of the Mantellisaurus colouring, but this looks like a photo! Did it start with a scanned pencil sketch or did you do it all in Photoshop? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I scetched it first in photoshop then built it up from there. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite simply amazing. In fact I'm almost reluctant to use it in our article because I think you could sell it! Too late though, it's ours now! Mwahahahaha... :) Sheep81 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.......humm...if I sell it, I get money..if I don't I live on the street...tough call. ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobaria

[edit]

Drawing and photoshop colouring........based proportionally of Hartmans skeletal here, [33]

thanks, I've drawn the front feet like with this image [35], look at the foot prints, they have a banana shape to them and they are rotated outwards slightly. From what I know, most sauropods have feet are like this. From the view I’ve drawn it at, one foot would seem slightly wider than the other. One thing I’ve noticed is the toes should be more pronounced in jobaria. I'm not sure about what your saying about the neck, if I add to that side I’d have to add some to the other side….. and I‘m not sure what I’d be adding. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, well, I'm not basing it on anything I know, just from looking at the skeletal and seeing that the foot ends wider than it is at the "wrist", or what you could call it, so what you did now looks good. As for the neck thing, maybe it's rather that the front legs look like they're too close to each other, like if you look at the front view of the skeleton you linked to here, it seems to me at least, that the legs are farther apart[36]. I don't know any this for sure of course, just throwing out some impressions, could very well just be the angle... Funkynusayri (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the shoulder width might come up. Compare these camarasaurus images [37] [38], It was hacked up by the guy who made the skeletal reconstrction I used. He said that shoulder blades are often reconstructed too far apart and that they nearly touch. This is jobaria hacked up so they nearly touch [39], and the mine is drawn more side on. This is a very rough internal view of whats going on in the image [40]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No...this is Mantellisaurus

[edit]
OK, my reconstruction of mantellisaurus...well it’s not what its claiming to be.....I drew the image using Pauls supposed Iguanodon atherfieldensis skeletal in 'the Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs' And when I heard that it had been renamed Mantellisaurus, I assumed that the reconstruction would therefore be M. atherfieldensis. However according to Pauls new paper that specimen is actually a new genus Dollodon and the above image is actually mantellisaurus. See here, [41] C = Mantellisaurus and D = Dollodon. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, it has been really confusing, my origanal image is what I always thought Iguanodon atherfieldensis looked like...look at this image here, [42], At first I thought it might be a typo.....anyway swaped the image..Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good catch. I have a feeling this Iguanodon taxonomy situation is going to get even more confusing in the future :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plateosaurus scale and old Deinonychus drawing

[edit]
Size comparison between Plateosaurus and a human.
  • I saw Dropzink had made an unused scale diagram back in March, but it wasn't added to the article, apparently because the animal looked like it only had three limbs on the image. I've added a limb, and moved both limbs a bit more forward, is it correct now, or should it be tweaked further? Also, here's a relatively old drawing I made of a Deinonychus head, maybe a bit too Jurassic Parkish, but is there anything inaccurate about it?[43]Funkynusayri (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I read some previous discussions about the Plateo picture, and seems like the posture is wrong... I'll try to make another one. Also, is anything wrong with this scale of Staurikosaurus Dropzink made? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Staurik looks fine to me, the Plateosaur looks big to me based on mounts I've seen, but those may have been smaller species. The article says 6-10 m, but I wonder if the larger specimens would have had more gracile proportions than he diagram (longer tail, etc. Anybody have the papers to check? The Deinonychus looks ok, but (going by GSP's skull reconstruction in DOA) the shape of the orbit is a bit off (the preorbital bar should be pretty much vertical, it's quite slanted in yours) and it's about half the size it should be, probably implying a bigger eye too. Also the lower margin of the upper jaw looks almost perfectly straight in GSP's, while yours is a big jagged/wavy. Would these issues be fixable? Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the Staurik, and yeah, Plateo seems a bit bulky, I'll try to draw a new silhouette. As for Deino, I based it on an angled picture of a skull, which well, seems to have distorted the proportions quite a bit. The skull I based it on seems to be identical to this one, just angled: [44] Is that skull correect? If so, I'll just tweak the drawing so it fits the proportions of that image better, if not, do you have a link to a correct reconstruction? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That photo looks like the old Ostrom-style skull that was heavily based on Allosaurus (ie way too deep). I think most people accept GSP's reconstruction nowadays, as the missing parts are based on other dromaeosaurs. Here's GSP's 2002 reconstruction from DOA (get it while it's hot! Gonna take down soon).[45] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eocarcharia

[edit]

The newly discovered carcharodontosaurid from Niger, skull reconstruction based on the holotype and referred specimens and Acrocanthosaurus as its nearest relative. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmh, do I see a red link?? ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! compares well to the known material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen the paper yet but if it's based on Acro I imagine you can't go wrong! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irritator scale

[edit]

Basically just took the earlier Spinosaurus silhouette based on AW's and SteveOC's spino illustrations, shaved off the sail, and re-painted the jaws to match Irritator/Angaturama. I scaled based on a skull length of 0.84m listed on Theropod Database, so the length came out a bit over the 8m listed in the article. Anything I may have missed? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, considering it's only known from a skull and spinosaur tails aren’t very complete, it should be ok. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptops

[edit]

Rather speculative reconstruction of this basal abelisaurid as the remains are rather fragmentary but short and broad snout, tall dorsal spines seem to characterize it. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both look great! One thing about the skeletal, you have it rearing up slightly (which isn't the problem) but it looks as though the femur (which obviously isn’t known or shown in the image) would be oriented too far back. Apparently the femur in most theropods couldn't rotate past about 90 degrees from the hip. I’m struggling to put it in to adequate words. Basically look at a Hartman or Paul skeletal in running pose. The position of the femurs shows the furthest they could rotate back. Check out Hartmans nothronychus (which has a fairly upright posture) [47], notice the femur isn't rotated passed a certain point. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmh, are you sure about this? What about this one [48] Aucasaurus also from Scott Hartman? ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to judge how far your femur is rotated with out it drawn in... This is what I'm imagining ...[49] if what I have drawn is what your imagining its not that far off it's just I've heard Hartman talk about his several times....(I'm failing to find an exarmple of were he as said it) anyway time for bed! Steveoc 86 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's an illusion or not but it does look like the femur is extended past vertical relative to the hip. Otherwise it looks good. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the legs slightly to the left in the skeletal so that the left one does not appear to be so stretched... ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks fine to me! Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another baseless shot that could be considered or not, but on the first image, might the balancing leg not be a bit too thick around the foot joint and the heel? Or maybe the rest of the foot is too narrow? I've drawn in what I mean here:[50] Or[51] Funkynusayri (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good point. Take a look at the anterior view on Todd Marshall's [[52]].
Good catch! I've updated the image. Thanks! ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saurornithoides

[edit]

I made a rough sketch of it some time ago, based on a skeletal drawing from Dinosauricon, but didn't finish it because I had other stuff to do, so now I returned to it, but it seems that Dinosauricon is down, so I've just continued while basing it on a regular Troodon skeleton. Anyone got another Saurornithoides skeletal I could use? Here's the sketch so far[53], any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasitic Scetch!. The skeletal was probably Jamie Headdens, Here[54]. A minor asthetic nickpic, yours seems to have a slight hunch back, (Arguably created by the feathers). Is it possible you could shave it down so the back flows down to the neck smoother like in the skeletal. Maybe check the shape of the head in comparison to the skeletal. In the skeletal it's tallest at the rear of the skull whilst yours is slightly shallower. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saurornithoides.
Thats great thanks! The only other thing might be having feathers on the thigh and shin....Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is always room for some freedom, a lot of birds I have seen have feathers of some form on the shin. [55], [56] [57]..I think they can be made out on sinornithosaurus.[58]..Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try it out. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feathered the thighs but kept the shins naked (here[59]), as seriemas have it that way too, and they have the sickle claw! What ya say? Funkynusayri (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! Personally, and this is just an aesthetic choice, I think it looks better with a featherless shin and thigh. A lot of times, if the feathers are done short on the body and legs as you've done, it almost looks like the dinosaur is wearing feathery pants, when no modern birds or forms known from impressions look like that. If the legs are feathered they also should not visible as such distinct shapes. I think you can get away with less feathering as this is a larger species than the only troodont impressions we have ([60]). If you go with more feathering, i.e. on the legs, I think there would be more impetus to model the entire thing after Jinfengopteryx, which is more "buried" in feathers ala modern birds especially on the front end, with the neck less distinct and transitioning more smoothly into the breast feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I'll just let the legs be naked for now, I can always change it some other time if it isn't essential. Is there other stuff which should be fixed? I found this video of a naked parrot[61] and noticed how far up on the back the arms/wings are folded, and most maniraptorans don't seem to be reconstructed that way, though they seem to be folded that way on some fossils too, like here: [62] How did the arms fold? In the text to fig. 14 in the PDF about theropod forelimb movement posted earlier here, it was stated that "avian folding of the forelimbs is not possible as shown by maximum folding possible in lateral (C) and anterior (D) views." What exactly does that mean? What is "avian folding"? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avian folding means what you referred to about the parrot: tightly folded arms directly against the body. This was suggested for Unenlagia back in the day but it may have been rejected by now, and was not possible to that extent in most deinonychosaurs as far as I can tell. I think the degree to which you have the wings folded in your sketch is close to the maximum possible. The forelimb in that fossil image looks displaced--the arms didn't start "migrating" up to the top side of the toro until well into bird evolution (beyond enatiornithes I think). In deinonychosaurs the forelimbs were still low-slung. Again, see the position in Jinfengopteryx for an example. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! One thing I'd question is the choice of color--purple isn't a pigment you see very often among birds, at least on naked non-feathered skin (the only one I can think of off hand that has purplish skin on parts of the body is the King Vulture). The exception here is that the pigment is used in display, in which case it probably would be limited to a few showy patches and not uniform over the entire body. I also don't think any birds have slit-shaped pupils, and I remember reading something to the effect that dinosaurs wouldn't have for some reason or other, but I can't find the source :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok, just thought I'd "pimp" it up a bit. I'll see if I can make it more bluish... As for eyeslits, crocodiles have them, and I read that when it is found, it is found in nocturnal animals, and the Saurornithoides article said it might have had good night vision. But yeah, after looking at a lot of images, birds seem to have rather uniform pupils, so I'll try to change it. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I checked it out, and it seems that some birds do actually have slit shaped pupils, take a look at this:[63] "In addition to the animal groups examined in this study, there are birds with slit pupils, namely the Rhynchops genus of partially nocturnal, fishing birds (skimmers). Since birds are of the same descent as reptiles and most species have colour vision (Pichaud et al., 1999), the skimmers may also have multifocal lenses. We would very much welcome a study of these animals to which we could not get access. Skimmers have most likely descended from birds that had circular pupils and monofocal optical systems. It would therefore be highly interesting to know whether or not they have multifocal optical systems." Couldn't find any good photos of their eyes though, but you think it could be rationale enough to keep the slit pupils that some birds have it too? As for colour, does this look plausible?[64] I made it more blue, don't know if it's enough, I'm slightly colour blind, so I might not be the best judge... Funkynusayri (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, found this, there's a drawing of the slit pupil of the skimmers:[65] Funkynusayri (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think the slits are a huge deal, especially since I still can't find the source I was thinking of. I thought it was in TetZoo but I'm coming up with nothing. As for the color, the blue looks better (more like it's nighttime?), but if it's meant to be well-lit (as the white background usually indicates), blue is still an odd choice for a skin color. Purple and blue are fine for feathers, it's just that naked skin tends to be more plain melanin colored (shades of pink, brown, black), or patterned for display, and almost never the same color as the feathers if the feathers are colorful (for example, Blue Jays don't have blue beaks and feet). Again, this is all aesthetic, but my personal philosophy is that colors should be conservative i not deviating too much from common modern examples. Environment also needs to be taken into account. Saurornitholestes lived in an arid, semi-desert, partly forested environment, and the slits indicate yours is primarily nocturnal. Being bright blue or purple would therefore not be a useful trait for display as it is in diurnal animals, and might be a liability, in that diurnal predators could easily spot the animal when it's trying to lay low during the day. An extreme of coloration philosophy is Brad McFeeter's "Wolverine" X-men colored therizinosaur--sure, it's possible they were bright blue and yellow like the comic character, but there are lots of reasons to think that's not likely.
This is all off-topic though--within the parameters of this page it's way accurate enough to get posted ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I think it's really useful information which I'll keep in mind in the future, so thanks! I was thinking that since Sauronithoides could had been nocturnal, purple or blue might had helped it blend in when the surroundings were dark, but I can't think of any present day analogy... But some Boobies (the bird of course) do have blue skin on their neck and feet [66][67], so I'm not sure, but it's very easy to change colours in Photoshop. And by the way, I'd be happy to read the article about dinosaur pupils if you find it again... Funkynusayri (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the thing about nocturnal animals is that they don't need color camouflage, aside from maybe some patterning. They tend to be drab colors, browns, blacks, and grays, even among birds, in which diurnal species are often more colorful. Owls don't need to be blue or purple-colored to blend in, they just need to be dark and quiet. Boobies are diurnal sea birds with few predators (so the bright colors aren't a liability), and use their coloration for display. Don't know much about the mating displays of nocturnal birds though...
The only ground birds I can think of with bright colors usually restrict these to the head and neck (cassowary, lots of galliforms), and also live in tropical or woodland environments. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does look cool! and much more plausible IMHO. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a slightly different version, I thought the head looked a bit too reptilian, so I tried to hint at a beak with some orange on the jaws, and I gave it a bit of blue on the wing and tail feathers... Just in case it could be used for display or something like that, and to break up the black a bit. What do you think?[69] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homalocephale body

[edit]

I did the head previously, so I thought I could just as well do the entire body, so here's the drawing so far[70], any thoughts? The tail will be changed, there just wasn't room for it on the paper. It's based on this [71], but with some modifications in places that haven't been found anyway. And is it just me, or does the middle toe on one foot of the skeletal look longer than the other? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!, Paul has done a skeletal, here [72]. Is this the skeletal you used [73]? (The graveyard is down) Look how wide Paul has done the ribs! I don't know what Paul used to fill in the missing peaces from... If thats what other relatives have then it would be nice to convay that with shading. Just remember that the tail is stiffened with rods so its not going to be flopping around much.  :) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see the Paul one before, I used the other one you linked to, but I'll use it from now. And yeah, I'll get to the tail. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a little worried as the skull on the Paul skeletal is half the size of the Headden one?? I'd say stick closer to the Headden skeletal becasue it's more honest in showing what's actually known. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What do you say about the left middle toe on the Headden skeletal, doesn't it appear quite a bit longer than the right one, or is there some sort of reason for that? Funkynusayri (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the toe thing is a product of perspective, which is hard to show in an outline. The foot is on the ground so the toes are splaying out under the weight of the animal. The outer toes are splaying laterally, so they're foreshortened.
I agree you need to do some work to convey how crazy barrel-chested they were, as in Paul's dorsal view (something that could also be said of many therizinosaur drawings I've seen). It's hard to get a good sense of the 3D animal from just a lateral skeletal, and a lot of people miss the variety of body widths in dinosaurs because of this, especially herbivores, which tend to be barrel-chested. Overall though, it looks really good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! Might want to round out that super-wide tail base too, while you're at it. It's bizarre how the tail goes from wide and bulbous to super thin and flat... Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, forgot that, thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homalocephale.

Here's the finished version, or well, if anyone have suggestions to how it could be changed, bring it on. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great with the color added, well done! Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coelurus body

[edit]

Based on this[76] and J. Spencer's suggestion that a compsognathid skull could be used for reference: [77] Any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great so far. Might want to make the pubis longer though, or the femur shorter. The femur looks slightly shorter than the pubis in the skeletal, so the pubic boot should extend almost past the knee. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, changed some stuff here[78], also, would there be some kind of feathers on it? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Yeah, it tends to group with Dilong and compsognathids, so I'd base the feathers on those if you use them. Though it's equally possible that it lacked them at this point, basal coelurosaur phylogeny is very unstable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming along nicely, nothing to nitpick that I can see. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coelurus.
  • Alright, also, I posted this in an older section where it might not have been seen, but I changed the proportions of the Deinonychus head I posted a while ago so it fits the newer skull reconstruction by Gregory Paul better, how does it look?[80] Funkynusayri (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, though something about it looks a little... mean? Like in a slightly anthropomorphic way. Maybe it's the shape of the eye, but it almost reminds me of Scar from The Lion King ;) One thing about most birds is the (seemingly to us) "vacant" look in their eye, which is why is always bothers me a little when people give dino drawings slightly too much personality, though of course it's all artistic license. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Like I said, not a technical criticism, more of an aesthetic comment ;) The color Coelurus looks great, btw. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings by Frederik Spindler

[edit]

I've gotten permission from Frederik Spindler (via email) to pick two images from his site here[85] to upload freely as long as he is credited. I thought of these, Pedopenna[86], and Dryptosaurus[87], their remains are so few that it would at least scare me from trying to draw them. Are they anatomically correct? There might be an issue with the hand of Dryptosaurus, but I think it might just be the angle the arm is shown from. There are already a few of Spindler's images on commons that can't be used due to anatomical issues, sadly, so I thought it would be better if we determined whether the images could be used or not before they are uploaded. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedopenna looks ok. The only part that might be off is the hand/wing, but it's hard to tell exactly what's going on there due to the pose. As far as I know the Dryptosaurus is ok, but I don't have any measurements or skeletals handy to check proportions. I agree that it looks like the foreground arm is splayed, not pronated, so that's not a problem. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that skeletal, it looks fine (thanks for the pdf link by the way!). In fact I wonder if he used that as his reference, the hind limbs are in almost the same pose. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothronychus

[edit]

Here's a drawing[89], based on this[90], and hunched over a bit like some of these[91], any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Funky! The only thing that stands out to me is the feet, which look a little too big/robust. In the skeletal, the mets and pedal digits look much slimmer than the neck, maybe half as thick, but yours look almost as wide. The MTs look about a third the width of the cervical verts, so all fleshed out I wouldn't make the lower legs more than half the width of the neck. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?[92] Funkynusayri (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else that should be fixed? And by the way, damn, those things looked weird... Therizinosaurs might just be my favourite dinsaurs. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here ;) Only other thing I can find to nitpick is that the claws don't look quite long enough in proportion to the fingers, but they are fairly curved and facing away from the viewer, so they would be a bit foreshortened anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, it seems like the page has gotten an image in the mean time, is there another therizinosaur either known from too few remains to look different from this drawing or similar enough that it could simply be used on that page instead? Seems like Nothro is known from so few bones that the reconstruction could represent any generic therizinosaur... Maybe Neimongosaurus, Alxasaurus or Erliansaurus? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alxasaurus is the safest bet if you want to swap identities, the Nothro skeletal was filled in with parts based on that one. The only thing I'd try to modify: Alxa has higher neural spines just before the hip, not higher on the back. Maybe add some feather to make the back more rounded and cover that up? The lower jaw probably needs a bit more of a downward curve at the end too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility--the newly described Suzhousaurus, apparently clades with Nothronychus. Don't have the paper so don't know if there are any major differences, but I imagine they'd be pretty similar. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds, good, I'll wait and see if the paper on Suzhousaurus comes around... If it isn't similar enough, I'll just change some details, of course. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sounds like all the diagnostic characters wouldn't be visible in life/under feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll add it and update the image with longer claws and colours. I'll get the filename changed on Commons too. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, pink and aqua are interesting color choices, perhaps this was a gigantic Cretaceous lorikeet? ;) (not that there's anything wrong with that, we already have Blue Jay Nanshiungosaurus after all...). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, it's a result of me fiddling with the opacity, didn't look like that initially, but the pencils and colours blend better that way. I might try to darken it at some point... Funkynusayri (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coelurus

[edit]

This Coelurus picture never got a review it seems, so I list it here. Is it accurate? Those long feathers are the main one difference from the other Coelurus drawing. Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems to have much longer metatarsals. Is this accurate? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, here's a skeletal: [94]. The MTs should be the same length as the tibia. The tail should be longer too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the long feathers, the exact phylo position of Coelurus is not very well known, so there's some leeway in how advanced the feathers can be. If it's related to Ornitholestes, it's possible it had pennaceous or near-pennaceous feathers like that. If it was more closely related to Dilong and/or some of the compsognathids, the short simpl feathers would be more appropriate. If it's a little more primitive than than, scales would be ok. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah looks ok now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnotaurus by DiBgd

[edit]

Over at Carnotaurus there is a discussion about this images' legs possibly being too stright. I didn't want this image removed so I have attempted to alter it. I have also lengthend the tail due to comparison with Greg Pauls skeletal [95].Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hartman over at dinoforum has spoken about theropod, ceratopsian and hadorsaur knees saying that they are exactly like bird knees which can't strighten much. So the image is probably incorrect in that regard. I'm not sure about the lower leg though. Im not shure what, if anything has been published on hind limb posture? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks great. I reckon the tail was too short based on GSP's skeletal (usually very reliable), and the knees look within range of motion, though towards the max extension. Looks much better with flexed ankles. One other thing though,h the hand looks like it's pronated, and given the stumpy forearms I don't think this could be accounted for by splayed limbs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, hows is it now Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! There's this little spiky thing by the pubis, could that maybe be smoothened out? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambiraptor

[edit]

Here's a sketch[96] based on this skeletal.[97] Any thoughts? Rest of the tail will be added later, the paper I used was too small yet again. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me Funky. The wing/arm feathers seem a bit unusual--secondaries normally form an arc with the longest in the middle of the radius, where yours seem to get longer towards the hand without actually stemming from it, almost like pseudo-primaries. If they are meant to be primaries, the should form more of an angle with digit 2 (since they'd be anchored to it rather than to the forearm). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I'll take a look at it. I've tried to find diagrams that show exactly how wing feathers attach to the wing, do you have any? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there's a good diagram of feather attachment here [98] and here[99]. Wing feather attachment is something nobody ever bothers to get right. I'd say 99% of popular paleoart gets it completely wrong. I can't tell you how many reconstrctions of Archie I've seen with three little fingers poking out the front of the wing... or how many drawings of Caudipteryx lack primary feathers stemming from the hands... when the fossils clearly show that the hand is the ONLY place remiges should be! Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a changed version: [100] FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any other suggestions? Should it have small leg-wings too? FunkMonk (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence one way or the other, that's up to you. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now with colour on the top right. I couldn't resist making it bluish, but it can be changed easily. FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some pictures I took at a museum exhibition

[edit]

I was at this museum yesterday where they had an exhibition with stuffed birds and a bunch of full-size dinosaur models and skeletons. Some of them had obvious mistakes, but here are a few for review if they become useful some day.

Full size Utahraptor model which was pretty cool, from different angles (first one is the best I think): [101][102][103].

Sinosauropteryx model, holding a lizard: [104] Skeleton detail: [105].

Microraptor model: [106] and a mounted skeleton reconstruction, which seems to have inaccurate hands: [107].

A rather dry looking Archaeopteryx model: [108].

A Deinonychus skull, tail and feet: [109][110][111] and the feet of a model Deinonychus: [112]. They both had incorrect hands, and for some reason, the model makers had chosen to make the Deinonychus look like the Velociraptors from Jurassic Park...

And last but not least, an extremely ugly juvenile Tyrannosaurus model: [113] FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The skull of the Sinosauropteryx should definitely go on our article. I reckon the juvenile T. rex is an improvement over our existing juvenile image. The Deinonychus skull would also be good for our article (we currently have no skull image for it). The Utahraptor image #2 is the best, even though it cuts off the tail (the first image was taken from an angle which makes the head look as large as the body). The rest of the images all seem problematic, as you mostly pointed out already. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I'll upload the correct images. The Utahraptor article doesn't seem big enough for a new image though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery at the bottom? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, forgot that! FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deinonychus skull seems to be based on the old Allosaurus-like reconstruction, unfortunately, not the newer one, so it would be inaccurate, unless both reconstructions are equally "fictional", if you could call it that. But I figured I could crop out the head of this Microraptor skeleton, and then have a good skull image:[114] FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that Microraptor skull. The front half is unknown so I can't fault them there (it does look more old-school Deinonychus-like than microraptorian though), but the back part looks way too robust, especially the lower jay, which is maybe twice as thick as in my skeletals. The Sinosauropteryx looks good though. Anyway I love it when they do models based on "slab" fossils, like the AMNH Archies. Very cool. (the baby rex also has pronated hands, btw. Maybe crop it?) Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought about the thing with the T. rex arms, so I tried to find an anatomical loophole with some sketching, since the feathers on the arm hide exactly what posture it's in:[115] So if the hands themselves were able to move towards the body without pronation, it might be able to look like that if the arms were lifted a bit, I believe... The posture of the hand would then be similar to the left hand of the Beipiaosaurus on the front of this picture:[116]. But that might not be correct either? FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No that looks right to me, it's just splaying the elbow out, same way lizards and crocs can "pronate" their hands. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harpymimus

[edit]

Not the most spectacular image ever.. but here you go...Based on Jamie Headens' skeletal here [117]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, ornithomimids lost them at some point (hard to see given the skeletal size though). Anyway, the image looks great! Only tiny thing I can nitpick is the claw on digit one looks like it should be bigger than the other two. I was going to nitpick the small eggs (look about 8cm long?), but this is probably about right for the contemporary Psittacosaurus, I think. If you wanted to get real fussy, you could research if your nest matches what's known for Psittacosaurus in constrcution/number of eggs... but that might be a bit much for set dressing ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, Heres the skeletal blown up [118] not the best quality. I didn't think much about the eggs. I drew the pose and thought..'what the hell is it looking at!'... so eggs came in to existence. I don't really want to imply egg snatching, I imagined them belonging to Harpy. When I drew them I was trying guess what size of egg could fit through the pelvis. Anyway, I‘ll get fixing those. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that Garudimimus, being primitive, retained the inner toe. Might that not be true for Harpymimus too, since it was apparently even more primitive? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to here [119] your right, it does. The skeletal reference was low res and if its there it's not obvious. Tomorrow when I get time I'll fix it. I'm currently looking through 'The The Carnivorous Dinosaurs' by Carpenter, it has a whole chaper on harpymimus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In this book it sais that Harpy lacks digit 1, but this might be and artifact of preservation. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd... It does seem like the feet are scrappy:[120], but it seems clear that Garudimimus had it:[121] FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the toe, it's easy to remove if it turns out it doesn't have one. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, but we're probably the only ones who will ever notice the difference, heh... FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parksosaurus Scale Diagram

[edit]

The human is measured from his heel to the top of his head. As for parksosaurus, I don’t have any specific bone measurements. If I did I could scale GSPs skeletal and get something more precise. The article says 2- 2.5m long. I’ve gone for 2.5 measured along the vertebra. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dacentrurus

[edit]

I'm relatively new here, and this is my first time posting an image on the Dinosaur Image Review. Here is a picture I drew of Dacentrurus [122]. I based it of of this partial skeletal reconstruction [123]. I'm not sure there are any complete specimens of Dacentrurus with all of the plates and spikes present, so I just guessed how many there would be and in what position. Are there any apparent anatomical problems with it that I should correct? Smokeybjb (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Looks good to me, I don't know about the plates (you could take a look at the first skeletal drawing here, though, where the spikes are reconstructed: [124]), but comparing with the skeletal you used as reference, it appears that you have switched the two front legs around, thus making the right front leg look too big. I've tried to show what I mean here: [125] FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see what you mean about the legs. It was an easy fix, I just switched the legs back and redrew the shoulder girdle here[126]. I also added extra spikes on the tail to give the Dacentrurus a thagomizer like the skeletal reconstruction has shown. I left out the shoulder spikes, however, because I don't think there is any evidence of them being present on Dacentrurus. Are there any other problems that you can see that can be corrected? Smokeybjb (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only other thing I can think of is that the cheeks might extend further towards the beak, so food wouldn't fall out of the mouth. That's pure speculation, of course, just seems logical, and I've seen other reconstructions like that. Or maybe the cheeks just fold inwards on your drawing, making it appear that they don't reach the beak? By the way, while searching for skeletals, I found a cool drawing in the public domain of the Dacentrurus holotype and added it to the article. You could maybe check it out too, though I have a hard time figuring out what is what on it... FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like the cheeks should be extended, now that I think about it. I have redrawn the cheeks here[127]. As for that picture of the holotype, it is hard to make out some of the bones. All I can identify are some ilia, a sacrum, some vertebrae, and what looks like a tibia. It is a nice picture though! Smokeybjb (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's how far my knowledge on stegosaurs stretches, so let's see what some of the more knowing Dino editors say... FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great Work! :) One thing, Stegosaurs have robust forelimbs, yours are looking a little weedy, especially the lower arm bones. Look how bulky they are in the skeletal. Also take a look at the front feet. They have a very particular shape. In yours, all the toes face forward, in stegosaurs they ‘splay’ out. Take a look at this [128] .I’ve added in Greg Pauls Stegosaurus feet to show what I mean. Thanks. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have made the forelimbs a little skinny somehow. I corrected it and redrew the front feet based on that foot reconstruction here[129]. I never knew that the toes of stegosaurs tended to splay until now. Is the same true for the toes of the back feet? Smokeybjb (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks! The back feet look fine, All stegosaur reconstructions I have seen have all the toes face forwards on the hind limbs. One thing, no archosaur (and therfore dinosaur) has more than 3 claws on the front limbs. You've added claws to the last to toes which most certainly shouldn’t be there. Looking at Pauls Stegosaurus feet he only shows 2 large Claws and possibly one tiny one. I’ve also added in Scott Hartmans Stegosaurus, it seems to show 3 Claws (in red). I assume that Dacentrurus would have similar feet?? See here. [130] Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I've seen pictures of dinosaurs and other archosaurs being shown with more than three claws on the front limb, but I'm not sure how accurate they were. I've removed the two extra claws, leaving a total of three claws on each foot (with one not visible on the opposite side on each foot)[131]. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most dinosaur images have some form of inaccuracy, that’s why I love the image review. I’ve learnt a lot from here. Have a look at a Crocs hand for example, they too only have 3 claws on the front feet. [132], and here [133]. Human hands are very different [134]  ;) One thing you might notice is that in some dinosaur hands like early theropods, prosauropods, and early ceratopsians the last two fingers (the ones without claws) are smaller than the rest [135] Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice croc photos, especially the last one! I find it very interesting that all archosaurs' "extra" toes are smaller and lack claws. I always assumed they were fully clawed on eack foot. Are there any other problems with the Dacentrurus that you notice I could correct? Smokeybjb (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanycolagreus

[edit]

Here is a pencil drawing of the profile of Tanylolagreus [136] based on a cranial reconstruction in a 2005 paper by Carpenter et al. which I can't seem to get to now that Ken Carpenter has created a new webpage. Here is the reconstruction on imageshack [137]. As far as I know, the only cranial elements of Tanycolagreus descovered were the ones of the holotype described in the paper and a single premaxilla from the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry, yet the restorations I've seen in museums have blunt, sloped, deep-bodied skulls. However, it looks to me as though the splenial bone of the holotype (circled in this picture [138], also from the paper) is too long and narrow for the blunt jaws seen in many restorations. I'll try to show what I mean here [139].

As well as the confusion with the skull, I was also wondering whether feathers should be present and if so, where they should be. I assume Tanycolagreus had feathers as it was a basal coelurosaur, and nearly all coelurosaurs were feathered, but I am unsure whether feathers should be sparce along the neck and back or covering nearly the entire body, as is the case in later, more advanced coelurosaurs. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, and within range of what's known. The only problems are that it looks a bit too skeletal (maybe tone down the visibility of the fenestrae a bit, especially in the back, and add some muscle to the jaw). The ear is also in the wrong spot--it should be on the or behind the back margin of the skull, not in the infratemporal fenestra. I don't know of any coelurosaurs that are only partly feathered (sparse along the back, etc.). At this point, it's parsimonious to assume feathers are an all or nothing deal. Whether or not a basal coelurosaur like this would have had them is a very open question. I'd put the odds at 50-50 right now. Maybe leaving the head and neck featherless is your best bet, since among modern birds, this is one of the prime areas of feather loss. So even if it's found to be within a feather bracket, you can hedge your bets ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I managed to place the ear within the temporal fenestra, but I quickly fixed that here [140]. I also "filled in" the temporal fenestra somewhat by making the temporalis muscle more evident. I made the masseter more prominent connecting the jaw to the rest of the skull to add more muscle. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should have a more visible jaw adductor muscle (if that's what it's called, so the head doesn't bulge in at the back of the head, like here: [141] I've drawn what I mean here: [142] Was pointed out to me earlier here: [143] FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is with the adductor muscle [144]. Are there any other muscles that need to be more defined? And also, is the nostril positioned correctly on the naris, or should it be higher up and closer to the nasal bone? Smokeybjb (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jaw looks good now! I wouldn't put the nostril that far outside the naris--as long as it's on the inside front-bottom edge it should be fine. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinornithosaurus

[edit]

Mainly based on this: [145] Here's the drawing so far[146]. Any comments on details that should be added? I know the Dave specimen doesn't have those secretary bird style feathers, but it's a juvenile, so who knows? Also, any comment on the ill-fated Polacanthus here? [147]FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty goo,d but the first thing that jumps out at me is that the long tail feathers look kinda simple and bristly. Wouldn't a microraptorian have had true retrices? It also appears to be lacking the very long feathers covering the legs/hindquarters evident in the fossil. Overall actually, the body feathers look way too short. The outline of the body would be more smoothed and rounded by long feathers, especially along the neck, breast, and hips. It wouldn't stay close to the dark outline in the skeletal, which represents the skin, not the limit of the plumage (compare a featherless chicken [148] to one with feathers [149] to see what I mean). You wouldn't be able to make out the outline of the upper leg or pubes at all. As it stands, those body feathers look to be about a millimeter or two long each! More like the extremely short, coarse hair of a big cat than the plumage of a bird. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awright, I'll change that, I've been looking too much at older reconstructions. Bambiraptor here[150] seems to have the same problems? I might have to ask for further details and stuff. Another thing, the head was actually pasted on, so I'm not sure if it's the right size in relation to the body? FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Bambi seems to have the same problems but that's not a case where you can point to a fossil and say that's definitely incorrect. But more likely than not, it would have had denser plumage, especially given its small size. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a different, rough version:[151] Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sinornithosaurus millenii
Alright, here it is with colour. Is the small beak on this one and the Bambiraptor over the top or plausible? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Love the coloration! Based on recent discussions at DinoForum, it seems that a beak is extremely unlikely given the simultaneous presence of teeth (and lack of preserved beak in the fossils, in this case). I'd just tone it down to the point it could be naked skin. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm lucky I colourised the mouth area the same as the legs then, I'll try to make it more like skin. Got a link to this DinoForum? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! [152] Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, looks interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other opinions on this? I'd prefer somebody to second the approval before unilaterally tagging it... Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really great, I too love the colour! I haven’t read any published stuff on sinornithosaurus, does anyone know what the papers say about the feathers? I’m looking at this image [153] of Dave and can’t see any evidence of a tail fan. Does the holotype preserve any retrices down there? Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and wow, never saw such a clear photo of the Dave fossil, and what, is that a fish fossil near the right leg?! Oh, and I see that the lower jaw on the drawing should be arched more upwards, or is that only in Dave? FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pretty much base everything on Dave if that's the main basis for the drawing--that way, if it's ever assigned to a new genus, you can just change the caption. I don't know of any sinornithosaur fossils that preserve retrices ala Microraptor, but Dave is the best preserved (at least, best published) specimen and even there it's hard to tell the extent of the feathers. GSP restored it with retrices, but also with Microraptor-style hind wings, probably just based on phylo inference. I'd probably remove the retrices for now. Then again, it also doesn't seem to preserve primary remiges, but I've often seen it argued that this is probably due to preservation... Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't the lack of those feathers be explained by Dave being a juvenile? FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure could, but you'd need to then find positive evidence in adult specimens. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking in relation to the drawing, of whether the tail feathers should be removed or not. We don't have direct proof against them either do we? FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say leave them for now, it could just be a preservation thing, most other known maniraptorians have them. Over at Dinoforum, if you go to the dinosaur discusssion forum and scroll down there is an interesting thread on a undescribed sinornithorsaurus specimen. Most photos shown there are low res and most are casts but one photo might be the real specimen (the one with Paleo Wonders logo over the top) and it 'might' have some feather details. Check it out. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing (if real, some posters seem to think parts of it are fake)! But are those feather impressions coming out of the metatarsals?! Then I have quite some work to do... And then it should probably have longer wing feathers too, more like an actual wing. Well, I'll add that when the specimen is described, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before working on the leg wings, I lenghtened the real wings, does it look right? Meidamon on the Dinoforum sent me this picture of a new specimen with leg-wings: [154] Would this jmodel be a good reference for those wings? [155][156][157] FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the model is a good ref, though it's hard to tell what's going on in that low-res photo. I'd go with the model for now, maybe save a working copy in case it needs to be modified once the legwing specimen is published on? (That specimen also looks like it has obvious primaries, cool! Wonder if GSP knew of these when he did his full microraptorian-style drawings, or just a good educated guess.) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, gave it some leg wings, does it look right? They look better than the real wings, sadly, my Photoshop colouring seems to have improved since last I worked on that one... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deinocheirus

[edit]

Not much to really base it on, but I looked at a hypothetical skeletal drawing by Luis Rey, which seems to be a regular ornithomimid with more robust proportions, so I also looked at a GSP Gallimimus skeletal. Also some of the images found in the Deinocheirus article. Some parts are missing and misplaced because it didn't fit the paper, will be put together later.[158] FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the skeletal, I can't seem to find it. My only critism is that it's hypothetical. I know that sounds very hypicritical considering I decided to try and illustrate bruhathkayosaurus! (what came over me?). That said, if it's based on a skeletal then it may be ok. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that Deinocheirus had already been depicted a few times in popular media, most notably in Dinotopia, so it wouldn't make much of a difference if we had one too which wasn't too unconventional in form (and we have quite a lot of hypothetical reconstructions in several articles already). The skeletal was from a book, but I've scanned it for you, so here it is: [159]
You could say I've based it very loosely on that skeletal, since I thought it was a bit too therizinosaur-like with the big belly and short legs. I've made the metatarsals and the tail quite a bit longer than on that skeletal, to make it look a more like regular ornithomimids, and I saw other reconstructions where these were longer too (this one seems to be from a series used in the OUMNH [160]), but it's still more robust. Ironically, I left the dewclaws out, though I had just whined about them on your Harpymimus, but seems like Deinocheirus is primitive too, so I should add them... FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't have a problem with hypothetical reconstrcutions, (all have some hypothetical features) just so long as it's made clear to other people that it's mostly hypothetical. They worry me because they can give a misleading idea of that animal and how complete it is to other people. Just make sure in the description that it's based on Luis Rays' Skeletal and that the reconstruction is hypothetical. I'd even go so far as to make sure the image name has the word hypothetical in it. (as in Hypothetical_Deinocheirushas.jpg) so if people save it or copy it, it will hopfully retain some form of a 'desription'. If that makes sense? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it's very good, though I wonder if you should stick closer to that skeletal. Even as an ornithomimosaur, Deinocheirus was enormous, T. rex size or larger. Your drawing is beefier than say, Gallimimus, but doesn't quite look graviportal enough. Compare a big T. rex specimen with smaller tyrannosaurus, and you can see the trend from slender and long legged to stocky and short legged (this appears to be the case even over ontogeny in tyrannosaurs). Young or small tyrannosaurs tend to be more ornithomimid like than the giant ones, so you'd almost expect giant ornithomimids to be tyrannosaur-like. I don't get 'therizinosaur' from that skeletal as much as I get 'tyrannosaur'. I'd also say it should probably have some more primitive features, including the dewclaw, and the head looks too ornithomimid, I'd probably give it some teeth and make the eye much smaller (another scale issue, larger species tend to have proportionally smaller eyes). Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the points, yeah, I'll make it clear that it's hypothetical and what it's based on, and the proportion stuff, should the different parts of the leg have proportions like a tyrannosaur too? Because the legs are really long on this reconstruction I posted above, [161]. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as it's all speculation anyway, I'd probably follow the published hypothetical skeletal pretty closely, just so your final drawing is more 'citable.' Better Wikipedia feature speculative recons based on other speculative recons by pros than pure original speculation. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, smart thinking! FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this? I just found another skeletal, didn't get to incorporate any of it into the drawing: [162] But is there anything from it I should take into consideraton? I probably made the feet too massive. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I don't think the massive feet are a problem on such a massive animal. Especially with nothing in there for scale, it's probably good to add those graviportal touches. We're talking a T. rex size or larger theropod here, and T. rex has pretty large feet as it is. It doesn't need to look gracile or cursorial like smaller ornithomimes--I think biomechanically, an animal of that size would have real issues running very fast. I always figured Deinocheirus would be more a big, bipedal sauropod/therizinosaur analogue. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I'll put it on hold after reading about the new remains... FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like there might be a spanner in the works with the whole big ornithomimid thing...[163] Still, I'm guessing it's gonna be quite a while before there's a paper on this, so you could always finish the drawing as an example of the current, soon-to-be-outdated 'just a big ornithomime' theory ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, heh, I did put "hypothetical" in the file name. Anyway, I've thought about it as an ornithomimid since my mother read Dinotopia for me as a kid, where people have this race on Deinocheirus backs. Kind of sad to see it go... FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, never thought about it from the perspective of you young whipper-snappers growing up when everybody (thought they) knew what Deinocheirus was... all my books as a kid basically had this big pair of arms, and a paragraph to the effect of "we have no clue except it's huge and has mean looking claws... use your imagination!" So I'm loving this ;) Will be kind of sad, though, when the paper is published and its identity is finally settled. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished it up and gave it some colour. Anything wrong? I'll just give it the caption "hypothetical restoration of Deinocheirus as a giant ornithomimosaur", and if we find out that's incorrect, the caption can be changed to "outdated restoration" or something, since it's been restored as such pretty much without exception the last 20 years at least. It's a giant ornithomimosaur in the Thomas Holtz dinosaur book from 2007 too. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, the color version looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You wouldn't happen to have heard anything new about the recent finds? I'm desperate to know at this point! FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neovenator

[edit]

Drawing so far here[164], based on these[165][166] and some Allosaurus skeletals. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is put together and cleaned up a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks great! Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, anything which annoys you about it? Odd proportions or weight stuff? FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the only thing...the tail legth. In the Padron skeletal the tail in the image is close to half the total body length and it seems incomplete whilst yours is about half the body length, complete. Precisely how much longer it should be I don't know? Other than that, I think it's great! Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nothing that Photoshop can't fix! FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indosuchus

[edit]

Skull based on these[167][168] and the rest of the body on Carnotaurus skeletals:[169] FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more polished now. FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Love the texture, don't notice anything wrong accuracy-wise. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I gave it some colour, but the highlights turned fuchsia for some reason, I'll fix that... FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know which one? Abelisaurid hands are freakin weird--apparently Majungasaurus lacked true fingers completely, so there seems to have been some variety there too. Makes me wonder how correct it is to show some of them with external forelimbs at all, and if they're more akin to the internal limb vestiges of whales and some snakes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an image posted on the Dinoforum that shows it, I couldn't find anything about it until now: [170] FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like at least Carnotaurus has it, though I don't think Majungasaurus has much in the way of fingers at all, so it's hard to generalize. Either way could be correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_January_2008_-_December_2008&oldid=1047027210"