This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Recently, I made a skeletal diagram for Alectrosaurus page, based on the holotype AMNH 6554 and referred specimens. Some elements were scaled up in order to fit an individual of 5 meters. Is there any problems? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna push that right leg forward a bit, theropod femurs couldn't rotate past 90 degrees relative to the torso ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dayumm! I totally forgot about this! But don't worry, currently working on the Bayan Shireh members. Likely, I'll have to rework Alectrosaurus (length issues, anatomy, etc.). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Size comparison of Asfaltovenator, based on the paper's skeletal. It seems that many supposedly well-supported phylogenies aren't quite as well-supported as we thought. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Very good work, I like the result of this diagram, however I have perceived that the paper diagram is based directly on an old Allosaurus diagram [1] by Scott Hartman that although this does not have much effect on a silhouette, but there may be elements, such as the phalanges, arms and humerus that differ in real shape and size. It is true that some bones were slightly modified and the skull is as is that of Asfaltovenator. Everything is good. --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of this genus, I found a restoration on Commons which has very weird skull morphology. It seems that instead of two parallel nasal ridges following the lacrimal "horns", there is a midline ridge, which seems to be a misinterpretation of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a reasonable misinterpretation if you look at the skull reconstruction figure alone, but the text of the article does make it clear that the morphology is similar to Allosaurus. However, the "extended abstract" nature of Scientific Reports papers (with very minimal figures) certainly does not help... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Supplementary Information of the article has some more information on the anatomy, if needed, and even more can be read from the character matrix (also in the supplement). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Huincul Chart (pinging Jens Lallensack). I've restricted it to dinosaurs as the other tetrapods aren't documented all that well yet. Aoniraptor, while almost certainly a jr. syn. of Gualicho, was still included as I don't think that this has been formally published yet. Argentinosaurus pretty much dwarfs everything else! How does this look? I may add plants in the background eventually (not anytime soon) and make an Ischigualasto Formation chart in the far future. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I look at this I notice two things immediately. The absence of new abelisaurid Tralkasaurus (although that is understandable and probably not too hard to add in), and the presence of Gasparinisaura who from what I can tell doesn't belong in this picture. It comes from the Anacleto Formation, which are in rocks about 10 million years younger then the Huincul Formation. Other then that I can't really provide much more criticism as I'm not well versed in the proportions of dinosaurs. Hope this helps though. OviraptorFan (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove Gasparinisaura (not sure how I wound up thinking that it was from the Huincul) when I add Tralkasaurus. Does anyone know of a reference for the latter? (Sorry for the late response.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The affinities of Tralkasaurus:
Tralkasaurus is nested among basal abelisaurids within a polytomy that includes Arcovenator, Ilokelesia, Xenotarsosaurus, Rahiolisaurus and Dahalokely.
Some discussion of the size of Tralkasaurus:
In this sense, as inferred from the available material, Tralkasaurus constitutes a relatively medium abelisaurid (Table 1), much smaller than Carnotaurus and Ekrixinatosaurus. [...] Tralkasaurus is perhaps comparable in size with a recently reported indeterminate abelisaurid from the Candeleros Formation (MMCh-PV 69; Canale et al., 2016). The pubis bone is the only overlapping element between Tralkasaurus and MMCh-PV 69, but the proximodistal length of both indicates a similar size between both taxa (35cm in Tralkasaurus, Table 1; 41 cm MMCh-PV 69, Canale et al., 2016).
Looks right to me. I even checked out the colours because they seemed a bit weird and unless someone had pure monochromacy they are distinguishable for me through the simulations. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}07:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So... I've been rather preoccupied with this for the past few weeks, hence my little hiatus. It took a very long time and put a strain on my computer to handle the file, but here it is at last. I was surprised by how complete D. carnegii is! I'm not going to go over all the steps I took to make it here as that would be rather exhausting and take far too long. The route I took is detailed in the file description, though. The regions I'm the most worried about are the forearm and chest, as those look pretty weird compared to other reconstructions (it's a lot deeper-chested, it seems). Any comments on anything? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The chest being too deep seems like a side effect of the pelvis being too small somehow. The forelimb needs a bit more musculature, as well as the thigh, but some aspects like the hand and foot look like the skeletal of Diplodocus by Franoys, and I'm not entirely sure how he came about to restore vertical phalanges in the hand of Diplodocus, in Apatosaurus they are very much 45º to horizontal. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CM 84 and CM 94 are the only confirmed D. carnegii specimens at present. According to Tschopp et al. 2015, WDC-FS001A is not Diplodocus, and cannot be assigned to any known species of diplodocid, and according to Tschopp et al. 2019 [2] CM 307 is an indeterminate diplodocine and most likely Galeamopus. This skeletal could be seen as incorrectly implying that certain bones are not known in CM 94, as it does not distinguish between "known only in CM 84" and "known in both CM 84 and CM 94". Ornithopsis (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should've known something like this would happen! It looks like I should redo the hand after Galeamopus pabsti. At least CM 307 does appear to be the best source of info for posterior cd's. I'll rescale the pelvis, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... how complete is the manus of Barosaurus, and is it well-figured (with lateral views for at least the metacarpals)? If enough info's been published on it, then it would be a better basis than Galeamopus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A major problem with sauropod manuses is that the individual bones dont all face the same way because of the arc shape. For my Apatosaurus for example, McV and IV were essentially anterior view, McIII was anterolateral, and McII was lateral, while McI was not visible (anterior being the front face, lateral being the side). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the only described Barosaurus manus is the specimen CM 21774, described in McIntosh 2005 (chapter in Thunder Lizards). It consists of three and a half metacarpals, figured only in anterior view, and a few phalanges. Worth mentioning that one of the main lines of evidence used to refer it to Barosaurus is that it differs from then-Diplodocus hayi. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anterolateral, I would recommend using that, but if not, and its the medial carpal, I would say lateral, if its the lateral carpal, I'd say anterior. If theres only one carpal check up on which it is homologous to. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of updates have been completed, thanks for all the input. How does it look now? It's definitely less funky-looking than last time, but it still seems a bit odd in some places. I'm not sure how to best modify the color scheme (it never came up for Brachiosaurus, any ideas for this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slate Weasel the only thing I see left is to adjust the head-neck articulation, since currently it appears to articulate too high on the back of the skull and also as too low of an angle. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, finally, the skeletal for Achillobator giganticus is finished, it took me a hell to understand the paper but is finally done. The skull is based on Utahraptor and Deinonychus, and the lateral views of the femur and metatarsals are based again, on Utahraptor and Deinonychus, respectively. Apparently there are more elements preserved, but they are badly mentioned or not figured in the paper, with that being said, is there any problems? Lastly, I really hope that this reconstruction can help to create a more complete image of this animal in future reconstructions, since it is a very obscure taxon.
This is mainly a style issue, but text should be kept at a minimum in such images (unless they are for example related to colour keys or similar); the info here is already supposed to be in the file description and image captions, now it just wastes space in the thumbnail. Same issue in the Yurgovuchia image. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, not the most complete, but it's here. Nothing much to say really, the only thing that I think is worth to mention is that Holtz estimated Tsagantegia at freaking 7 meters. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been updating my faunal diagrams by adding references, paleoflora and correcting anatomical issues. Many suggestions made by users were taken in the process. One of the main goals of these diagrams was to recreate the contemporany fauna and environments of the largest dromaeosaurids ever: Achillobator, Austroraptor, Dakotaraptor and Utahraptor, in order to be added to their Wiki pages. The "most" complete fauna out of the 4 depicted here is the Cedar Mountain Formation, but why? I mean, there several papers describing both the aquatic and terrestial fauna of the formation (including the other geological Members of this particular formation), and I haven't seen a single soul taking this in consideration and making something out of it. In the other hand, the other formations are a little bit more known, except for the Bayan Shireh Formation, a poorly studied unit. I'll resume this kind of work in a near future with other formations. Is something incorrect? Dinosaurs missing? Issues? Comments and corrections will be much appreciated. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the Cedar Mountain image is that the fauna shown in that image aren't all contemporaries. I haven't read the relevant literature extensively, but from Jim Kirkland's twitter feed I have gotten the impression that there are at least three faunas represented here, with Yurgovuchia older than Utahraptor, Moabosaurus younger than Mierasaurus, and so on. I think it's misleading to show it all in one image. As for Bayanshiree there's a few taxa you've missed: Erketu ellisoni, an unnamed titanosaur (MPC-D100/3005), an unnamed velociraptorine formerly identified as Adasaurus (MPC-D100/22 and 100/23), and Amtocephale gobiensis have all been reported as being from the Bayanshiree Formation. There's probably others (I vaguely remember reading a mention of an avimimid from there, but I might be misremembering). I don't believe Saltasaurus is from the Allen Formation. If I'm not mistaken, Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from the same site, which has been debated over whether it's Allen or Anacleto. I think you need either both or neither. I think Antarctosaurus and Laplatasaurus are also debated over which formation they're from, but I don't think either is from the same site as Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow Cat was actually redated recently so it's actually several million years older than Poison Strip as opposed to immediately before (which as you point is already not contemporaneous). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not just "several million years" as you suggest, it has been dated to the latest berriasian to early hauterivian, making it coeval with the Hastings Beds. Given now that it's clear that the Cedar Mountain Formation was deposited over the best part of 50 million years, it's obvious that each individual member's fauna should be treated separately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the corrections, especially for the missing taxa in Bayan Shireh, already working on them. I would be grateful if you guys could provide me the papers/documents (or page?) about the information of the Cedar Mountain Formation and the unnamed members of the Bayan Shireh in order to do an aprox. body size and silhouette. Abelisaurus is making its way into the Allen fauna, referring to Laplatasaurus and Saltasaurus, I checked again the papers and they are not identified from the Allen Formation, as you stated, nevertheless, Antarctosaurus has been identified, here. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources indicate that Antarctosaurus is from Anacleto, though, so I'm not sure it's appropriate. According to this paper[3]Pellegrinisaurus and Abelisaurus are from Anacleto as well, but not everything has followed that—I'd like to know if there's any more recent research on the subject. I don't trust any paper on the subject which simply states which formation these taxa are from without commentary on the opposing hypothesis. As for Bayanshiree, [4][5][6] cover what I listed. Are you sure on the sizes of the sauropods? Rocasaurus and Saltasaurus had roughly 800 mm femora whereas Pellegrinisaurus appears to have had a substantially longer femur (around 900 mm as preserved, according to the scale bar in its original description, likely would've been around 1300 when complete). Aeolosaurus had a 1030-mm femur and Panamericansaurus presumably had a femur length of ~1500 mm (extrapolating from a 1230-mm humerus). You've given them all roughly similar hip heights here.Ornithopsis (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Bayan Shireh fauna, now I'll be updating the Allen one. Is there any problem if I add the missing taxa in the Bayan Shireh page? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but would it be better to restrict it to the terrestrial habitat, as indicated by the background? The plesiosaurs in the forest are a bit irritating. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor issue, IMO, and has no real bearing on accuracy, but it does bother me too. Maybe put the marine life in a lower part of the image, "below sea level" so to speak? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The colour coding in the Bayan Shireh image is essentially useless because the earthy shades used are so similar (multiple browns, how will we identify them in captions?). I am red green colourblind, but even then I can't be the only one who can't discern the very similar shades and correlate the names with silhouettes. The other images are more successful in this regard, so it should definitely be changed if it is to be used. Also, it is a bit annoying the genus names are not in italics. All that being said, I think this is a good idea, and such images could be used in the paleoecology/environment sections of individual genus articles. I will probably add it to Segnosaurus, but it seems to not have the distinctive downturned dentary tip in the diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, I can't tell them apart based on their colour, just because I can identify which taxa based on their anatomy. Having more variety amongst the colours would be a good idea. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an option would be to have the names and colors listed in the key according to the positions of the silhouettes from left to right, rather than listing them alphabetically. Or one could place the names (and maybe colors) along the bottom of the image under their respect taxa. And to check if an image is not useful for colorblind audiences, I would use a color blind simulator such as this.[7]Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that Erlikosaurus is way too huge, here is a photo of its skull in hand, it is pretty small:[8] Or has it and Segnosaurus been inverted? The sources seem a bit unclear on which is the larger one. Are you seeing these comments, PaleoNeolitic? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, I was unaware of these comments. As you may notice, I heavily updated the Bayan Shireh Formation page, so that means that I will have to rework its faunal diagram as well. I'm currently working on Achillobator skeletal reconstruction, since I got the nefarious paper, so don't worry guys, I'll be updating the faunal diagram. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Bayan Shireh faunal diagram, sizes and silhouettes improved. Segnosaurus is now more identifiable (by the mandible) and Microceratus was removed from the chart due to not being present in the formation (after the creation of Graciliceratops, the remaining material is known from Chinese locations). Also, I decided to restrict the diagram to only the known Dinosauria, since it's the mayor focus. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much, looking good. One problem I see is that the Ohmdenosaurus is much longer than published estimates (Wild, 1978 gave 3–4 m, and Holtz, 2008 gave 4 m). I know that somebody recently put a larger figure into the article; I don't know where that is coming from, and I removed the info for now since no source was provided. Maybe the size discrepancy arises from the fact that you scaled the silhouette based on the proportions of Shunosaurus, while the older estimate might have assumed more prosauropod-like limb with a proportionally longer tibia. So I don't think that the diagram is wrong, but it will be drastically different to the size estimates given in the text. Not sure if and what we can/should do about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a moderate change to reduce the neck length and tail lengths could fix this size issue, as it stands the long neck is baseless if Spinophorosaurus is more derived than Shunosaurus, and the elongate tail can easily be reduced to make it a bit more in line with 4m estimates. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem having it within 1m of the published sizes, especially since published estimates are rough at best. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looks quite nice, bit weird with the far hand looking like only two fingers, but that's not necessarily inaccurate as much as a pose I'm not used to seeing. Vallibona doesn't have the most material so with it currently as a basal spinosaurid it matches with long legs, a slight sail and an average skull. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shaggy partial feather covering looks a bit odd, otherwise I have few complaints. A complimentary skeletal reconstruction would be nice for this taxon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revision people, I will correct the problem with the teeth eventually. For additional information, the reconstruction was mainly based on an Irritator skeleton drawing by Felipe Elias (closely related spinosaurid without the extreme derivations of Spinosaurus) and both hands have three fingers, but they are a bit turned upwards and that may hide them partially.Juan(-username-)(talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am reading all this article and I see it would be better to post here my illustrations before uploading them to the pages. Sorry because I am pretty new to this and I don't perfectly know all the rules and features. Here are the dinosaur (and stem-dinosaur) illustrations I did this year. I only want them posted in articles that don´t already have a reconstruction or that have a very innaccurate one. Also, I would be very pleased if you could tell me if the images are too dark, as I made them in my laptop and I saw them perfectly fine, but with my other computer they look very darkened and I can't clearly see all the details, especially in the belly, hands and feet of the animals. I don't know how annoying it is for other people. Juan(-username-)(talk) 10:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as accuracy goes, I think the Lajasvenator is unfortunately the worst off, because instead of being restored based on megaraptorans, the skeletal in the paper uses Hartman's Neovenator, which is quite possibly unrelated. As far as megaraptorans go, this is probably the best basis for the unknown material, although for Lajas the skull is larger than in the derived megaraptorans used.IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: I'm very confused, the paper clearly states that Lajasvenator is a carcharodontosaurid, closely related to Concavenator, definitely not a megaraptoran, so using neovenator is not a particularly bad proxy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are too few teeth, though due to the nature of theropod tooth replacement it may be more realistic to have a few empty sockets at a time. Is this in contrast to the image review's emphasis on "ideal" circumstances (like no pathologies)? I don't have a strong opinion on integument in herrerasaurids, though it is odd that the artist provided a "pelt" (like that illustrated for many theropods) as a transition between longer feathers and shorter feathers. As far as I know, the scientific support for the "pelt" is inspired by animals like Kulidadromaeus and Juravenator, where it is a transition between feathers and scales, not feathers of different lengths. The eye might be too large and there's a weird extended flattened area behind the head which looks to be the neck, albeit in a very strange pose. As for the Kwanasaurus, the eye looks a bit big, the head may be a bit too deep, and the foot proportions are iffy, but otherwise it looks good. The Vespersaurus is nice but the length of the foot claws are underestimated and their curvature is overestimated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited everything but the Kwanasaurus, which I've tagged as inaccurate unless someone else can adjust it. I don't have any more comments, but I'll leave this section here for at least a few more days
I promised to create this a few months ago, but I've been so busy with school that I haven't had time. Here it is though, is there anything I should fix before I add colors? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the hand throws me off, perhaps it is the angle of the wrist. Might want to check up on that I thought wrist flexion was related to the arm pose. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be safest to show it with less tightly folded hands, as we don't really know its range of motion. Also, the nostril seems to be placed too far back, it should be at the front of the bony naris. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the teeth should be as numerous and homogeneous as depicted, Yi and Epidexipteryx show otherwise. The wrist also looks much longer than the fossil shows. It looks like more dense feathering is also required, it's currently fairly skinny in general. You may also want to give it a bit more gut for its omnivorous tendencies. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had some other quibbles that were hard to place, but I think I know what the issues are now. The skull is too long: where the nostril is right now is right about where the jaw should stop. It seems to also be somewhat too small relative to the torso. This is based on the proportions of both Yi and Epidexipteryx. As pointed out already, the tooth row does not stretch that far back and the teeth should be concentrated at the front of the jaws. Additionally, I think the torso is actually too deep. The pelvic girdle is quite small, and the pubis looks like it's jutting out between the legs right now. This is not the case in scansoriopterygids, where the tip of the pubis is roughly at the level of the concave curve you have going down from the pygostyle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
alright, I've made those changes. the arm is less tightly folded (both at the elbow and the wrist), the skull is shorter with fewer, more concentrated teeth and a repositioned nostril (I think it's in the right spot, but I may still be wrong), feathering is denser in some areas (all other restorations I've seen of Ambopteryx don't have much more feathering than this does), the torso is more shallow, and the pelvic girdle is moved forward. the ischium still sticks out backwards as it does in all skeletal diagrams, but the pubis isn't as prominent. I didn't end up actually changing the head size but I think the issue was that the body was too robust rather than the head being too small; it looked proportional to me after making the changes to the torso and pelvis without changing its actual size. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few less significant changes to make Audrey.m.horn. The feet need more padding, probably about double what they have currently. The metatarsals are a bit too thinly wrapped, the propatagium is missing, there shouldn't be a patagium between the back of the humerus and the body wall, and the top surface of the head should be an almost smooth curve down to a mostly triangular snout (instead of square as currently). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added the propatagium, thickened the legs and toe pads, and made the snout more triangular. on every other restoration of Ambopteryx I've ever seen, the wing membrane continues from the fingers under the elbow and attaches to the body wall like a patagium, it's just hard to show that because of the angle of the arm in this drawing... I probably should have done that a little differently but regardless there is a patagium there so I left what I had originally. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the head of the Lufengosaurus. Not possible to see where the head ends and the neck begins, but what is that little indentation at the upper margin? If this is the depression of the nasal, it should be less pronounced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lufengosaurus loooks off proportionally, but it could be the pose is too horizontal. Ruyangosaurus appears to have too long a neck, the paper describing new material overestimated the cervical count. Omeisaurus' neck looks too curved, it should be mostly straight through the middle with curves at the anterior and posteriormost ends. Zhanghenglong looks quite off probably because of the long legs and very prominent shoulder spines. Gigantspinosaurus looks like it has too short a neck and the tail looks like it projects too far dorsally. But the rest looks good. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ruyangosaurus, Omeisaurus, and Gigantspinosaurus have all been modified. I'll need more specifics on Lufengosaurus in order to fix it. As for Zhanghenglong, the tall anterior dorsal spines and extremely long ulna are known characteristics, so there's not much that I can do about it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing for Lufengosaurus from looking closer is that the fingers look very short and the skull is completely indistinguishable from the neck. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The short fingers are indeed strange, but both Hartman and Paul restore them, so I assume that they're genuine. I'll see what I can do about the heads, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also this one. it's my first sauropod so I'm fully expecting there to be lots of things to fix, please tell me what they are! I did my best on the feet but they're confusing as I'm sure you all know. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sauropod feet are more or less plantigrade, meaning that they're rather flat, and lacked the stegosaur-type ankles. The shin could also use some more flesh. The tail sticks up at a rather odd angle, and the neck seems unnaturally low. The shoulder also was likely deeper. Sauropod hands are really strange, even stranger than the feet, and actually have concave backs, so they're roughly horshoe-shaped in cross-section. The skull looks like a titanosauriform, but Moabosaurus is a turiasaur. This skeletal may help for proportions of unknown parts. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this was based on the reconstruction in the taxobox, which is a museum mount. Generally, museum mounts are not very good bases for reconstructions. There are a few issues with that reconstruction which mainly arise from practical considerations (and apply to many museum mounts): first, the neck is horizontal so it can fit in the exhibition space, and the skull is based on Camarasaurus because that was where it was initially placed. I would suggest restoring the head based on Mierasaurus, where it is much better known. In fact the full skeletal reconstruction of Mierasaurus is much better overall: [10]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I made those changes. I couldn't find any skeletals of Moabosaurus when I was making the reconstruction so I just figured the museum reconstruction was best but I guess not. glad I know now that they're not as accurate as they could be, that'll be helpful in the future. the neck is more vertical and shoulder is deeper, the skull is based off of Mierasaurus and other turiasaurs, and the tail is bent at a less weird angle (I think). anything else? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more things to point out. The feet need changes, because sauropods feet were semidigitigrade, so the metatarsals were held at about 45º from the horizontal, not vertical as you have them. There shouldn't be a line on the top of the neck into the torso, the right foot should still be facing forwards, the claws on the left foot aren't as splayed as you have them, the thigh lines are opposite they should be (long line in front, short line behind where the caudofemoralis is). The skull also appears to be too small. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the metatarsals and foot directions, removed that weird neck line, fixed the thigh lines, and made the skull larger. according to the Turiasaurus skeletal I was referred to, the tail is proportionate but was a little too thick so I made it slightly thinner. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm perhaps I should have also been more clear, it was the feet that needed fixes regarding the angles, not the hands. Sauropod hands were properly upright, but the feet were angled so the top of the foot and the metatarsals were angled roughly 45 to the horizontal, which is why they are referred to as semidigitigrade/semiplantigrade, because they are halfway between resting entirely on the phalanges and resting on the phalanges and metatarsals. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some comments on the manus: On the near hand I think that the claw is on the wrong side of the hand. For the far manus, I think that it should be obviously concave. Sauropod metacarpals are super weird, and are arranged in a horseshoe shape: (here's a hand print). Levi Bernardo's Aegyptosaurus (at the bottom of the page) does a good job of showing how this translates in the animal if you're looking for a reference. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a few more things now there is shading. The far foot (and hindlimb) still appears too columnar, but the near one is good. The shading under the jaw is too prominent, because of muscles the jaw would smoothly transition into the neck. The same is for shading at the front of the chest, the entire pectoral and arm region smoothly transitions into the neck so the sharp shading is too much. The skin flap on the front of the thigh is too long, its alright for an anterolateral view but from straight lateral it wouldn't even be half the current length. The metacarpals should actually be more vertical here, and the concavity of the hand needs to be even more pronounced. But that's it. I see nothing else that could need adjustments. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Life reconstruction of Stenonychosaurus by Tom Parker
Apologies to IJRied, but I would like to replace the reconstruction on the Stenonychosaurus page. I know we dont approve of replacing art based on aesthetics or artistic quality but there are scientific problems with it too. The space joint between the tarsometatarsals and tibiotarsus is way too thin, the jaw musculature is off, the feathering is unrealistic. I have cleaned up an old image of the animal I have done. If you'd rather clean up the other image then whatever, but here it is anyway. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now there are some things off with this. The retracted claw on the left foot looks like it is the middle toe, the lower jaw is much too thin, and the arm appears to articulate to the shoulder halfway up the side of the torso. The snout is probably also too deep but that's unknown in Stenonychosaurus and would be based off Gobivenator. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}07:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The toe is for sure not supposed to be on the middle foot but there is def some weird shading artefacts going on there, I'll fix that right up. The rest of that shit is obviously nonsense based on the material we have. Really looking for FunkMonk's approval here. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense if it is based on actual relatives. The shading of the upper arm is misleading and makes it look like it articulated too high on the chest. The anterior end of the lower jaw is basically absent, where we have multiple anterior dentaries from "Troodon" which would now be either Latenivenatrix, Stenonychosaurus or both. The anterior snout is too dorsoventrally deep and with too square an anterodorsal corner compared to close relatives. And for a collaborative project approval should be reached from all members. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Stenonychosaurus is the Two Medicine troodontid, then wouldn't it be (by the Latenivenatrix description) be closer to Saurornithoides/Zanabazar? Both(?) of those appear to have rather dorsoventrally shallow dentaries. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what we even know of Stenonychosaurus after so much of the material ended up in Latenivenatrix, so I'll try to check that out. As for now, yeah, certainly looks like the sickle claw is in the middle, and there's a weird splotch by the front of the chest that should probably be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can probably use Hartman's skeletal as reference:[11] I think it looks fine apart from the foot and splotch issues, I agree the tip of the jaw is a bit thin, but we don't really know that part anyway it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk. The "splotch" was supposed to be a feather falling from the animal, but that is obviously unclear, and I'm happy to remove it as that is not necessary for an encyclopedia anyway. Here is the skull of my reconstruction compared to the skull of Zanabazar: https://sta.sh/029ymqw6x12q. My skull does have a slightly shorter and more robust maxilla, but as we don't have that element from Stenonychosaurus so I don't think this is an issue, but if you like I'll be happy to try and thin it out a little. Tomopteryx (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, to me it looked like a claw or something had been misplaced. So yeah, probably a bit confusing now, especially since the rest of the image is so schematic, you'd not expect something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better than my old piece, I'll replace it, but I still think the lower jaw could be smoothed out, the arm is be too high on the torso, the neck is too thin and the head articulation is too angled. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again and getting a second opinion reveals a bit more thats off about it. Mostly the neck-head articulation is overflexed, the neck itself is too thin, the shading of the thigh makes it look very thin, and at least the ventral edge of the dentary should be straight or gently curved as in all troodontids, instead of with a distinct narrowing towards the tip. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}06:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been brought to my attention that there are some updated needed for the Tarbosaurus size comparison, impacting "G. lancinator" and "G. novojovi". The former, PIN 553-1, is apparently much too small, the skull is 97cm long. The latter is the proper length, but is much too proportionally built like an adult, it should be more gracile like Jane based on the postcrania (you can follow Maleev's 1974 skeletal for this). But that's it Slate Weasel. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, "G. lancinator" is still a bit too small, the skull still isn't quite 1m long. And the arms of "G. novojilovi" look a bit small, they should be noticably larger than "G. lancinator". IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PIN 552-2 is also still too robust. I've made a quick edit of your figure based on measurements from Maleev 1974 and a reposed version of Maleev's original diagram depicting PIN 552-2. Black is PIN 551-2 scaled down to match the skull-length for PIN 553-1. https://sta.sh/018wzmvwkf9131.151.8.113 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The skull of 551-2 is 1130mm long, lancinator is 970. So "G. lancinator" should be 16.5% smaller than 551-2 by your chart, which gives it a length of 7.3m in a straight line. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Visible antorbital fenestra, pretty jarring transtion to featherless anterior portion of the skull, particularly in the lower jaw, where it looks like the two halves are separated. Not sure what the spike in the naris is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here again with another skeletal, this time Graciliceratops. As I stated in the description, cranial and vertebral remainds were omitted since they are pretty much fragmented (or badly figured). By the way, the remodel of Alectrosaurus skeletal will take some time, the papers are very uncommon and the meditions are mostly absent. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think skull and vertebrae should be illustrated in some capacity since they include the posterior mandible, most of the frill, and the entire presacral column. True they aren't all visible in lateral view but the frill can be modified from any related form to fit the proportions, and the vertebrae of ceratopsians really don't show much variability. A lot of potential is missing by excluding the skull and vertebrae. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, very good points, however, I don't really know how accurate the lower jaw will end up; it is very confusing in shape. Already working on the vertebrae. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great, my only comment on the skeletal is that the frill is known and should be white. As far as the remainder of the image, I would prefer if the cat is replaced with something smaller so that the skeletal can take up over 50% of the area of the skeletal (right now its probably below to 25%). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't see requests very much around a here, but I am in a bit of a pickle so I figured I would give it a shot. I am currently working on significant expansion of the Macrogryphosaurus article, but it and all of its immediate relatives lack anything in terms of open access images and have very little on Commons to supplement them. As things are, I will have essentially no images to fill in the space. If anyone was looking for a subject for a skeletal, size diagram, or reconstruction, it would be much appreciated. Even just some illustrations of some individual bones would be useful. Do be sure to follow the osteology well though, it is not a standard ornithopod by any stretch. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here we go. I had to scale it to the pubis as no longbones are known for this animal, but I got a length of ~5m which matches published estimates, so it seems to have worked fine. Missing elements filled in with Talenkauen. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]Life reconstruction of Macrogryphosaurus.
Thanks, but I think the proportions are off. Torso might be a tad bit too long - it should be a bit shorter than that of Talenkauen, which had two more dorsals than it - (and the shoulder muscles seem overbuilt, assuming that is what that is), but the main issue is that the neck is definitely too short, significantly so. In particular, I am looking at four images to support this. Firstly, the Talenkauen skeletal from its osteology. It has a somewhat longer neck than your reconstruction here, but that species should have a shorter neck overall. Second, an ornithopod silhouette from the Macrogryphosaurus osteology, the one in the map figure. This is a very rough metric, but with its proportions I cannot see it as anything else but tailor-made for the species. It definitely has a longer neck than your animal. Thirdly, there is a mounted skeletal reconstruction of a Macrogryphosaurus in Buenos Aires. Search "Megaraptor mount" on google images, it will be the thing in its jaws. This one shows a much longer neck than yours. Lastly, in Stephen Poropats report on South American ornithopods [13], he includes a picture of the whole holotype specimen stitched out. The neck is, again, much longer than yours, and this specimen does not even preserve all of the cervicals. The text says the preserved portion already measures over a metre long, something your entire neck definitely does not preserve. I imagine this last image would also help with the torso proportions. Anyways, this is why I made sure to disclaim that it is not a standard ornithopod. Also, the published size estimates are in the range of six metres, not five. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a reconstruction of Suskityrannus today and it seems there isn't one currently included, so I thought I'd put it up for potential use. There are a lot of images there already though for a short article, so we may not need it. Scaled to holotype specimen. Tomopteryx (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sure could replace the Timurlengia image, which appears to have been added as a stand in. It seems a bit too tilted forwards to be stable, but I guess it's about to take a step? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it appears to be based on the old Jaime Headden skull reconstruction, which is no longer accurate. Besides not taking the "Angaturama" specimen into account, it also has a bizzarely-shaped-snout with an unusual crest not known in any species. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼
Another thing I've noticed is that it's common in palaeoart to restore Ichthyovenator as having a fairly standard spinosaurid sail that looks like it's had a triangle-shaped piece taken out of it, instead of the sinosoidal, wave-like shape preserved in the actual fossils, which seems to be the case here. So that could be fixed as well. Speaking of Ichthyovenator, I made an updated version of my older restoration a while back[14], which I've been thinking about putting up for review here as it has some issues, mostly with the hind limbs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've been pinged multiple times about posting images without review, but they haven't responded here yet. Perhaps someone should notify them of this policy on their talk page? Also, Spinosaurus' sail looks rather low and flat-topped. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that he only edits occasionally, and usually only to add his own images to articles, so he's probably not checking wikipedia most of the time Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in many of his illustrations, the musculature of the tail is strange and does not match the bones. We would have to carefully review everyone's skulls, especially Spinosaurus. Also the back of Suchomimus looks strange. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sauropodomorph added this life restoration to the Mussaurus page without review. I think that it looks pretty good, but what do others think? This also reminds me that I planned to eventually make a Mussaurus size comparison, although that may not happen for a week or two. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the transfer to Commons has already been made, the funny thing is that I was thinking these days to correct my old and simple illustration of Mussaurus. But this one is very good. Only that the eye seems to be too high on the head, it would also be good if it became 5% larger. The muscles and skin in the tail do not seem to match the vertebrae and chevrons. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theropod femora couldn't rotate backwards past 90 degrees relative to the pelvis, so you might wanna fix that up. --TKWTH (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should be good! I'd say there are some issues with the gait of the animal itself but that's all pedantry and really, who has the time? xD --TKWTH (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been making a few skeletal things, prompted by the restoration of Aegyptosaurus by Levi where I decided to redo my old and very poorly scaled limb bone image. Then I was asked to make the skull of Ngwevu, so I did that. I'll take requests if people have them, and I hope nothing is wrong with either of these two. The unknown material of Ngwevu isn't shown in a separate colour because I also restored the internal bones and I would need another two colours of grey which could be more confusing than just labeling it as a restored skull. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like to keep my images entirely text free, but if people want I can add labels. I make the scale bars clearly different colours for that reason, it's either in mm, cm, or m which can be identified based on the context. A 15cm Ngwevu skull isn't going to be shown with a 5mm scale bar, nor will a 1m humerus have a 10cm scale bar at the same height as it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
I have cut and edited the illustration of Thomas Wright's Oplosaurus tooth to add it to commons. Any necessary changes? I think I can still see some letters and words on the other side of the page in the drawing. In addition I have redrawn the photograph of Nesbitt Ezcurra 2011 of "Teyuwasu". Any comment? --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no primaries in this reconstruction. (And why even show the silhouette of the feathers in a skeletal restoration?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing reconstructions and determining if any of them have some sort of inaccuracy. This one clearly has. The fact it was published in a scientific paper doesn't make it mistake-proof. Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, we have before, and in this situation the change I see as necessary is simply adjusting the silhouette so feathers come from the second digit as well, a well-established rule of paravian feather arrangements here. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there have been some pretty awful reconstructions in peer reviewed papers, see for example.[16] Others that seem good otherwise also have issues, like this one.[17] So they are certainly not exempt if we find some issues. In this case, it should be an easy fix. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to lack toe pads. The feathers aren't connected correctly to the hand (here's an example of what it can look like: [18]), I think that it would be better if someone with more experience than me in this region explains it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that attempt at adding in the wing feathers ended up slightly degrading the quality of the outline on one of the digits. OviraptorFan (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. The Dineobellator fossil has no skin impressions so no one knows exactly what its feathers looked like. The inclusion of a crest in the image seemed questionable.Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so the only photos we're allowed to use have big watermarks on them, is that okay? also, there's one of the full skeleton and then a few details of the skull and sickle claws. do we want those too? if the watermarks are an issue I can take pictures myself but I don't have a good camera so they won't be as nice. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more pressing concern is if those watermarked images can be released under a CC license. Some confirmation on that would be good. Either way, taking new photos would probably be a good backup plan. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sorry for the wait. got all the permissions and info, here's the main picture. do we want some of the detail shots too (skull, pedal unguals)? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Straight for the infobox. Yeah, any other shots would be great, but I'd say with emphasis on "known" elements, if we can even be sure yet. The skull in profile maybe? Also, since you are not the photographer, it may be necessary to get email permission confirmation through OTRS:[23]FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I know that they are very strict about such permissions on Commons, though. Just so you are prepared for what to do if it becomes an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a size comparison showing multiple Irritator specimens, in "honor" of the irritation of Huinculsaurus being published behind a paywall and thus rendering my Huincul size chart inaccurate. If anyone can give me some vertebral lengths for this taxon, it would be much appreciated. Anyways, how does this size chart look accuracy-wise? Should I add any more specimens? Also, are there any old size charts of mine that you'd like to see overhauled? I can't guarantee anything immediately but it would help to give me an idea of what to work on. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely zero measurements for the non-caudal material, which is featured only in a single publication (and irritated me when I made a skeletal). It was some 2005 paper with Kellner as an author than the lead author having a last initial M, thats all I can recall. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really nice! Accuracy and stylistically-wise. Elaine Machado gives an estimate of 5-6 metres for the undescribed possible Angaturama skeleton[Contribuições à paleontologia de Terópodes não-avianos do Mesocretáceo do Nordeste do Brasil], which I believe is the publication IJReid is referring to. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our current Ankylosaurus size chart showing the maximum size of the largest specimen is looking a little... small. I've created a new version showing the two most complete specimens, with CMN 8880 matching the 8m length estimate. Comments? Also, the new version of PhyloCode comes out tomorrow! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are they scaled to their skull lengths here (55.5 and 64.5 cm in length)?
Hmm... looks like the GAT skeletal may have had too big a head. I'll have to fix that. The femoral length should be correct (I measured it before and it matched up w/ the published length). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the proportions of his skeletal give a length of 7 m for CMN 8880. It's even mentioned in the comments on Deviantart.
It looks a bit confusing with the many different coloured legs, because it is hard to see at a glance which attaches where. Maybe it would be best to simplify it so each dinosaur has a single colour? Or make their colours even more different, so they aren't both green.FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's fine because we don't really know if the teeth were covered with lips or whether the naked skin had scales. But many would probably find it unlikely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that we don't have enough evidence for lips. I also tried to make cracked ceratin rather than scales like in crocks.ARSDRACO (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cracked keratin of crocodilians was a very specialized structure correlated with heavily texture bones. Dinosaurs don't have those kinds of bones, and instead had bone texture correlated with lizard-like facial covering. Otherwise it looks very nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not settled, sure. While most paleontologists are leaning towards lips on the basis of bone structure (Witton, Hone, Headden), there are a few dissenters (Carr) who use phylogenetic bracketing to argue that dinosaurs were lipless because they lie between crocodilians and birds. I would recommend reading up on some of Mark Witton's work (like here[25]) if you have not already. At the very least we should avoid crocodilian-style cracked keratinous skin in troodontids. That is excessive speculation unsupported by both bone structure and phylogenetic bracketing (since it's absent in birds). Also, ARSDRACO, can you please sign your replies with four tildes? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lips are far less up for debate than many people here seem to think. Lips are the default for tetrapods, and are only absent in particularly specialised animals. Liplessness is the exception, not the rule. Crocs and birds are both very specialised, we just got unlucky that they're both the closest living relatives to dinosaurs. While yes, there are no papers explicitly supporting lips, they are the parsimonious option, and should be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It's common sense. --TKWTH (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but parsimony could just as easily be used to argue for liplessness as Carr has done. And Wikipedia cannot possibly cite the common sense among specialist practitioners. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Carr has only argued for liplessness in tyrannosaurs, Daspletosaurus specifically, and even that has been said to be less than airtight. No such evidence exists for paravians. I struggle to understand why so many people are grasping at straws to justify liplessness in the face of its sheer unlikeliness. --TKWTH (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what Lythronax is saying is that for our purposes, where everything has to be backed up with reliable sources, there isn't really much that has been published in defence of lips either. And what we as editors think is common sense is irrelevant if we can't back it up with citations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but... I dunno, man, it really comes down to a case of likelihood. There's simply a lot more reason to believe dromaeosaurs and their kin had lips than reason to believe they didn't, and with all the misinformation and reaches and fanboy wishful thinking floating around about the subject, I'll admit I find it a little... irresponsible to depict this animal without lips when there's simply no reason to believe that's the case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. While it's true that we don't really have any hard evidence either way, lips seem to be the default state for all tetrapods, and while that's tenuous, admittedly, tenuous evidence is still more reliable than no evidence, at least if you ask me. And liplessness in paravians simply has no evidence.
Also let's be honest lips are just so much easier to draw and including them saves a lot of work lmao but i suppose that's neither here nor there. My initial point still stands. --TKWTH (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree it is more likely, recommend it, and try to follow it, yes, but I don't think there is strong enough evidence for us removing images that show exposed teeth if we encounter them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more serious issue I just noticed, the image gives it quite a bit of an underbite, unlike what's shown in the skeletal:[26] Lower jaw should be much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the depth of the front of the upper and lower jaws; your drawing shows the lower jaw as deep as the upper jaw there. The skeletal shows the lower jaw much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while. I have been working on Enigmosaurus page, and well, a skeletal for it was required. The bar represents 5 solid meters, any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the pelvis is mainly based on the photo in Zanno's article? Also relevant, the restoration used in the article[27] needs some updates, it's belly is too small, and the fingers too thin, probably other issues too (feathering, foot pads lacking). FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially odd about the fingers in that restoration is that those of the left Enigmosaurus seem to be completely lacking in soft tissue and are literally just bare bones, either by mistake or the way they're drawn. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the upper arm and the neck are unusually long for an ornithopod, so that should be visible in the diagram. As well, the tail was probably more elongate than the typical ornithopod according to possible elasmarians like Diluvicursor or the "leaellyna" postcrania. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arm is swept back, I could rotate it further forwards if it would help. The tail's more than half the animal's length and the neck's over twice the length of the skull - is this not sufficiently long? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The neck length wasn't clear because of the curve, it looks closer to 1.5 skull length probably because the neck is straight out behind the head. The upper arm should be longer, as the skeletal by Rozadilla has the shoulder too high up the side of the body, and even then in the diagram here the humerus doesn't look over the length of the forearm. Tail length is a bit more subjective since the closest probable relative with a tail is Isasicursor, and in the skeletal on its article the tail is significantly longer than double the rest of the body in length. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I work on the Angolatitan and tyrannosaurid images above, I thought it'd be a nice idea to redo the first contribution and artwork I ever submitted to Wikipedia, my old Neuquenraptor! Which, looking at it two years later (WOW, I cannot believe it's been that long already), has not aged well. I don't think it even got reviewed, as it's wonky in various ways and inaccurate to what fossil material is known. I based the new illustration on Slate Weasel's recent skeletal, which I've put in place of my also wonky size chart[28] on the article. Lemme know if there's anything else I should fix on the restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your artistic skills have only gotten better over the years, nice! It would seem you need some longer covert feathers[29], I don't think you would even be able to see where the primary and secondary feathers attach, but now there is a weird junction between them by the wrist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I overlooked that the primaries look like they attach to the wrist rather than the second finger, but you could hide that if more of the finger was covered by coverts, and the first finger was free of them. Sort of like here:[30] Here's a diagram of Archaeopteryx showing where the primary feathers should attach:[31]FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were definitely attaching to the wrist, so I just changed the outlines so that they lead to the second finger, and also moved the first finger slightly to the left to avoid ambiguity as suggested. Hopefully that's better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I made that skeletal less than a year ago?! Time flies! It did have a few issues, including the lack of flesh on the feet and the femur being rotated too far back, but I have hopefully fixed those now. Fortunately neither of those were replicated in your life restoration (I'm not too familiar with maniraptorans, so I can't really say anything about its accuracy). Thanks for reminding me about this! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! Even with the (now fixed) flaws it was still leagues better than my size chart though, haha. And let's not forget the even older and less accurate version of that chart that's still being used in some articles on other language wikis [32], gonna be replacing both of those with your skeletal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I came across this image by change, by Fanboyphilosopher and theres a bit of an issue. It is almost exactly the skull in Nesbitt et al. 2019, which is a bit of a copyright issue. While the bones can't be copyrighted the skull restoration certainly can, and it's not so complete as to have every skull image be the same. As well, the posterior end of the dentary shown as known in the published diagram is unknown here, and the colours are so similar for some bones as to be confusing. I would suggest removing the colour altogether because of the confusion and lack of reproducibility (unusable in other wikis), individual bones should be understandable enough from the description, a basic sense of anatomy, or following the links in text. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid Many images in papers say "redrawn from" another image to get around copyright, so I don't understand why this would be an issue (I have changed the description on commons to "redrawn from"). I did this with my Concavenator skull which was (sloppily) traced from an image of a 3d model. A skull is a natural object and thus a technical drawing of it from lateral view is not copyrightable. The colouration makes it distinct from the original black and white drawing. I admit that I find the nature of the dotted lines confusing and they don't serve to locate the preserved portions of bone particularly well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this is it is not the natural object that is being reproduced. The skull of Asilisaurus is too incomplete for a single definitive restoration (which is different from Concavenator or Massospondylus or Tyrannosaurus or Herrerasaurus) which means this is copying the authors *interpretations* (the copyrightable bit). Publications that redraw from previous studies don't actually get around the copyright, we aren't able to host redrawn images if the original isn't also in a freely licensed paper. Publications are allowed to use originals or redrawings because of the mandatory reproducibility of science, but the copyright of a redrawn image is no different from the image it is redrawn from. That's one of the reasons we aren't allowed to use Scott Hartman skeletal redrawings or reposes, because they take the artists interpretations of the fossil material, and while the fossils aren't copyrighted, the interpretations are. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: If that was the case, we would have to remove the image of Asfaltovenator, as the base of the image was blatantly copied from an old allosaurus reconstruction by him without permission (it's clearly visible in the torso). The image in the paper with restored sections in red shows that the skull is substantially complete, so I think it's ok. I personally think the image will be fine if the jaw is rotated by about 30 degrees or so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for my decisions surrounding this diagram are a bit complicated. Most of my diagram is traced over the one from the paper, I fully admit that. I was stuck in a situation where I could either go with the interpretation of a much more talented skeletal artist (S.H.), or offer my own interpetation, which would likely have a bit of original research. The skull is actually fairly complete, so I was confident that S.H.'s interpretation was very close to the actual anatomy. It also resembles the skull of the FMNH mount, which was based on scans of the original fossils if I recall correctly. In the end I decided to trace over the original diagram. If most of the skull was missing, I would probably not have taken the chance. I did make slight changes wherever I could see differences between the diagram and the fossils. One example would be the antorbital fossa, which looked too narrow in the original diagram compared to the photos and description in the rest of the paper. Another example would be the rear of the dentary being shaded as if it was present, even though it was not described in the paper at all. I could have made more changes so that my estimates of the missing bones are not identical to Hartman's, but I have no reason to think his are wrong and adding my own speculative outlines would edge on original research. For example, I slightly increased the height of the surangular to bring it in line with other herbivory-trending dinosauromorphs, and I'm not sure if I should go further. I'm basically walking a tightrope between possible copyright infringement and original research, and I have tried my best not to lean too far in either direction. My color-coding preferences are a whole other can of worms, but on a fundamental level they are identical to those of the Dromaeosaurus skull diagram created by AS. That diagram is currently in use on the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy and no one has objected to it. Overall, while I have basically created a derivative work, it is transformative, important for context, and unlikely to adversely affect the income received through the original work (a 61 page scientific monograph, in which the skull diagram takes up less than 1/4 of a page). The line at which it crosses into fair use is a bit fuzzy in this situation thanks to the numerous variables, but I think it's safe. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia I honestly think the Asfalto image should be removed, but I'm going to leave that up to others because I could also see the rationale of the silhouette being de minimis, and without the silhouette is would be much harder to immediately identify it as Hartman's. With regards to the image itself, a few things appear to me. The premaxilla as traced is a bit *too* perfect, in the fossil the anterior end is a lot more flattened, the nasal fossa is less distinct, and the foramen is more prominent. The posterior mandible is more complete than in the published diagram, it is visible in fig. 19 labeled as "D". The anterior tip of the dentary is similarly "perfected" in the diagram, in all the known fossils the anteriormost tip is mid-height or below, yet Hartman's drawing places it noticeably above mid-height. The frontal would be flatted, the squamosal more dorsally convex and with a shallowed posterior process, and the quadratojugal more preserved and less acute based on the fossils. The upside is the image is probably easily adjusted to fix these, but the downside is that such changes were necessary in the first place based on the use of the papers "perfected" diagram. I would have no objections to the use of the diagram as a base for which to determine articulations and angles, but using their drawings of the bones instead of your own causes the issue of potential copyright issues. add on Additionally with the Asfaltovenator, the bones themselves have been modified in the skeletal, the humerus for example is completely new, so the use of Hartman's skeletal as a base from which the new bones were placed also means it is less a copy and more a derivative (though the paper should have attributed him still). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid I have had trouble interpreting figure 19, but the text does note that it depicts part of the posterior dentary, so I can make that change. I also agree with your observation that the tip of the dentary should be positioned more ventrally. I disagree with your argument that the squamosal should have a shallower posterior process and convex dorsal surface, as neither of those are apparent in the fossil (fig. 11). The outline and orientation of the quadratojugal is unclear where pictured (fig. 5), and the text notes that it is "only represented by a small fragment still in articulation with the quadrate". I'm not sure what you mean by making the frontal flatter, S.H. (and by extension myself) compromised in shape between fig. 10B and 10E, though I could chosen the latter in hindsight. The text says "Its dorsal surface is nearly flat anteriorly, dorsally expanded in the lateral portion across the orbital margin, and ventrally depressed in the posterior third of the element." Finally, S.H.'s depiction of the premaxilla is extremely close to the actual fossil, so I barely changed it. I can definitely revise the diagram when I have time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The premaxilla, quadratojugal and posterior dentary are fine then, this is your diagram so it should probably be how you see the fossils. However, the squamosal posterior process, if the height is correct, has the quadrate articulation too centered, in fig 11 the quadrate head articulated directly into the flange labelled, which is maybe 1/4 up the fossil, and this change would likely also raise the parietal and posterior postorbital process unless you rotated it a bit counterclockwise. Using the known fossils certainly isn't OR, and changes to the unknown material in order to better articulate the known bones shouldn't be either because tha anatomy is already quite conservative. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as the postorbital process being depicted as too narrow, and I will revise it once I look over the text to make sure that my suspicions are justified. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complicate issue, and this is not the first skeletal drawn after one in a paper. Maybe the issue should be up at one of the copyright fora at Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what the policy is in these kinds of situations. I've created a fairly transformative tracing of a skull diagram originally published as a small component of a copyrighted scientific monograph. I don't know whether the copyright is owned by the artist or the authors who commissioned his work, though I know the main author IRL so I may get some answers that way. It seemingly meets most of the fair use criteria apart from minimal usage (as I replicated some artistic license such as the shape of the postorbital). At that point the problem is whether changing the outline in those situations would infringe on original research policies. I am of the opinion that S.H. would do a better job estimating the true anatomy than I would, so I wouldn't want to alter it in those areas anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I think the main issue is whether any derivative image is likely to cause issues with the author of the original work. For example for the Kamuysaurus issue, we have had an explicit request (presumably from the artist) to remove the image (admittedly only in the very weak form of removing it from the article and leaving a message on their user page). Yet the image is still on commons and in the article. Would the authors of the paper object to having their image traced to be used in a diagram on wikipedia? A lot of this is a bit touch and go depending on individual whims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely remove it if Scott Hartman expressed an issue with it being too close to his work. The Kamuysaurus issue is not really related to this discussion, as that artwork was supplied through a paper with a free license while the Asilisaurus monograph is under more restrictive copyright. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference is that life restorations like that are of undisputed artistic nature. But a skull diagram like this has choices based on a scientific rather than artistic basis. So it is a bit of a fringe issue and again I think the easiest solution is to bring it up at Commons, for example here:[33] Fair use is only for fair use images, by the way, which are not allowed on Commons. But if we wanted to keep it under fair use, we could just as well use the original. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the original has issues (as listed by IJReid), then we should not use it. Moreover, from what I know of fair use images, reducing the resolution may be necessary if it was classified as one. I think the debate at this point is whether my image is derivative enough to be classified as a derivative work. What would we make of it if I edit it to the point that the only aspects it shares with the original are the outlines of the preserved bones, which cannot be copyrighted. Would it be a derivative work at that point? Truth be told I'm worried about bringing this up at Commons, because I don't know how to properly state how I only traced over S.H.'s image because I considered it the most accurate depiction of Asilisaurus's skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made sveral edits as suggested by IJReid. The squamosal, dentary, and frontal now have shapes more similar to the photos in the source and the jaw is rotated as per Hemiauchenia's suggestion. The middle of the jaw has also been altered after comparisons with Silesaurus, Kwanasaurus, and Lewisuchus, though it is still very speculative. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now outdated restoration of Bravoceratops; one too many?
Fowler and Fowler just suggested[34] that the medial bar in the frill of Bravoceratops had previously been reconstructed upside down, and that it therefore did not have the diagnostic horn at the top, and is therefore a nomen dubium. That also means we now have two inaccurate restorations of a nomen dubium (one by me and one by Nobu Tamura), which is probably one too much, as it is of course nice to be able to show the old idea, but I was thinking of modifying my drawing so we can use it for another genus without illustrations, perhaps one of the two new genera also named in that paper, Navajoceratops or Terminocavus, or something else that fits. Any ideas? Also, if someone dislikes the idea of retooling images like this, it could be interesting to discuss. I at least think it should only be done with usermade images. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you gutted the entire parietal and did it from scratch it could work as either of the two new taxa without any further modification. I've gone and expanded the Terminocavus page already, so maybe go with that since it has the room. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, since the entire top of the frill is now fictitious, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I also think Terminocavus is the one that would need the least modification to the old drawing, since its frill isn't as oddly shaped as Navajoceratops. Nice expansion! FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make a few adjustments. The first epiparietal set looks pretty good, though the paper suggested that accounting for keratin they likely would have touched, and I can't tell if that's the case here or not. After this things go a bit more off the rails. The second and third epiparietals look like they need to move outwards a little bit, comparing them to the fossil - the third one should be close to the edge. Meanwhile, you appear to have either a fourth one or maybe an epi-parieto-squamosal. Now I realize that Ville's "official" recon did this too, but looking at the figures of the paper there's no precedent for this in any of the taxa, so I'd remove it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right, I also noticed the "official" image shows the frill ossifications really neat and symmetrical, whereas the little diagram in the journal image makes them look pretty asymmetrical and of irregular size. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But most of them aren't preserved, so it seems like it was a choice to make most of them that way? Anyhow, both sides aren't really visible in the drawing I'll modify, so asymmetry or not won't be so apparent. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the tiny diagram at the lower left in the skull photo[37], it appears the authors did reconstruct a fourth ossification, in the position of an epiparieto-squamosal? So even if the fossils doesn't preserve it, being fragmentary, I'd assume we should follow the interpretation of the describers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about this:[38] The fourth is right on the border, as in the little diagram. And now the first ones touch. The foreshortening of the frill and the ossifications is more or less consistent with for example this angle of a skull photo (yes, I know the frill is mainly reconstructed):[39]FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like the original[40]Dineobellator skeletal reconstruction, this one lacks primaries. I think the feathers should be removed (again[41]) instead of fixed. Most skeletals don't show them anyway (Hartman, Paul, etc.) Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the visible fenestrae, extended the wing feathers to the 2nd finger, added a tad more feather coverings to the two Archaeornithomimus, slightly upped the contrast & sharpened the image slightly. Any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, they need primary feathers, though. Now the secondary feathers that attach to the lower arms are longer, but it seems there are no primary feathers coming straight out of the second fingers. See for example this[42] image for reference. A lot of even professional paleoart has this problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add primary feathers, but I'm not too sure if I did it correctly. I think I did OK with the Gigantoraptor in the centre, but not so much with one behind it. Monsieur X (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's me again, this time with a new life restoration for Enigmosaurus in order to update the previous one. I decided to illustrate an albino individual, since color mutations are not very popular in paleoart, comments? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but we should probably show idealised versions of animals here, it is not an All Yesterdays experiment after all, but an encyclopaedia, we are supposed to show a best guess at how a normal individual would have looked (we wouldn't use a photo of an albino lion as the main photo in that article either). Anyhow, since they could have had this colour normally, no big deal. But I'm pretty sure the hallux should reach the ground, all toes were weight bearing in therizinosaurs, except the very basal ones. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we shouldn't depict an albino individual unless we have a specific reason to want an image of one. I'd suggest tweaking it to look a bit less obviously albino (e.g. the eyes) and remove the part of the description which says it's albino; for the most part the color scheme isn't impossible for a non-albino individual though. I don't have anything to add regarding the anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't expecting that much discouragement surrounding the coloration, I'll try to change the color of the eye. However, I find difficult to make the hallux more ground-touching, I'm not the best when it comes to photomanipulation. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς01:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be like a prosauropod foot, so it has to be changed pretty radically (which is one reason why they were thought to be related to prosauropods at one point, so not really something we can miss showing). Like here:[43] As for the colouration, well, you could draw it with one hand also since there would probably have been one handed individuals (or any other atypical deformity), but that would also not really fit what we need here, which is to just show how a typical animal could have looked like. Perhaps we should write that into the criteria for inclusion at the top of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made, what about now? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC
The lower jaw is much more strongly curved than the upper, and it looks like as if the beak could not be closed completely. If so, it would not have been able to use its beak for cropping, so this seems unlikely to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens said, the curve of the upper jaw should logically follow that of the lower. According to Mark Witton at least, animals that large would possibly not be that shaggy:[45] Also, their inset tooth rows have been hypothesised to indicate cheeks. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other theropods with curved lower jaws while maintaining a semi-straight upper jaw (Jeholornis or Masiakasaurus), also, my upper jaw have some degree of curvature. Is not like a flat surface. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arguing over this image with FunkMonk on the species talk page, so I thought I'd put it here for discussion. I personally think the area of feather covering and the transition to scales is really jarring. I think in particular the feathers only covering the dorsal section of the tail is just odd looking. Also as feathers transition to scales in birds they usually get shorter as can be seen on a chicken foot, the feathers in the image are of a totally uniform length so it looks like the feathers have been stuck on with glue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally in the camp that tyrannosaurids should be depicted as scaly most of the time. Dryptosaurus, as a more basal species of similar mass to Yutyrannus, is a borderline case where I would personally lean towards scaly as well. However, while I find the 'feather cape' look to be visually unappealing, it does resemble the condition in ostriches so it's plausible. My biggest concern looking at this, though, is with the hands! They look much too large, and wouldn't something as close to tyrannosaurids as Dryptosaurus be likely to show some reduction of the third digit? The body-tail transition is also problematic and the large, visible scales are inaccurate given what is known of tyrannosaurid integument. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main complaint with the tail is that the lateral sides of the tail should also be covered with feathers, rather than just the top. I agree that on closer inspection the caudofemoralis appears to be lacking and looks pretty odd. I don't think any of the third digit is preserved in drypto, though other digits of the hand are as can be seen in this reconstruction Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I think the upward bend of the tail end is also pretty extreme, almost like one of Dollo's tail-breaking Iguanodon mounts, unless there's something I'm missing about the perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the tail, but I'm not sure how far into wrong it is. I also note that the shoulder region also looks a bit messed up. Finally, what about lips? It seems to be the consensus here to have lips, and this doesn't have them. Given that this image probably should be heavily edited or replaced, the question of "what kind of integument do we want it to have?" becomes more relevant. Regarding the tail, is there any reason to think it would be any more fully feathered than the body? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The size/shape of the forelimbs and teeth hanging out of lips for sure need to be fixed. Other stuff I don't know can be chalked up to scientific rahter than aesthetic complaints. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The base of the tail also definitely needs to be fixed. The ischium is missing! There are also plenty of animals with less fluff on their tail than their body, such as rats and Kulindadromeus, so I don't see any good reason to think a more feathered tail is necessarily preferable. There are enough problems in need of fixing here, though, that I think it's worth asking if it's worth starting over and making a new image that also avoids some of the more minor concerns with this image, such as integument distribution and aesthetic concerns. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like we have the man power to get many of these fixes done anymore? I don't have as much time as I used to myself. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok once again, I'll see what I can do. But tomorrow will be the last day I'll have free so if I can't get it done then, that might be it. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't have time, Tomopteryx? If nobody else is up for it, I can try and do a new Dryptosaurus reconstruction. What's the preferred feather distribution? I'm personally inclined to make it fully scaly, but I'm open to the feather cape or full feathering if y'all disagree. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would do full feathering but for conservativism sake partial feathered is probably best, whether it be cape, arm, tail or some combination thereof. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a rather philosophical matter, but I would hardly consider partial feathering the most conservative approach. In fact, I would consider it the most speculative approach of the three, given the lack of examples for such a feather distribution. Ostriches are the closest example, but there are plenty of reasons to question how good of an analogy they are for a rhinoceros-sized dinosaur. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're also the smallest rhinos, the only ones generally under one ton. It's perhaps not surprising that they'd be the hairiest on those grounds. Are you saying you think ostriches should be the model for Dryptosaurus or that you'd prefer fuller feathering than that? Ornithopsis (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was more to show that partial covering does exist, not related to size. Well, if I was to restore a large theropod myself today, I'd do something like this Tyrannosaurus autopsy model:[46]FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that amount of feathering, that was closer to what I was meaning by saying "partial" than the current dense partial feathering on the restoration. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally concerned that a sparse distribution of feathers, a la T. rex Autopsy, is not really supported by what's known in dinosaurs. All large dinosaurs with known integument appear to have had fully scaly skin, or seemingly densely feathered in the case of Yutyrannus. Ostriches have a "feather cape"-esque distribution, but it's unclear if that can be extrapolated to a much larger animal without pennaceous feathers. However, if you all agree that a sparse feather distribution is best I won't argue further. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus as to what those few patches of scales in large theropods mean, though. Darren Naish and others still say they could be taphonomic artifacts, and see Andrea Cau's recent FB posts:[47][48]FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I specified "all large dinosaurs". If feathers were ancestrally present in ornithodirans, as suggested by Kulindadromeus, the various scaly large herbivorous dinosaurs represent our best model for what reduced feather covering in a large dinosaur looks like. Also, when it comes to reliable sources, there's a published paper saying that tyrannosaurids were scaly versus speculation on social media saying otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to tyrannosaurs, what publications do we have, though? We have a single paper reporting tiny patches of skin (not counting Carr's "crocodile-scale" paper which was critisised), so it just seems way too early to make such definitive rules based on something that hasn't even been evaluated by other researchers. Likewise, we have two camps when it comes to theropod lips, but we shouldn't really be taking sides. By the way, there is now a Laelaps blog-post write up on the pebbly penguin-skin issue:[49] Not that we should use it is a source, but it shows there are different camps. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the only peer-reviewed article I'm aware of that comments on the issue at all indicates they have scales. Mark Witton has argued on Twitter [50] that the resemblance between the Palaeeudyptes skin and dinosaur 'scales' is only superficial, and that the dinosaur 'scales' show none of the indications of feathering present in the Palaeeudyptes skin. Ergo, tyrannosaurids were probably scaly in the regions with preserved skin. Not that that's decisive evidence re: Dryptosaurus. I'll post my Dryptosaurus reconstruction here one I'm done, hopefully within the next couple days. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as the diagnostic neck frill features are correct, it is no less iffy than for example the published restoration of Wendiceratops (which shows huge, hypothetical brow-horns that do not match its phylogenetic position as sister to Sinoceratops and other centrosaurines with little to no brow horns). But our advantage is that we can always update the horns if some are found; that's not possible for the restoration in the published paper. Brow horns are not really diagnostic anyway, but at least Yehuecauhceratops clusters with taxa that had them (Avaceratops and Nasutoceratops), and thereby fulfils the phylogenetic bracketing criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, it's based on this photo, by the way:[52] Looking again, the shoulder blades seem to be too far from each other in the mount, not sure how I missed that... FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow good work, Rogelio Reyna made an illustration, but only from the head, sadly as you have already discussed, there are very few remains of this animal. Comments have been made about the limitations of diagnostic and phylogenetic studies on this taxon. But in general if you are correct, a taxon quite close to the other Nasutoceratopsini. The illustration is good, the reconstruction of the skeleton as they have been able to perceive, is not. Hector Munive is the author of the cast of the skeleton, he lacked many anatomical details when performing it. The forelimbs are strangely placed and the skull is highly speculative in addition to not having the characteristics that ironically have earned him his diagnostic difference from the others Nasutoceratopsini. Perhaps the diagram of paleontologist Ángel A. Ramírez-Velasco is very helpful [53]. The skeleton seems to dance the Pasito tun tun. I do not see anything in the rest, I think it is now more advanced and corrected. So I arrived late. --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Chihuahua City there is a museum that has a private collection that has original and chimerically complete remains of a new Nasutoceratopsini, this is a different taxon to Yehue, but quite similar to Nasutoceratops, I think they might be useful for a horn urinal arrangement, this skull supports that this tribe also had a variation on it. [54] --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Avaceratops skull diagram with nasal horn in Rivera-Sylva et al. (2016).
By the way, now that I was with the skulls of this group I ran into the question that in the paper where Hector Rivera-Sylva described Yehuecauhceratops fossil remains, he included an Avaceratops skull with a nasal horn on the Centrosaurine Biogeography map. And the image is in Commons, should we fix it? --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly forgot this one, and it was archived before I saw Levi bernardo's comments above, sorry for that! Here's a new version of the sketch with less splayed front legs and a deeper body, and I took some cues from the Luis Rey blog, any thoughts?[55] And I learned to be more critical when basing drawings on mounted skeletons... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Avaceratops horn is not no. As far as the new drawing, it looks far better than anything I can do and the only nitpick is that the left hand is probably too lacking in palm tissue. That might not be what is wrong exactly but that hand sticks out to me for some reason. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the finger posture should be more columnar (it's a bit splayed now)? The problem is of course that the palm should be concave, so it can't be filled up with tissue. I'll try to have a look at what other people have been doing for that angle, if anyone has... And pinging Levi bernardo again, because the former one might not have worked because I added it after having saved the comment... FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With Allosaurus jimmadseni finally being named it would make sense to update the size diagram, which can be seen here: [57]. In this version, I've added the type specimens of all 3 species and separated them into their own columns. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: I feel like it might be slightly misleading as presented, as both depicted specimens of A. jimmadseni are immature. It could give the impression that A. fragilis was substantially larger than A. jimmadseni, but I don't think that's the case. I don't know the ontogenetic status of any of the other specimens depicted here. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to have them ordered by size again, maybe in a line, but this would mean the species would be jumbled up together which might be confusing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding paper also find SMA 005 to be a. jimmadseni its definitely bigger than two immature specimens maybe you could include it? KoprX (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into SMA 0005, there's the skeletal from Froth et al. and there are decent side views of a mount available, according to the paper it's about 12% larger than MOR693 at about 7.5m but I would like some specific measurements (like a femur measurement) to verify that. Looking at Chure & Loewen 2020 it seems like there are specimens reaching comparable sizes to other A. fraglis specimens and clearly larger than MOR 690 and SMA 0005 (looking at the jugals in fig 12.). Part of the issue is citability and avoiding OR. I could try and estimate based on the size of those jugals, but it could be original research. I've spent several hours researching (ugh) trying to find claims of adulthood etc. I have so far found adult claims for AMNH 4734, MOR 680, subadult claims for Big al, DINO 11541; I have yet to find any claim of maturity for DINO 2560 (aka. UUVP 6000) which is weird considering it's one of the most well-known individuals, I must be missing something obvious. It doesn't seem like A.europaeus has been described in detail yet, I haven't currently found any sources that state the maturity of the specimen. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a version that includes Big Al 2 SMA 0005. [58] Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete (just missing a few bits near the tip fo the tail, assuming the info here is correct [59]) and seems to have a very short tail. Maybe this is the norm for the species (Big Al only preserves 2 and the type is incomplete) but it looks very different from the other silhouettes. Scaling is slightly questionable; I couldn't find any measurements for this specimen other than, 'it's about 12% larger than Big Al at about 7.6m long. I took the images of the lower jaw, ischium, and a vertebra from Foth et al., which don't' have measurements but have scale bars, scaled them into the skeletal reconstruction; that gave me a total length of ~7.6m... so I assume it's scaled somewhat correctly? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram by Marmelad may have to be updated because the allosaurid specimen NMMNH P-26083 has been mentioned in the literature as being about the size of the Epanterias holotype and Saurophaganax, and given that the second edition of Greg Paul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs puts the size of Saurophaganax at 35 feet long, the Epanterias holotype might be a bit smaller (like, say, 34-36 feet) than estimated in the diagram. Therefore, it could be prudent to add NMMNH P-26083 to the diagram but also the holotype of Allosaurus lucasi (YPM VP 57589) because super-large allosaur specimens are rare compared with normally-sized Allosaurus skeletons, and the Epanterias silhouette could be shrunken a bit.70.175.133.224 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
The original idea was that File:Allosaurus size comparison.svg was supposed to replace Marmelad's version. At some point, we removed Epanterias because of the limited material and to focus on clear Allosaurus specimens. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having just uploaded the update, I re-read the theropod database and a couple papers and saw the location info for AMNH 680 is Bone Cabin Quarry, Salt Wash Member. In Chure 2020, Salt Wash Member is where the type of A.jimmadseni and both Big Als' are from. Does that mean that AMNH 680 is probably A.jimmadseni? I'm probably going to remove it in case it is. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly indicates it is A. jimmadseni but we cant be sure it doesn't preserve jugal. What would be the biggest definitive A. fragilis AMNH 290, NMMNH P-26083?KoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steveoc 86Actually Theropod database states that AMNH 680, 290 and 275 all comes from Salt Wash member so that indicates that either all big allosaurus specimens are A. jimmadseni or both A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni live in Salt WashKoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to look into that at this point, I'm going to remove AMNH 680 for the time being. It doesn't sound like NMMNH P-26083 has been officially referred to A.fragiis; also, are NMMNH 26083 and NMMNH P 26083 the same specimen? Both are large, from Brushy Basin Member, New Mexico? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AMNH 275 is a femur only, AMNH 290 is composed of hindlimb, metacarpal, and foot bones only, while AMNH 680 is a partial postcranial skeleton. AMNH 275 might also belong to a non-allosaurid tetanuran, while the lack of cranial material for AMNH 680 makes in hard to say for sure if that specimen is Allosaurus fragilis, A. jimmadseni or similar to "Camptonotus" amplus, because even though the stratigraphic locations of the fossil sites from which YPM 1879 and AMNH 680 were collected fall within the stratigraphic range for A. jimmadseni (see Turner and Peterson 1999; figure 7), the uppermost end of the stratigraphic range for jimmadseni partly overlaps with the lower end of the A. fragilis stratigraphic range.70.175.133.224 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Talking about Allosaurus has reminded me of this old size chart of mine, and how badly it needs updating. I'm wondering what to do about it - shuld I include multiple specimens (probably the humerus for a big Saurophaganax and the femur for a smaller one)? Which skeletal should I use? Also, I'm wondering if I should throw a big Allosaurus and "Epanterias" in there as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the size comparison - what do people think? Big Al was removed for arbitrarily showing a small, immature Allosaurus and the great variability of Allosaurus' size. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you use the Saurophaganax skeletal of Franoys for the Saurophaganax size comparison update?
Are you sure about that head shape for Big Al 2? Seems very different from all the other specimens in the image, jimmadseni or otherwise... :/ Also, do you think it would be a good idea to add A. maximus? --TKWTH (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The head is very close to the skeletal, Big Al 2 seems to have a somewhat bulbous snout and strongly defined lacrimal horns. Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete and has a very short tail, assuming it's restored correctly. Considering that both Big Al and the type don't have complete tails it could be they also would have had shorter tails as well. A maximus isn't always considered a valid Allosaurus species so I'm reluctant to add it in just yet. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the final skeletal of the month: that promised Brachytrachelopan skeletal. It's neck is really short. I scaled the tail to the same length as the dorsal series of D. hansemanni, so its appearance as extremely long is probably just due to the neck's shortness. This one was pretty tricky to do, it seems like dicraeosaurids fall into these groups: well-documented (Dicraeosaurus, Bajadasaurus, Suuwassea, and Amargatitanis), well-known but not well-documented (Brachytrachelopan, Amargasaurus, Lingwulong), and those that I have virtually no information on (Pilmatueia, Dystrophaeus, Dyslocosaurus). Some of the scaling of the vertebrae went a bit funkily, and the type specimen seems rather crushed. How well did I do in restoring this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to really say, the neck is short as was known, and the tail is more reasonable than other restorations I've seen. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything obviously in need of change. The head in the silhouette looks like it could be angled down a bit, though, perhaps. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've angled the head further downwards. I'll begin working on that size comparison now that the skeletal making part is done. I considered trying Amargasaurus, but it's not too well documented, the neural spines are rather distorted, it's too late now, and there's a good Hartman skeletal for it anyways. Thanks for all the feedback throughout the month! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the recent paper describing the caudal biomechanics of Aeolosaurus maximus, I have decided to do a reconstruction of the type species of Aeolosaurus. I have based the proportions of the neck off of Rapetosaurus, the only aeolosaurin with a complete neck, and the other proportions were reconstructed based on Powell's description of the species as well as general titanosaur proportions. The tail posture, of course, follows da Silva Vidal et al. 2020. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very front heavy, but I guess that's just how the skeletal is? I also wonder how that tail articulation hypothesis will be received... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The neck length is scaled to that of Rapetosaurus, as I said. It's more or less in line with Hartman's skeletal thereof—Rapetosaurus had near-mamenchisaurid-like neck proportions, and it's the only aeolosaur with a complete neck so I think it's the best available source of data for their neck proportions. As for the tail, I believe as much as anyone that it's important to treat new discoveries with caution, but I also think it would be irresponsible to ignore the conclusions of the only published study on aeolosaur tail biomechanics in a depiction of an aeolosaur. Bear in mind that aeolosaurs had weird caudal vertebrae and surely were doing something unusual with their tail anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the torso appears to be too short, based on Overosaurus, and the neck is likely too long because it is based on Hartman's skeletal, which is a juvenile. These two fixes would probably change the front-heaviness. The extent of the tail curve does match the Vidal reconstruction, and the length seems to be alright. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sauropods generally show an allometric increase in neck length with ontogeny? If anything, the Rapetosaurus being a juvenile should mean I need to make the neck longer. You appear to be right about Overosaurus, though, so I'll stretch the torso a little. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more change regarding the base of the neck, the length appears to be correct, but the neck is a bit too high above the shoulders, and as a consequence there is no distinction between the neck and the back along the dorsal surface. The base of the neck should begin just above the coracoid which would mean vertically lowering the neck on the torso by 1/3 its height. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it slightly, but it seems pretty consistent with Scott Hartman's Rapetosaurus skeletal to me. I'm not sure what you mean if not this. Is there anything else I need to change? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I outlined it for visual explanation [60]. Blue is your current restoration, the skeletal is green. Emphasis I intended is how your neck is attached higher on the shoulders than in the skeletal, and as well perhaps the tail should be raised so that the first caudal is not dropped, because the sacral articulation was presumed to be horizontal in the paper. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright seeing as thats your base I think thats all I have. For now at least until more is published because it eventually will be I presume. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for your critique and your approval. I'll be happy to update it if a new study further clarifies aeolosaur anatomy; I'd certainly be happy to see such a study in any case. I assume nobody else has any objections to it now? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for the excitement and novelty achieved with a size chart featuring unusual theropods... I'm kind of surprised that all the Spinosaurus stuff above is still there and not just a wacky dream :) . Anyways, here are a few long-nosed tyrannosaurids lunging towards a surprisingly unconcerned mammal. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They seem a bit off balance? Like, the toes would be more curled when lifted like that, now it's like they're tipping over. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian government uses the image of a Psittacosaurus sibiricus from Wikimedia Commons by Nobu Tamura (and edited by FunkMonk) on the flag of the Chebulinsky district. This flag is marked as public domain, while the original image is published under a different license. Is this considered copyright infringement? HFoxii (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yeah, but pretty cool, notheless. There is a whole category with subcategories of extinct animals on heraldry, I just added it there:[62]FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this has had an inaccuracy tag on it for some time because of issues with the leg musculature, which I think I've fixed. do the hind legs look okay? (that's the only thing up for debate, everything else is fine as is).Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything, I added those tags during the process of archival because points from earlier discussion hadn't been resolved. I think both are fine now. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About fourteen months ago (fourteen?!), I created new size comparisons for Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus since the previous ones had the postcranium of Tyrannosaurus instead of their actual proportions (and to show another Gorgosaurus specimen). I overlooked the albertosaurine comparison at the time, but after completely redoing my albertosaurines again, I went ahead and made a new version of our current chart. Interestingly, this time Gorgosaurus was found to be bigger. Any comments on either version? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice update. Wouldn't these and their separate size comparisons need an update though? If I remember well, you made these when the skeletals of Henrique were 8.8 m for Albertosaurus and 9 m for Gorgosaurus, but now it's 9 m for Albertosaurus and 9.3 m for Gorgosaurus, and the proportions are a bit different. Maybe I'm wrong though, and they're already that long here in a way (there are different ways to measure a dinosaur AFAIK).
They are already that way: Albertosaurus was updated last month and Gorgosaurus yesterday, and randomdinos had alreadt updated his skeletals by then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fauna of Allen
Fauna of Bayan Shireh
Fauna of the Yellow Cat Member
Fauna of Hell Creek
Kwanasaurus williamparkeri
Akainacephalus johnsoni
Vespersaurus paranaensis
Gnathovorax cabreirai
Lajasvenator ascheriae
"Omeisaurus" tianfuensis
Oplosaurus tooth
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
![[1]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/99/09/559909d62ed4e6fde9999a4ec9719318.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNaD7iKVQAALBrw.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stenonychosaurus_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chilantaisaurus_tashuikouensis_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utahraptor_updated.png){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptorfull.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utahraptor_price_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://i.imgur.com/5RJcRwn.png){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hesperornithoides_skeletal_reconstruction.png){kind=link}
![[27]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enigmosaurus-Mating-Ritual3-2D.png){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison_by_PaleoGeek.svg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicken_wing.svg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dromaeosaurus_Restoration.png){kind=link}
![[31]](http://knolik.com/pictures/00/00/0000613.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison.png){kind=link}
![[36]](http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge7/image_8505_1e-Navajoceratops-Terminocavus.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terminocavus.png){kind=link}
![[39]](https://i.redd.it/xh2npskgzc431.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/03/20200406160030%21Dineobellator_skeleton.png){kind=link}
![[41]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Dineobellator_skeleton.png){kind=link}
![[42]](https://www.avianreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/upperwing_opt.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Therizinosaurus.png){kind=link}
![[44]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segnosaurus_hemimandible.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,w_728/v1555918253/shape/mentalfloss/trexautopsy_004.small_.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://i.imgur.com/kTx1eO1.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://static.businessinsider.com/image/58a5b5a1dd0895be328b478a-400/image.jpg){kind=link}
.png)
