Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Nobu Tamura's Weigeltisaurus (formerly Coelurosauravus)

Nobu Tamura's 2007 restoration, revised in 2010
New reconstruction from 2021 paper

A major study on the anatomy of Weigeltisaurus (formerly Coelurosauravus) jaekeli has recently been published in the PeerJ https://peerj.com/articles/11413/. It makes clear that many parts of the anatomy of Nobu Tamura's restoration are inaccurate, specifically the profile of the gliding membrane and the position of the neomorphic rods. The horned cranial frill that is a distinctive characteristic of Weigeltisauridae is also not visible either, though this may be partly because of the low resolution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. With these kinds of situations the best option would be to make a new art piece in my opinion. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
To be fair to Nobu Tamura, his restoration is very accurate to the reconstruction in the 1997 Science paper. It's just kind of bizarre that two completely different reconstructions of the wing were based on the exact same specimen (SMNK 2882 PAL), the curvature of the "patagials" in the 1997 paper is way off. It's also odd that this difference isn't commented on at all in the 2021 paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that the new skeletal reconstruction is described as schematic and "intended to illustrate the proportions of the skeleton rather than a natural posture" I expect the patagials are just drawn in the fairly straight position they were fossilised in for SMNK 2882 PAL, compared to the reconstructed life-position in the 1997 paper. The only major difference I can personally spot is that they have the "bundles" of patagials spaced further down the torso compared to the 1997 recon, but they still describe distal bending of the larger patagials up front (as seen in the Eppleston specimen) that they included in the 1997 recon and consequently the possibility for three-dimensional shaping of the 'wings'.
In any case, I've started sketching a new illustration[1] with the updated anatomy, taking into account the distal bending of the patagials, dihedral-angled "low-wing configuration", spacing of the patagial "bundles", as well as behavioural inferences from Draco (grasping the wings), all suggested in the paper. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 00:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: It looks good so far. My only issue with it is that the horns that are present on the squamosal, jugal and quadratojugal, postorbital, and the rear portion of the lower jaw that are present in the lateral reconstruction of the skull given in Bulanov and Sennikov (2015) direct link to reconstruction here are missing, which are also discussed in some detail in the 2021 paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: How's the reconstruction progressing? I'd be happy to finish it if you think you've done enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Weigeltisaurus reconstruction
@Hemiauchenia: Took a bit longer than I anticipated, but I've finished the reconstruction (horns and all). Good to go? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: Holy shit, that's really good, it's arguably the best reconstruction of a Weigeltisaurid ever made. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a great piece of art and perfect for the page, thank you! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@DrawingDinosaurs: I don't know if it is intentional, but the pose makes it look like the wing flaps are connected to the forelimbs, like a pterosaur. The skeletal restoration above shows them separated. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It is intentional, it's based on how modern Draco lizards glide, which the author suggested also possibly occurred in similar extinct gliders like Weigeltisaurus. The new osteology acknowledges this possibility, and they note that their skeletal reconstruction is "schematic" and "intended to illustrate the proportions of the skeleton rather than a natural posture". DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that the issues with Nobu Tamura's restoration of Weigeltisaurus appear to be unfixable, I request that a new life restoration be created. While the PeerJ provides the best source for reconstruction it does not contain everything. Notably missing a lateral view of the skull, which is contained in the 2015 paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about this animal, but yeah, the new restoration looks really good! FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Fresh off the heels of that paper, there's now a new cranial reconstruction for C. elivensis itself: [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that C. elivensis gets more views than the other Weigeltisaurid articles, this is pretty exciting, I've requested in at WP:RX. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Coelurosauravus skull reconstruction

Based on Bulanova and Sennikov, 2015 (direct link) and Buffa, Frey, Steyer & Laurin, 2021 (direct link). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura's Chunerpeton

Can't speak for the rest of the morphology, but the external gills are clearly too short. Figure 1 of the [2020 redescription of Chunerpeton] clearly shows that the external gills were quite elongate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the pes looks too large compared to the fossil specimens. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Scutosaurus

  • Scutosaurus at the AMNH
    Scutosaurus at the AMNH
  • Almost complete skeleton of Scutosaurus at the Borissiak Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
    Almost complete skeleton of Scutosaurus at the Borissiak Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Restoration of Scutosaurus from 2021 paper
    Restoration of Scutosaurus from 2021 paper
  • Restoration of Scutosaurus by Dimitry Bogandov
    Restoration of Scutosaurus by Dimitry Bogandov

As I was reading a recent paper on Scutosaurus, I noted a discrepancy. The almost complete specimen PIN 2005/1537 figured in the paper displays a shortened tail, while the AMNH skeleton has a quite elongate tail, which is reflected in the artwork by Bogandov. While the tail isn't explicitly mentioned in the paper, I am inclined to believe that the AMNH tail is incorrect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The tails should look less obviously wrong now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Champsosaurus size comparison

Added by the author Gallimimus wikipedista. without review. As the file description indicates, the silhouette is a slightly modified version of this paleoart by @tyrannoraptoran on twitter. No evidence of permission. It's also weird to only include one species of Champsosaurus, given that the size of the known species varies immensely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure the non-standard silhouette pose is helpful. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In Matsumoto and Evans, 2010 [3], it is estimated as 3.0 m long with 41 cm skull. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I asked Fabio Alejandro, whose image is used in this user's Anteosaurus chart, [4] and he replied he did not gave permission to this user. This Champsosaurus is also very likely to have an image used without permission. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
You should forward your correspondence to commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org and they'll remove the image   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Various scale diagrams by Gallimimus wikipedista

This has been touched upon further up in this page, but it seems like none of Gallimimus wikipedista.'s size diagrams were put up for review, and all of them were traced silhouettes of other peoples' art. To be fair, the user is crediting all the artists, so there is no intentional malice or subversion going on, and none of the non-dinosaur ones look particularly inaccurate. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's copyright system would still consider these copyright violations. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the size estimates (looking at Sacisaurus) appear to be OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, the author of the Sacisaurus skeletal allowed me to use the original silhouette without many changes. The other diagrams I can try to delete, if you prefer. I'm still a beginner at this kind of thing and didn't know there would be such a large amount of monitoring. Gallimimus wikipedista (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Anteosaurus one is now nominated for deletion. My email didn't work well, so I asked Fabio Alejandro to report it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding M. beaugei to Mosasaurus size comparison

During the construction of the Mosasaurus size comparison, I previously recommended that M. beaugei be left out due to possible synonymy per Street (2016). However, from reading some opinions on the issue it seems that I overlooked the fact that the recognition of M. beaugei as valid in Street & Caldwell (2017) seems to be viewed as a correction of Street (2016) rather than some technical step I previously thought it was. As such, I'm amending my prior position on depicting M. beaugei and now think the species should be added to the size diagram.

There's a lot of skeletal material representing the species (although none of them have been published in scientific literature for some reason), so there's good reference to work with. The best skull references I can find are [5] and the two photos to the right. Body-wise, there's also a photo of a complete 7m skeleton in natural positioning [6] (there is visual distortion here as it appears that the camera was angled from the skull area, so the tail regions should be larger than they appear). Size-wise, Bardet et al. (2015) puts the maximum length of the species at up to 8-10 meters with a 1 meter skull based on unpublished fossils. Perhaps the reconstruction would be based on this, and rather than citing a specific specimen (since the best fossils appear unpublished), Bardet et al. (2015) could cited in the legend? Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel Macrophyseter | talk 18:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm back! Sorry for the lack of activity, I'll see if I can create a silhouette for M. beaugei over the next couple of days. I've been wanting to draw a mosasaurid lately, so this is a good opportunity. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Macrophyseter, here's the current WIP: [7]. I'm struggling to figure out how to get a 1:8 SL/TL ratio (it's currently closer to 1:7, as in M. missouriensis and M. hoffmannii), and I'm somewhat worried that the caudal fin may be distorted by perspective, as it's abnormally large (and correcting for this would make the ratio even further from 1:8). I found the paper that described the skulls ([8]), so I'll see if more information can be gotten from there (all the pictures of reconstructed skull are somewhat distorted by perspective). Any comments, or recommendations on how to elongated the postcrania? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's the current version of the silhouette, which stood up to the skull paper fairly well: [9]. I've streamlined the body a bit more following the other three species, but otherwise I haven't changed very much. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the skull outline is excellent. Regarding your concern about correcting the tail distortion, I would suggest trying running with it and see how the product looks. Given that the paper puts the skull size at around 1m (with one skull from the paper you mentioned estimated a bit longer at 110 cm) but maintains a total size range of 8-10m, I would say that it might be okay to try it out if it ends up a bit above as long as it's between 1:8-1:10. This is pure speculation at the moment, but I think it's possible that the mounted skeleton photo with the caudal fin showing may be curved concave to the camera (in other words, the upper body and tail might be angled towards the camera and somewhere around the pygal region being the farthest from the camera), hence why the tail might be appearing so large. If this is true, then the dorsal vertebral section (and pygal?) could be appearing shorter than it actually is. So perhaps taking a look into that might help? Macrophyseter | talk 01:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that you're right about the curvature of the vertebral column on the mount. By comparing it with M. hoffmannii as a reference against the perspective, I was able to change the silhouette a bit. The chest was originally quite shallow, though I think that the scapulocoracoid may have been mounted unusually high up on the ribcage, which would permit a deeper torso. It finally actually reaches 8m, with help from OCP-DEK/GE 303! [10]. The silhouette is basically diagram-ready. I assume that I should I still label it as something like "Estimated maximum size by Bardet et al. (2015)", despite scaling it to OCP-DEK/GE 303, as that specimen has no length estimate? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added it to the chart. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
If you specifically scaled it to OCP-DEK/GE 303, then I think you should label it as such and cite Bardet et al (2015) in the description. Looks good! Macrophyseter | talk 18:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I've changed it to the specimen number, sorry for the delay! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Echinerpeton restoration by Smokeybjb

While this restoration was fairly accurate at the time it was drawn, a paper from last year shows that Echinerpeton had a neural spine sail like some other pelycosaurs. Smokey is long gone so there's no point asking him to fix it, probably a quite easy photoshop job. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Megalohyrax

As far as I can see, this image looks like just a trace of Nobu Tamura's illustration of Kvabebihyrax ([11]). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Any image that looks like it has been crudely drawn in MS paint like that should be removed on sight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura's Albanerpeton

Our knowledge of albanerpetontids has come a long way since 2007. The main issue I have is the head. It looks like it has been reconstructed based on vertically crushed specimens without regard to what the actual 3d morphology is like. Here is a 3d turnaround of the skull of Yaksha, which is nested within Albanerpeton sensu lato shows that the skull is quite blunt and not wedge shaped as shown here, I've seen a restoration of a side-on view of a reconstructed albanerpeton skull (though I can't find it now) and it's similar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The reconstruction I was thinking of was in "A reconsideration of the relationships of the fossil amphibian Albanerpeton" Fox and Naylor 1982. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sobrarbesiren

Hi everyone. I have specialized on extinct sirenians during the summer, and wanted to make a restoration of Sobrarbesiren to a future article at Wikipedia. It is based on the skeletal diagram from the original 2018 paper. I first wanted to depict it lying on the beach, but while its hind limbs could have been used during swimming, it is debated whether it could walk on land (see this 2020 paper). If so, I might could add some underwater enviorenment like this. I might add a fluke (they state in the 2020 paper that the few caudal vertebrae that have been attributed to Sobrarbesiren "show broad transverse processes, indicating that Sobrarbesiren had an at least incipient horizontal tail fin", but I did not realize this initially). Conty~enwiki) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they presumed the hands should be bigger than the feet, and why does it have individual toes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

First, I did not think about the size of the feet (I understand your reasoning, as it is considered to be more derived than the prorastomids. However, they also state in the 2020 paper that the relative size of the hindlimbs are uncertain, as they have only found partial skeletons from individuals from different age groups). Regarding toes, the modern manatee have nails on its limbs. I tried to imagine the flippers of a seal with the nails of an elephant. Conty~enwiki) 10:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sea lions and manatees have very different flipper morphology because one is suited for speed and the other not so much, and those feet remind me more of squirrels than sea lions. Also, neither elephants nor manatees have toes so I don't imagine their common ancestor had them either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now edited the front feet to more resemble a fully marine sirenian (hind feet have been edited to be more like those of the skeletal restoration in the original paper). Tail fluke are the next step. Conty~enwiki) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The left hand still seems to have fingers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not sorry, I will fix that as well. Conty~enwiki) 13:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Habrosaurus Reconstruction and Size Chart

I noticed that Habrosaurus doesnt have any art on its page, so I'm submitting these two pieces I did a while back to check for review to make sure the level of accuracy is sufficient.

Thank you in advance for your help. (Sauriazoicillus) 1:39, 24/07/2021 (UTC)

Specific Habrosaurus size estimates (160 cm) can be found in this book.[12] However, I can't access the original treatise.[13] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for your information! However - unless I've made a horrible mistake - that is what I've put as the size of my Habrosaurus in the size chart, so do you think it's good to be put in the article? Sauriazoicillus 12:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the second one: When viewing this image for the first time, I only see the black human silhouette, which really catches the eye. The second thing I look at is the prominent watermark (which draws attention but is still too small to read at thumb size anyways). Only at third glance I see that there is also some animal below the human. Since the animal is the whole point of the image, it should really be the thing that catches the eye first, without too much distraction by the optional additions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've shrunk the watermark and shifted the human shilouette, is this better now? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Any reason for the huge empty space above? FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Well that's Kind of the issue now that apparently the human shilouette was too distracting, the only way to make sure people see the animal first is by putting it on top, which wrecks the original composition Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It is better, though the diver is still the one and only thing that catches the eye. It is a difficult case because of the elongated shape of the animal, and its camouflage low-contrast colour versus the big and high-contrast black colour of the diver. Maybe you could do either have the diver in a much more subtle grey or light blue to decrease contrast so that the animal stands out, or make a traditional scale diagram with only the silhouettes and scale grid (i.e., fill the animal with a single distinctive colour, and have a separate image for the current textured version but without the human). These are just suggestions of course; you could try them out and see what looks best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A diving fin is at minimum 2 ft (0.61 m), so that diver is like 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m), and Habrosaurus 6 ft (1.8 m). Also, you'll need to put down what photo that silhouette is from (I assume you just traced out a photo?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the sizes I'll adjust those immediately, also no, I got the human shilouette from a royalty free website, thank you for your concern though always good to check. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Right but you still have to put a link to the original silhouette just so anyone can verify   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that, nobody's told me with my previous art that uses royalty free shilouettes. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Unless it's CC0, part of the conditions for reuse is attribution. Also, it's a good practice because someone years from now won't know where you got it from and might flag it for copyvio, or have to go through the work of finding it themself   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait life got a bit hectic, I've updated the composition and the sizes, as well as added where I got the silhouette from in the image information. Is this good? Any critiques? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Javelinadactylus Skeletal

Here I've made a size chart showcasing Javelinadactylus specimen TMM 42489-2 next to a 1.8m tall human, any critique?

Thank you in advance. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice with the map! I think it would be clearer if the known part of the skull was white instead of grey? Because now it is a bit confusing, as grey is used for other parts too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, looks nice. Maybe make the background a bit brighter to get a bit more contrast overall. On which related taxon are the silhouettes based on? This should be stated in the image description. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What is the grey behind the map? Is that the palaeo-coastline? I would either label it or remove it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Fairly sure this is the coastline from one of Blakeys maps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There might be copyright concerns in that case. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it based on scientific data, and it isn't exactly his image that is used, I don't think copyright is an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Based on scientific data yes, but it requires substantial interpolation. I would say that this is as copyrightable as are the black silhouettes of animals. And even if it is scientific data only, then the compilation of such data alone could (possibly) make it copyrightable. For example, OpenStreetMap states that OSM contributors are reminded never to add data from any copyrighted sources (e.g. Google Maps or printed maps) without explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the same reason, databases have copyright as well. Maybe it all depends on the scale of copied data (if you copy a bit or all of it), and having the map included in this image is not a problem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
A small note: only genera and species should be italicized. HFoxii (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I adjusted the brightness of the known material, but I'd prefer to keep the rest of the colours the same as the hard contrast can hurt the eyes of people like me who are very sensitive to it. I adjusted the map and changed the silhouette of the palaeo-coastline. I've added the taxon the silhouette is based off of in the file description. Also on the topic of italicization, that's just personal style as you can see that all text is italicized. Is there anything else that stands out as something needing of fixing? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
IMO the tail tuft should be removed. Such images are intended to be schematic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Sounds pedantic, but if all text is italicized, than the genus and species names are not to be italicized. So this classifies as a (small) mistake. Maybe the removal of the text is something to think about, because 1) less is more, and the image would look cleaner and less cluttered without; 2) the text is redundant in a Wikipedia article (just repeats the taxon box); 3) the text is not readable at thumb-size in any case. See what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty I'll remove the tail tuft, that makes sense (I mainly copied the aesthetic of SassyPaleonerd's skeletals). But what doesn't make sense to me is why nobody brought up all the things about the text when my Australotitan skeletal was put up for review, because it seems the majority of the people active on the review pages are on the same page (pun not intended) about the majority of things like formatting. So is this critique around text an opinion based critique, or is it something I have to follow as per the rules around what can and can't go into articles? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
From my side, it is an opinion-based critique (except for the issue with the italics, which I consider to be a mistake). Sorry if that wasn't clear. I simply wanted to share my thoughts as I think you would be interested in improving the figure beyond what is required to approve it for the article. Speaking just for myself, you don't have to act on this critique; but bear in mind that Wikipedia is about team work (which involves reviewing), and being open to such critique and discuss why you think differently is generally expected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes don't worry if I wasn't open to critique or discussion I wouldn't have put this up for review haha! I'm very sorry if I came across as stand off-ish. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
All good. Don't take my comments too serious; I am not even an artist myself (though I know something about how to do scientific illustrations) and often write my comments without too much thinking whenever I have five free minutes available. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed the tail tuft and unitalicized the genus and species name, I've decided to keep the rest of the text there so the image can be used in other places. Is there any other things I should change? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Most likely, you misunderstood me. Species and genera must be italicized, but other clades (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea, etc.) must not. HFoxii (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
HFoxii I did not misunderstand you, italicizing all of the text was a stylistic choice, and as Jens Lallensack said, apparently in that case the species and genus would be unitalicized. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, according to the ICZN, species and genera must be italicized, and the rest of the taxonomic groups must not. Currently, the species and genus are unitalicized, and the rest of the taxa are italicized. It should be the other way around. HFoxii (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The convention is that, if we have, say, an sentence in an image caption that is written in italics, a genus/species names that appear in this sentence can't be in italics as well, but have to be reversed. But I agree that in this image, switching it to genus/species in italics (and the remainder of the text to normal) would be better, simpler, and less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm very puzzled on how it's confusing as plenty of other skeletals I've seen with minimal text do the exact same thing as I do, and all of them are understood perfectly fine, so I don't see how it would be confusing, could you elaborate please? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What other skeletals do you mean, can you give examples? Most should have genus and species in italics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, as in they all had text italicized, it seems all of them were reuploaded with non-italicized text for the rest, I'll change it on all of mine. Though I am still confused on how having all of/most of the text italicized is confusing. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Is this better? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
perfect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Request: Stupendemys size comparison

I'd really like to see a size diagram for Stupendemys. A size comparison for reference can be found in https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaay4593 . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Request: Rhinocarcinosoma and Carcinosomatidae size diagram

Rhinocarcinosoma
Eusarcana
Carcinosomatidae

I just did my first new eurypterid article in ages, Rhinocarcinosoma, and the article is more or less ready for a GA nom, only lacking a size diagram. There are size estimates of all three species in the article (R. vaningeni at 39 cm, R. dosonensis at 22 cm and R. cicerops, though it is only known from juveniles, at 4 cm) and detailed images of fossil specimens of R. vaningeni and R. cicerops are in the article. There are detailed reconstructions of R. dosonensis in this freely available 2002 paper (link) from which a silhouette could be made of that species. The silhouettes for vaningeni and cicerops can probably follow that, possibly together with what is known of Eusarcana, the closest relative of Rhinocarcinosoma. There is also a reconstruction of R. vaningeni here but it has a scorpion-like tail spike (which the genus did not have). I appreciate any help with this :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Also going to take the time to request a size diagram for the family to which Rhinocarcinosoma belongs, the Carcinosomatidae. It probably only needs Carcinosoma, Eusarcana and Rhinocarcinosoma since the other genera, Eocarcinosoma and Holmipterus are based on more or less inadequate fossil remains and do not have published size estimates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is quite a bizarre eurypterid, I'll see if I can throw something together for you in the upcoming week. I haven't drawn a eurypterid for a while, this will be good practice! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the ugliest one for sure. Thank you! Sounds good :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel If you're interested and eventually have the time, Terropterus, the most recently described eurypterid, also needs a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ichthyovenator I've finished one species (R. dosonensis). How does this look? (The arrangement of objects doesn't look too good at the moment, sorry about that. I'll probably wait to fix it until I get R. vaningeni finished.) I've begun to draw R. vaningeni, based on the available material andR. dosonensis, it seems like its walking legs are shorter and more robust for the larger species, is this correct? (Also, "anterior" is glossed as "backwards" in the article right now, shouldn't it be "forwards"?) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel Looks excellent as always. As far as I understand, the appendages of R. vaningeni are quite poorly known. It was only described originally with some appendage fragments and was just noted to be similar to Eusarcana appendage-wise (Clarke & Ruedemann, 1912). In the description of R. dosonensis, the only difference noted from R. vaningeni appendage-wise (unless I missed something) was that podomere (segment) 7 in appendage 6 (the swimming legs) developed into a spike (which can be seen in the reconstructions and your silhouette - but shouldn't be featured in the silhouette of R. vaningeni). Based on some eyeballing of the R. vaningeni fossil it looks to me as if R. vaningeni wasn't quite as wide as R. dosonensis and that its weird nose-thing was larger than how they've reconstructed it for R. dosonensis, but neither of those two differences were mentioned in the R. dosonensis paper so I'm unsure.
Yeah, I messed up on "anterior" - fixed that now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I've added R. vaningeni to the chart, following your comments above. How does this look? I'll see if I can get the final species in in a day or two, then I'll redo my Eusarcana and compile the family-level size comparison (I may also try to rework my Megalograptus sometime this month, but I can't guarantee anything on that). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel R. vaningeni looks good - only thing is that it shouldn't have the spiky protrusion at the top of its swimming legs (this feature is exclusive to R. dosonensis), they should be spikeless (see the spikeless swimming legs of Eusarcana for how that might look). Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, it appears that I misunderstood what you meant about the spike - I deleted the tiny subtriangular projection from the rounded podomere further distal from the spike-bearing one. Should that one be present? I'll go ahead and fix podomere 7. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The spikes on podomere 7 have been removed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Podomere 7 looks good now! Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Yeah, the small one at the end (which you removed first) should still be present. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I have re-added the small spikes, sorry about that (I was unsure which segment was podomere 7). Does R. cicerops have any limb-related specializations or would it be okay to just reuse the limbs of R. vaningeni for it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the limbs of R. cicerops aren't known (Clarke & Ruedemann did describe a leg segment in 1912 that "possibly" belongs to R. cicerops but it's a quite qustionable attribution and it doesn't say much about the overall appearance). Since all R. cicerops are juveniles it has been speculated to just be the juvenile form of R. vaningeni, so using the same limbs should be fine. Perhaps the limbs of R. cicerops should proportionally be slightly larger than the limbs of R. vaningeni given that limb size appears to have decreased during ontogeny in eurypterids (compare juvenile Eusarcana and adult Eusarcana or the more extreme larval & juvenile Strobilopterus and adult Strobilopterus). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ichthyovenator, I've added R. cicerops to the chart, following the proportions of juvenile carcinosomatids. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩
Excellent work Slate Weasel, thank you. R. cicerops looks exactly like how I imagined it would. I've taken the liberty of adding the size diagram to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to redo Eusarcana by the end of the week and then put together the other size chart. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel looks consistent with everything that's known. Good job! You should be good to go with the family chart. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Slate Weasel Everything looks good. Perhaps the key could be moved further to the left (it's further left in the Rhinocarcinosoma diagram for instance) to solve the cramping issue? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the text boxes a bit, which looks better, is this enough or should I move them even more? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this looks good! I've added the diagram to the article :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Peregocetus

I have considered to bring a restoration of Peregocetus, but thought the restoration by A. Gennari (published in the original 2019 paper (fig. S4))[14] might were a bit "shrink-wrapped".[15][16] What do you think? User:Conty~enwiki 16:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The skeletal shows only 2 digits on the hindlimbs, and a dewclaw on either side of the hands with 3 full-sized digits. Yet, the reconstruction provided on the paper shows 4 full-sized digits on all limbs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

True, but I determined that some digits would not be visible from the angle I drew it (otherwise, you could point out that the reconstruction in the paper actually have two forelimbs... :-) ) User:Conty~enwiki 20:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, the paper also has an image of the pes which clearly shows 4 digits. I don't know why they drew the skeletal like that then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I now realize you focused on the restorations in the paper... :-) I think the feet in the skeletal drawing are drawn that way because they are supposed to be in total lateral view. If you do not have any objections to my drawing, I will publish it. User:Conty~enwiki 20:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you give it some eyelids?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It have eyelids (look below the eye). User:Conty~enwiki 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are more like bags. If there were eyelids, the eye wouldn't be perfectly circular   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Problematic giant penguins + size diagram for Palaeeudyptes?

I've previously submitted a review of the images of Anthropornis and Kairuku here, but especially for Anthropornis, the original inaccurate image look attractive at first glance, so they continue to be added many times even if that is deleted. I added an exact size diagram by Slate Wheasel to the page, but it was immediately returned because an user didn't like the image comparing it with the human wearing flippers. I think we need an accurate alternative life reconstruction of Anthropornis. (Alternatively, you can post an image of the fossil on the page.) And we need to add Category of Inaccurate paleoart to Anthropornis v1.svg. For Kairuku, you can edit the size comparation of the image. Now, I was interested in the reconstruction of Palaeeudyptes klekowskii by A. C. Tatarinov. The length of the beak looks accurate and doesn't seem to matter much, but what's your opinion? Also I think it is able to create a size diagram of Palaeeudyptes klekowskii. Small specimen, MLP 12-I-20-289 [17], has been found almost entirely except for the head, and is estimated to have a total length of 143.2 cm. The more partial largest specimen, MLP 12-I-20-116 [18], is estimated to have a total length of 2.01-2.02 m. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Anthropornis, it is pointless to use an image of swimming person of uncertain size as a size standard comparison. Even if it were of known size, it is not needed, as we explicitly show the size of the penguin with the meter line. Just remove the swimmer from the image, or use a picture of an actual fossil. Meters (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with using just the grid is that a significant number of English speakers use the old imperial system, and through personal experience I've found that they will generally have no clue how big something is from dimensions in the metric system, so it helps to have something familiar to compare the penguin's size to. The diver is 1.8m tall, which I've noted in the description. I've also modified the silhouette to be a bit cleaner and have straighter legs to better convey height. Regardless, I do have misgivings about putting a size chart in the taxobox, as such a chart doesn't clearly show the organism's appearance, so I could create an illustration of one or more of its bones for this purpose. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
It's still a terrible size standard. The reader has to go to the file description to know how long the swimmer is, and still does not know how long the fins are. Why bother. As I've previously said, we could just as well use a picture of a clown on stilts as our length standard. If the concern really is that the image only has a metric length bar, then just add an imperial length bar. Meters (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that every size comparison with a human does not have a "size standard comparison". Humans come in different sizes, so you'd need to clarify the height in the description anyways. Why would a silhouette of a man in shorts at 1.72 meters be considered more "standardized" than a diver scaled to 1.8 meters? The viewer doesn't need to know the length of the flippers, the 50 cm grid makes the image informative enough to communicate the relative sizes. The alternative image, apart from being inaccurate, does not have that advantage. We don't need an imperial length bar for reasons already stated. The Kairuku size comparison doesn't even have a clear height for the human, so why not complain about that one instead. The clown on stilts argument is hyperbolic, no one except for you has batted an eye at a diver as a scale silhouette. We do not see it as a problem. And just a little tip, paleoart discussions are supposed to happen on this page (or the dinosaur art page) so you have no need to complain if we move it here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Imperial units are only one problem with removing the human. One can get a much better grasp of how large something is when it is shown in comparison with a familiar object than by just being told how long it is. As Fanboyphilosopher states above, the viewer doesn't need to know exactly how long the flippers are. For one thing, any difference in height caused by swim fins is negligible, and it's obvious where the diver's heels are. For another, the user has the grid to serve as reference for the diver's approximate dimensions. For a third, the casual viewer is not going to open the diagram in a program like GIMP and measure out the diver's height to the centimeter for the sake of getting a better understanding of Anthropornis' size. The grid currently only goes down to the half meter, so I'd guess that most viewers would struggle to reliably estimate measurements beyond the quarter-meter, meaning that it wouldn't make much difference whether or not the human was 1.7m or 1.8m tall.
As for the clown on stilts argument, from a rather extreme perspective (for the sake of argument), this wouldn't necessarily be a problem if it was obvious where the clown's feet were. However, such a silhoutte would be both objectively bad, as it takes up a great deal of unnecessary space (and where it wouldn't it would be too small and nondescript to be useful), and subjectively bad, as the average viewer wouldn't expect to see such a silhouette used for reference and therefore their attention would be drawn away from the animal. A diver is not at all a surprising reference figure for an aquatic animal, in fact, this paper, for example, has a size comparison in it depicting a diver in swim fins. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You need to make up you mind. First you say "The problem with using just the grid is that a significant number of English speakers use the old imperial system", and then when I provide a perfect solution to that, one which treats both measurements systems equally, you decide that there is actually some other flimsy problem. No, you cannot get a "much better grasp of how large something is when it is shown in comparison with a familiar object than by just being told how long it is". Not unless you know exactly how long the comparison object is, which we don't know. And the flippers are certainly not of "negligible" length. The grid is not going to be used to measure the diver. It's there to tell us how long the animal (the actual subject of the article) is. With the measurement grid, the human silhouette is redundant. Are you really suggesting that readers should look at a picture of a diver, estimate where his heels are, guess how tall he is, and use that to estimate how long the animal was? No, I am not suggesting that we use a clown on stilts, I am just pointing out that it would give us exactly the same minimal functionality as the diver. And personally, I don't expect to see a diver in a picture of a prehistoric animal. Meters (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The grid plus the scale bar plus the diver are there for redundancy, but that is purposeful. With all of them together it is clear what the scale is, but it would not necessarily be clear at a quick glance if any of them were alone. The diver is there for a quick visual to complement the more clinical grid system, same with any other size diagram using a human hand or body silhouette. Why is a diver any more out of place than any other human silhouette? Why is this piece being singled out more than any other size diagram with a similar structure (including the other two inaccurate ones being discussed right now)? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The image is public domain, it is not necessary to provide credit for public domain images, though I don't think it hurts either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's necessary to show the readers that it is just a modified image of a regular penguin, as it is a bit misleading otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Skeletal and skull diagrams by fishboy86164577, BatmanelVisigodo, Jaime Headden, and Armin Reindl

Jaime Headden has recently produced a new Sharovipteryx skeletal for public use, and not long afterwards I was able to convince a few friends of mine to publicly make some of their diagrams freely available for use in Wikipedia as well. I don't see any real accuracy issues, and I'd be happy to elaborate on their behalf if there are any questions. This recent situation was motivated by actions on the part of David Peters, a pseudoscientist who is notorious for using algorithm-friendly tags to clog up search engines with his poorly-made skeletal diagrams of prehistoric animals. Most of you are probably familiar with him by now. I think at some point we should discuss Headden's suggestion to use tags in order to catch up to Peters' influence on search engines ([20]). I realize that this may be a controversial suggestion; Wikipedia is meant to be impartial (within reason) and manipulating metadata to promote certain files associated with the site may set a bad precedent. I personally think that this is a necessary step to combat concentrated misinformation directed towards the subject of this Wikiproject. But I would be happy to hear other views on this (and whether it's acceptable to Wikipedia's regulations and ToS). If this is not the best place to discuss this, we can move to a talk page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think tags are even necessary, images used in Wikipedia articles are already the first that come up in image searches anyway. The problem is rather that there are many taxa we don't have any images of, therefore Peters' come first in the results. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The tagging suggestion makes sense for bloggers (say, Darren Naish for example), but Wikipedia is such a juggernaut that as long as we have decent coverage of a topic, people will find it. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and that also shows that the best way to counter such misinformation is to have as many complete and up to date Wikipedia articles about the given taxa as possible. Peters' only wins because he covers a lot of very obscure stuff that is barely covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
True, Wikipedia generally has it better than most sources in the tagging department. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Headden's Sharovipteryx is definitely an improvement over John Conway's (with its weird pterosaur wing...) It looks mostly good. I'm not sure about the size of the skull but considering Ozimek it's not unreasonable. We probably should modify it to highlight unknown elements but that's less important. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree in theory, but considering the fossil is so fragmentary, it's hard to really differentiate the unknown from the known in a conclusive manner. Nevertheless, I can elaborate on which taxa it was reconstructed off of, as Headden describes on his blog post. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The skeletal of Brancasaurus (I just realized what it was) is quite competent but it differs from both the one already in the article by a number of details. Most prominent is body size (the neck is much shorter), which does not match the text of the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Also I wonder if the Mauriciosaurus diagram is too derivative to be useful. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the Mauriciosaurus diagram, the only derivative part appears to be the leatherback sea turtle comparison at the top right corner. I can probably remove that (and the text indicating it) if fishboy is fine with it. As for Brancasaurus, the skeletal structure and proportions appear to be consistent between the reconstructions. "Neck length" appears to be a consequence of the position of the shoulder girdle, which is different between the two skeletals and the corresponding photo of the original fossil. Looking at the original fossil, I can see either interpretation as reasonable, but admittedly I don't know much about plesiosaurs and which skeletal is more anatomically supported. I can ask for more elaboration on the artistic choices (or interpretations) behind the fishboy skeletal. An interesting thing I should note is that Jaime Headden (the creator of the 2016 skeletal) recently retweeted the fishboy skeletal, among others. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've edited the Mauriciosaurus diagram after confirmation that it was okay to do so. And fishboy told me that his Brancasaurus skeletal is closely based on the mount. He specifically mentioned that the hindlimb of the Headden skeletal appears to be a copy-and-pasted forelimb, less similar to the hind limb in the fossil. Other differences between the skeletals seem to be based around pose and girdle position, which are more subjective. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay. A few more things about the Brancasaurus:
  • What's going on with the ribs at the dorsosacral transition? Has distortion and breakage been accounted for?
  • Why is the chevron count different?
  • Is the clavicle-interclavicle complex missing? I'm not seeing where it is; I would expect it to be anterior to the coracoids.
  • The pelvic girdle looks completely different. If it's based on figure 22 in the paper, I think that is not perfectly in lateral view and there are perspective issues going on.
  • Where does the tail fluke morphology come from? The only proposal I know of in the literature associates "pygostyles" with horizontal tail flukes.
  • This is aesthetic and I know it's standard practice but I really dislike skeletals where one set of limbs is lifted up to obscure the torso. In this case the forelimb obscures the cervicodorsal transition.
But on another inspection I find myself appreciating other things, e.g. the better scaling of the skull, the more prominent cervical prezygapophyses, etc. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
According to fishboy, the dorsosacral area is based on figure 17, and the paper did not note distortion in that area. The pelvis is based on figure 22 with some accounting for perspective. And the presence of a vertical tail fluke is based on "Novel anatomy of cryptoclidid plesiosaurs with comments on axial locomotion" (Wilhelm, 2010), which supported a vertical fluke associated with a "pygostyle" in Cryptoclidus. The chevron and clavicle/interclavicle were not articulated with the mount; the former are speculative (no fossils have been found) and the latter was referred. Fishboy may be able to edit the skeletal once his account is unblocked (due to an old mix-up with image permissions and Yewtharaptor). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the tail fin: I think that Cryptoclidus is different because it has laterally compressed distal caudals and a distal change in neural spine angles [21]. Either way, the tail fin morphology shown here differs from that presented by Wilhelm. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The source you linked to does mention Brancasaurus in a discussion of caudal morphology, and also supports the hypothesis that vertical tail flukes are common among plesiosaurs. The Brancasaurus mount does appear to have laterally compressed distal caudals (no transverse processes either) and the recent description says that distal caudal neural spines are not preserved. All things considered I think a vertical fluke was likely, and that the precise shape was a reasonable example of artistic license. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Then should the same not hold for Lagenanectes? According to the measurements, the caudals are mostly much broader than tall until caudals L/M where lateral compression is evident. Distal caudal chevrons are also present but measurements are not given. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Expanding the list of new skeletals further, I've posted Jaime Headden's new Miotragocerus and Longisquama, as well as various fossil crocs (and Pilmatueia) uploaded by Armin Reindl. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the Reindl images could be cropped to just the skeletal and possibly the scale bars. Attributions obviously go in the image description itself, and the other stuff makes the image too busy.
Asking Headden for a version of Longisquama with just the fronded silhouette might be worthwhile. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I've uploaded cropped versions of the skeletals, showing the remains (both what is known and reconstructed) together with the scale Armin Reindl (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, I've replaced the uncropped versions in this review page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Another one, Headden's Megalancosaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And now Beelzebufo. I'll edit this comment if more get added in the future. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Image doesn't work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I had a typo in the filename and requested a move, it's fixed now. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of Ekaltadeta

Found this artwork of Ekaltadeta that hasn't been reviewed. Something about it doesn't look right. Since they were related to the musky rat-kangaroo, they probably didn't hop like a Macropod, such as the wallaby or kangaroo. If this article is to be believed (a clearer version of the image), I don't think the teeth are accurate either. Monsieur X (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely showing off the teeth in a rather unlikely way. The two big forward-pointing incisors are typical of diprotodont marsupials, including kangaroos, hence the name "diprotodont". I assume they would be no more obvious in life than on modern kangaroos. And yeah, if this thing is related to the musky rat-kangaroo, it probably shouldn't look like that. Since there's already art of the taxon and this has some deep-seated inaccuracies, I suggest we mark it as inaccurate and move on. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Baperookamo's paleoart

The user who had painted the Ekaltadeta above had also painted these pieces of paleoart. Overall, I think some look fine, but others look proportionally odd & somewhat cartoony. Notably the Miracinonyx, Sarkastodon, Kretzoiarctos, Libralces, & Silvabestius. There's also the matter of the Chilotherium's trunk. Should it be mentioned that it's speculative? Although, this paper mentions the genus had a trunk. I mean, it does look it could have a trunk. Its nasal opening are pushed back compared to other rhinocerotids. Although, not as extensively pushed backed as compared to tapirs. Monsieur X (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The artist should probably be notified of this discussion? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Very well. I'm pinging User:Baperookamo so they can discuss their artwork. Monsieur X (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The limbs of Leontinia are longer that they should be.--Rextron (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

PaleoEquii returns

Both of these images have been uploaded in the last few days by PaleoEquii, and have been added to articles by two separate IP's, 209.15.154.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 64.39.187.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) both from the southern Ontario area. @Ornithopsis: any thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

As always, their art looks very good on an artistic level, and hopefully they will be willing to actually go through the required review process someday. I don't know enough about Retifacies to comment on it. As far as the Yuyuanozoon goes, I don't see anything I think needs to be changed. The tail proportions don't look quite right, but that might be down to perspective. I'm not entirely sure what the lateral openings should look like in this taxon, so I think they're OK in this image, but not entirely sure. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. At this time I don’t have any more art that would be applicable to Wikipedia, unless I reconstruct more Chengjiang panarthropods later. Retifacies is a bit obscure, but the limbs were recently studied and reconstructed using micro-CT, in addition to the same for its closest relative, Pygmaclypeatus. PaleoEquii (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright, based on some skimming of the relevant literature, I don't see any problems with the Retifacies, so unless we have any Cambrian arthropod experts with opinions to the contrary, it has my approval as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I plan to do more that I might upload to Wikipedia, is there any preference for Chengjiang euarthropods that need art? PaleoEquii (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Chengjiangocaris would certainly benefit from your touch.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ptomacanthus

Here is a life restoration of the "acanthodian" Ptomacanthus anglicus in its natural habitat. HFoxii (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, though do note that acanthodian fins were supported by ceratotrichia (like sharks) and would have been opaque rather than transparent. It looks like the pectoral and pelvic spines are missing their corresponding fins as well, though the mistake is understandable since they weren't depicted in Brazeau (2012)'s reconstruction. Modern sharks with fin spines may be good inspiration for how acanthodian spines would have been embedded into the skin. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Fanboyphilosopher: Now it is better? HFoxii (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say so. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Metriorhynchid reconstructions

A new paper, if I'm reading it correctly, suggests that the terminal phalanges on metriorhynchid (hind, at least) flippers were fully enclosed in skin (if not also within the outline of the paddle). This would be inconsistent with a number of existing images, including the ones below. The paper also supports a lack of cranial and ventral osteoderms, which are present in the second image. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

They seem to be visible in most of DB's other images too, including some that were published in scientific papers. They should be easy to fix if we can hut them all down. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
While this is tangential, a new paper has been published on preserved soft tissue showing the presence of flippers in Thalassochelydian sea turtles (depicted in the second image). Maybe needs checking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, DB has restored his metriorhynchids with very prominent ridges poking out in front of the eyes, though in modern reptiles, such just form the base of "brows" that bridge the entire eyesockets. It is similar to how all such ridges were also restored as "lacrimal horns" in basically all theropods until recently, even though similar structures are also found in many birds, where they obviously don't form horns... Any thoughts on how they should be restored? FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This paper notes that the lateral expansions of the prefrontal in metriorhynchids act as stress sinks... but I don't know what that implies for external appearance, especially given the prefrontals are more often than not ornamented. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, New study in Paleontologica Electronica , suggests that Metriorhynchids totally lacked scales, and instead had ichththyosaur-like skin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the same paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's certainly a more time consuming fix... FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I've begun trying to paint out the scales and such in the first one. Will probably take a while, doing it sporadically (and just commenting here to keep the section from being archived). FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've painted over the scales[22], over some visible fenestrae, unnecessary tail fluke dividing lines, and removed the individual digits on the paddles. Any thoughts, Lythronaxargestes and Hemiauchenia? FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking good, maybe remove the dorsal ridge too? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Did that too, Lythronaxargestes, and updated the image. It's a bit time consuming, so I may not be able to do it on a large scale for the other images, but at least this one can give an example of what can be done- FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The new paper suggest that there are no such dorsal seams. But perhaps the claws are more problematic... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed most of the issues in the ones linked above. Might do some more, and feel free to link any that would be worthy to fix. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Diagramms/Reconstructions

Some recent diagramms of mine that might be useful on their respective pages, the two recently described Sauropods Hamititan and Silutitan as well as a diagramm showing the skulls of the 3 known Stomatosuchids. Any required/optional changes I should consider?

Can bone outlines be added to the stomatosuchid diagram? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I mostly avoided that due to the nature of each fossil. Both Laganosuchus are based on lower jaws (maghrebensis on a small element at that, but I included it for completion) and obviously Stomato got blown up. I could still add it tho, just gonna take a bit to add all the elements so I'll probably get back about that in a few days to a week. Armin Reindl (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if the lower jaws in lateral view can, then, be included for completion's sake for Laganosuchus. Otherwise it'd be pretty much all extrapolated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll put something together then and come back about it in about a week or so. Anything to note on the sauropods? Armin Reindl (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe this is perspective but perhaps their feet could be lowered so that they line up with the grid. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Anatomically, I don't see anything that obviously needs to be changed for either sauropod. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I've actually been considering creating size diagrams for the two new sauropods. If I have time, I will expand the pages to incorporate size diagrams as well. These skeletal diagrams appear much more useful than the conglomerate diagram in the paper... SlvrHwk (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made a quick comparisson of the two new taxa (+Hamipterus) before, tho I haven't uploaded it on Wikimedia since I didn't consider it vital so I could potentially adapt the one I already have and make it "wiki-friendler" (include a grid, different size ref, etc...) https://twitter.com/ArminReindl/status/1432445472447287301?s=20 Armin Reindl (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Afforementioned size chart but with various edits to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia (more standardized size comparisson, grid, taxon names) as well as a more recent work depicting a reconstruction of the holotype skull of Anthracosuchus balrogus. The Stomatosuchidae comparisson has been updated accordingly as well, now showing fossil remains of all three taxa plus again a standardized size comparisson for quick and easy scale. Armin Reindl (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if my work is good enough for Wikipedia...

Skeletal reconstruction of Abdarainurus barsboldi. Bones figured in Averianov & Lopatin, 2020. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2020.1716402?journalCode=tjsp20 Outline is modified from SlvrHwk, based on related Sauropods. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abdarainurus_Size_Comparison.svg If there are any inaccuracies I can fix or suggested modifications, please let me know. Thanks P2N2222A (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm by no means a professional critic, but I thought I'd have a try. Firstly, the bottoms of the feet look a little too rounded, and the limbs don't seem to have too much muscle definition. The head's very different, though I don't claim to know enough about titanosaurs to know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. The tail looks a little too thick, and it doesn't seem to have the typical "s"-shaped curve of the other reconstruction. I'd point out the thumb claw, but I'm not entirely sure whether Abdarainurus was advanced enough to have lacked one. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, not bad at all! Borophagus (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Overall, the shape is rather rough, which is especially noticeable with the forelimbs and tail. It could use some improvement there, as Borophagus said. Abdarainurus was probably not significantly more derived than Diamantinasaurus, so a thumb claw is plausible. Sarmientosaurus is probably the best basis for the head. Also, the tail vertebrae look too far apart. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm not sure what you mean about the thumb claw because I only showed an outline and the caudal vertebrae. I might go back and rework this or I might give up, depending on how busy I am. Either way, it's clearly not good enough as is. Thanks again. P2N2222A (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ornithopsis means that the thumb claw should (could) show up in the outline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the front feet on the silhouette has a pinched-out corner that looked like it might be a thumb claw, but mostly I was responding to Borophagus's comment about the thumb claw. Ultimately, it could go either way, perhaps more likely to be present than absent. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Megalograptus

Putting this up for review since it's being used in the current FA candidate Megalograptus. I followed the relevant literature cited in the article to the best of my ability. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a comment from Super Dromaeosaurus or Junnn11? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks good to me overall. The only thing I could complain about is that the hair on Megalograptus' head should probably be reduced progressively, but you can instead see a clear C-shaped line where the hair ends. Did Megalograptus not have any hair at all on the region around its eyes? Also, the line separating podomeres 7 and 8 (the last two "fingers") on the left appendage is not as visible as on the right one, but that's a minor detail that can go perfectly unnoticed. Super Ψ Dro 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with megalograptids, so I can't give any comments about diagnosis. Unless that's the case for this taxon, I think the attachmet point of swimming legs were a bit too far from the prosomal region. Other than that, I think it is good enough to represent the literature's interpretation. --Junnn11 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Both of you are absolutely right (though I will have to double check if there is detailed info on the bristle distribution on the head); I'm not the world's most experienced editor of artwork but I can try to correct these errors at some point in the coming days. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to adjust the image per your comments, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Super Ψ Dro 10:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Can't say anything about accuracy, but very well-done edits! FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Junnn11: What do you think of the new revision? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks better! I think the position is accurate in this version.--Junnn11 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Good to hear :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yuanchuavis kompsosoura

Yuanchuavis kompsosoura

I'll admit this was a rush job. Feel free to critique. Luxquine (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll go put this in the right page for dinosaur paleoart. Am I okay to delete this? Luxquine (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You can just remove it form here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_16&oldid=1152104178"