Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Inostrancevia alexandri

I found this Inostrancevia reconstruction at Wikimedia Commons. Artistically, it looks better than Bogdanov's reconstruction (which is now used in the article), but I'm not sure about the background. Any comments? HFoxii (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't overtly contain any of the common mistakes of therapsid reconstructions, as far as I can tell, but there is an abundance of minor quibbles I might as well bring up: It looks like it might have an ear of a sort I consider rather unlikely, but it's hard to be sure. The lips don't look particularly persuasive. It has the somewhat cliché patches of sparse fuzz common to therapsid reconstructions, which I don't consider particularly likely but also isn't impossible. The digitigrade feet seem a bit off; I suspect it's taken from a portrayal of a gorgonopsid walking even though this one isn't walking forward (I hope, given the cliff). The rictus looks a bit far forward to me, but then again, I don't know if anyone's really sure how to draw those. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The pose is suspiciously similar to File:Gorgonops whaitsii1.jpg but there is plausible deniability. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The licencing seems odd. It is by Roman Uchytel, but uploaded by an Alex Uchytel? We don't have specific permission from Roman, then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I contacted with Roman Uchitel by email in past. I don't know why he is authorized as Alex Uchytel on the Wikimedia Commons, but this is indeed the same person as Roman Uchytel. HFoxii (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're reviewing Uchytel's Inostrancevia, might as well take a look at these other unreviewed reconstructions & size charts. Including Uchytel's own size chart.

File:Inostrancevia vs human.jpg

Also, are any of the skeletal mounts inaccurate? Monsieur X (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Evolution in the past" one is a historic reconstruction, so it should be left as is. That said, it's got a few inaccuracies: the Inostrancevia has ears and the Pareiasaurus are too lizard-shaped. Pretty much all of these should probably have lips that more fully cover the teeth, and Bogdanov's is looking rather shrinkwrapped. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Having read up a bit more on gorgonopsians, it seems there is somewhat of a consensus they had plantigrade feet, yeah, I wonder if it's enough to tag images showing digitrade feet as inaccurate? Speaking of gorgonopsians, I recently modified the two previously unreviewed images below to remove hair and exposed incisors and precanines, as well as too obvious fenestrae and other things, but I don't think we necessarily need to jump on the fully covered saber-canines bandwagon, as this is not covered in any actual scientific literature, and as I usually like to point out, even Tasmanian devils often have the tips of their canines exposed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Viatkogorgon
Sauroctonus

Microraptor illustration in need of critique

I'm thinking of adding this Microraptor recon to the article, but I figured I'd upload it here first to see if there's any tweaks I should make to make it more accurate. Thoughts? Entelognathus (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The teeth look much more widely and evenly spaced than in skeletal reconstructions? And the lower teeth seem too robust? The snout profile also seems a bit too upturned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if that is meant to be the left leg below the wing, I don't understand how this stance works. It seems like the leg would have to be turned outward to an unrealistic degree. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Marmoretta skull diagram

Based on 3d model in the new paper. As I can only get figures and not the paper itself, I can't figure out what the bone in purple is supposed to be as it isn't labelled in any of the figures, so I've left it blank for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Having had a look it's probably the quadratojugal, can anybody confirm? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on the caption of Figure 12, that seems correct. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Legend seems unbalanced. Move a few labels into the last column? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nochnitsa (retooled gorgonopsian)

So my old restoration[1] of Prorubidgea is now kind of outdated, since that genus has since become a synonym of Aelurognathus, and the specimen I based it on[2] appears to have a somewhat deformed skull that doesn't match the latest reconstruction of the skull of Aelurognathus. Since we already have other Aelurognathus restorations, and it appears only three gorgonopsian genera lack restorations here, I thought it would be a good idea to reshape it into Nochnitsa, which its deformed skull-shape matches much better than Aelurognathus anyway. Here[3] is the first attempt at reshaping (shape partially based on this diagram[4]), will make the claws larger and other things too, any thoughts? I've removed traces of hair (and eggs) from the original version, which may be iffy. Pinging MWAK, who commented on the original years ago. There were some concerns about this not being a plausible resting posture for a stem-mammal, but let's just say it's getting up from lying down... FunkMonk (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you want to give it a basal look by everting the elbows, the upper arm should be more horizontal. When it walked, the elbows were more tucked in and the humerus was somewhat elevated.--MWAK (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A quick attempt, but I've rotated the arm a bit more backwards[5], is it enough, or should it be more? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw this, MWAK. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As no scapula is known and the humerus is gracile, it's now within the realm of possibility, I suppose.--MWAK (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've now updated the image and added the article, but any further comments are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Toyotamaphimeia skeletal

Checking for approval/input on this skeletal diagram of Toyotamaphimeia based on the holotype specimen (as I am currently overhauling that article). As the disclaimer says the ribs are not figured due to the fact that the description of the animals anatomy does not figure them in lateral view and mounts, while overall not always a great reference, also don't really have any lateral views of their ribs. The broken jaw and foot represent pathologies present in the holotype. UPDATE: got in contact with someone who managed to provide a reference for the dorsal ribs in lateral view, image has been updated accordingly Armin Reindl (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't say much about accuracy, but I think the ribs are a nice addition. I wonder if missing teeth should be shown as black in the silhouette? Looks a bit odd that the rest of the life silhouette is complete without the teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

the ribs had been more or less an issue of figured material and were ommitted for safety reasons in the first version until I could find an actual reference for them, I can overhaul it with the rest of the teeth as part of the silhouette, shouldn't be too much work given that all the alveoli are figured 09:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Purussaurus brasiliensis Overhaul

I have updated my P. brasiliensis diagram, but now I have covered the DGM 527-R specimen based on its new description and the silhouette has been revised to have the proportions of a Caiman latirostris and an Aligator mississippiensis, this revision was done with the help of Jão. But anyway, do you have any thoughts on how I could improve the diagram?

I think that it looks great. Just a question, why do you use Caiman latirostris instead of Melanosuchus? --Rextron (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Because Aureliano et al. (2015) uses the proportions of Caiman latirostris for their calculations due to phylogenetic proximity. --User:Megaraptor-The-Allo 12 Setember 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! so I think that the image could fit very well in the article.--Rextron (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plectronoceras in need of revision

The shell of Plectronoceras had chambers and a siphuncle, which are structures for maintaining buoyancy, so it obviously wasn't a snail-like crawler like depicted here. The pinhole-type eye is probably correct, but it should have ten, roughly equal length arms and a siphon. Carnoferox (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion in the literature regarding the functional anatomy or life appearance of Plectronoceras? Ornithopsis (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a reconstruction of Plectronoceras and a brief discussion of its life appearance in Kroger et al. (2011)[6]. Peterman et al. (2019)[7] also reassessed its swimming ability; although it was a poor swimmer, it was still capable of leaving the seafloor.

Thanks. The life reconstruction by Roach in Kröger et al. is very helpful. Cephalopods aren't really my thing, and I haven't been able to create much art lately, so hopefully somebody else will be able to provide a revised life reconstruction? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Carnoferox! Here's the illustration I made to replace the old one. Is there anything you or anyone thinks needs changing, or is this good to edit into the article? Entelognathus (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ten-armed, less snail-like *Plectronoceras*

I think it's ready to add to the article, but I'll see if anyone else has anything to add. Carnoferox (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks great! It seems to me that the shell should perhaps be a bit more curved (compare to Fig. 3 of Peterman et al.), but other than that I have no particular objections. However, I note this quote by Peterman et al: "...allowing [Plectronoceras] to sit on a soft substrate without sinking, and briefly push up off the seafloor with minimal effort." It doesn't sound like Plectronoceras was an animal that spent most of its time in the water column, even if it could swim a little. As such, while I agree that we probably shouldn't be portraying Plectronoceras as a snail-like animal, I think it would be a good idea to have a reconstruction of Plectronoceras resting on the seafloor in addition to this reconstruction of it swimming. There certainly doesn't seem to exist any art of a more cephalopod-like Plectronoceras resting on the seafloor, and that seems like something the world might need. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I added this reconstruction to the page, since it shouldn't have to wait for the other one to be made. Carnoferox (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothrotheriops restorations

I noticed that we had three restorations of the same species of Nothrotheriops, N. shastensis, so I decided to just relabel mine as the smaller, less famous species, N. texanus, as I don't think their differences would be externally visible, but feel free to point out if I'm wrong, I'm trying to track down the original article. But since my restoration has been heavily modified since it was first reviewed here, and since the two others have never been reviewed, I thought it would be good to post them here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My old restoration modified and relabelled as N. texanus
Dmitry Bogdanov's unreviewed N. shastensis
Nobu Tamura's unreviewed N. shastensis

Some recent artwork by Nobu Tamura that haven't been reviewed yet

I had forgotten that I had uploaded some of Nobu Tamura's artwork. Any thoughts on these restorations? Monsieur X (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe moas are now thought to have habitually held their necks more horizontally. But I guess that doesn't mean they couldn't raise their necks up like that? Just wouldn't be typical. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Therocephalians probably did not have whiskers (see Benoit et al. 2016, 2018), so that should be fixed on the Bauria. That should also be fixed on Dmitry Bogdanov's reconstruction on the Bauria page. Personally, I wouldn't give it fur either, but I suppose that one's too controversial for us to take a side. I'm pretty sure the Mirarce is much too big—the tarsometatarsus is only 48 mm long, for instance, whereas it looks like it would be like 15 cm in this drawing. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There is also a general tendency of feet and toes in NT's restorations being very lumpy to an unnatural extent, but not sure if it's severe and noticeable enough to exclude them, I just try to slim them down too when modifying other inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Dimitri's Bauria
Nobu's old Bauria

I've gone ahead & removed the whiskers from all Bauria restorations, as well as hid their front teeth. Monsieur X (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice, I wonder if that bright green colour is very likely? FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better! One more thing, though, is that the fact of Bogdanov's reconstruction still looks very mammalian, as though it had facial muscles—smoothing it out a bit to give it a more reptilian countenance might be a good idea. As far as color, amphibians and reptiles can be that shade of green, so I see no particular reason to assume such a color is implausible for a stem-mammal (at least, given that it's being depicted without fur). Ornithopsis (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced of the blue colour of coeruledraco, just looks odd. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Presumably a reference to its name, meaning "blue dragon", which I find slightly objectionable purely on grounds of being a bit on-the-nose. It's definitely pushing plausibility a bit further than the Bauria. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Metriorhynchus brevirostris

Since the taxonomic revision of Metriorhynchus has left the article without any life reconstructions, I made this one of M. brevirostris, based largely on related taxa. Mettiina (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I hoped there would at least one image left, but nope, so nice initiative. Looks good, matches the newest paper on skin-texture and fin-shape it seems. I wonder if the upper teeth are too backwards angled, even from this perspective? Compare to for example:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right, some of the teeth definitely look too back-swept. It's unfortunate the Metriorhynchus rostrum lacks intact teeth. I'll correct this once I know if there is anything else that needs to be ironed out. Mettiina (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The only possible nitpick I could think to make is that there could be a small tympanum visible, but even then I'd say there's an argument to be had if it would even be visible on the surface so I'm not even really bothered by that one. Looks great! DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur, probably one of our best metriorhynchid restorations by leaps and bounds. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I corrected the tooth orientation to better match that of relatives with preserved teeth, made the tympanum visible since there doesn't seem to be anything contradicting that being the case, and made a few other very minor tweaks. Mettiina (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to go, I think! FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Homo longi reconstruction

The page Homo longi notably has no reconstruction or image of the fossil besides the poorly-traced image of the skull used as the header. Is the file File:Homo longi NT.jpg accurate enough to be used on the page? Are there any major issues with it? Di (they-them) (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Di (they-them): If you want to criticise my tracing, then why don't you create a better one? It was a quick drawing I did in about half an hour so the article could have some kind of useful illustration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As to Nobu Tamuras image, I really don't care for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I didn't mean to insult. I wasn't saying that it was poorly-traced to hurt you, I was just saying that it was rushed and not of high quality, like you said it was done in o30 minutes. I'm not sure why you take offense to something you did in half an hour being called low-quality, it's nearly impossible for anyone to make good art in only 30 minutes. As for your response about Tamura's image, whether you care for it isn't the question I asked. I was looking to see if there was any scientific inaccuracy that needed to be addressed, not general opinion on its artistic appeal. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is he shirtless if it's all snowy and cold outside? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 06:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I don't think there's any evidence of that species wearing clothes. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess this boils down to if it's more plausible that ancient humans wore pelts to stay warm or if they were built like polar bears User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but I read that the Yaghan people, despite living in the Southern Cone, went around mostly naked, and lit fires if they got cold, so warm clothing in cold climates is not a cultural universal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The northern taiga is a lot colder than the Tierra del Fuego User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This is probably true, though I would note that the official artwork accompanying the press release has him shirtless with only an animal pelt covering his loins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the official artwork takes place in an early autumn deciduous forest, not a winter taiga User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I for one see no issue with the skull tracing and I agree that the CGI reconstruction is a little odd for the reasons pointed out by Dunkleosteus77. I also think the hair covering looks a bit strange but that might just be me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Rodrigues night heron

I know we mainly deal with prehistoric reptiles here, so maybe it will be hard to judge this drawing of an obscure, modern bird, but I did a sketch of the recently extinct Rodrigues night heron eating a Rodrigues day gecko, based on photos of living relatives and the bones[9] (will colour it later, probably based on published restorations like this[10]). Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks fantastic so far.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope we can get restorations of all these obscure Mascarene animals... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I need to get around to coloring my restorations of the Rodrigues day geckos, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a coloured version. Any further comments, Apokryltaros and anyone else? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Gorgeous.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add it to the article, but further comments are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Obamadon gracilis fossil material

Is there any scientific issue with File:Obamadon gracilis known fossil material.svg? Is it suitable enough for the page? The centimeter was made to-scale with File:Obamadon gracilis jaw fossil.jpg, so it is an accurate scale. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the front of the bony jaw be much closer to the front of the silhouette's jaw? Also, there should preferably not be borders in images. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I have updated the file with what you said. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Liaoconodon and Yanoconodon

Hey, my first mammal paleoart submission for Wikipedia, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTMTheMarshmallow (talk • contribs) .

The limbs are really lacking in definition. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyornis dispar & Clidastes propython

Here is a recently uploaded paleoecological restoration by SmirnovaNataliaArt demonstrating the hunt of the Clidastes propython for Ichthyornis dispar. HFoxii (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the most accurate image we have of Clidastes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely the tail is a little short for Clidastes? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on the skeletons and up to date skeletals, Clidastes had a really large fluke portion of the tail. It would take up about half the length of the entire tail. Mettiina (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It might be easier to change the description to a different genus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that difficult to lengthen the tail, if that's what the consensus is. Since some of the bony tail is within the lower lobe, it may look shorter than it is? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Kalthifrons skull reconstruction

Asking for approval for this skeletal reconstruction of the mekosuchine Kalthifrons to more or less complete my work on its respective article, the general shape of missing elements and sutures is derived from the work of Yates and Pledge (2017) with an additional attempt to depict a hypothetical uncrushed depiction of the skull Armin Reindl (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Paludirex species comparison

I don't intend to use it any time soon given that the creative commons figures from Ristevski et al. have that covered in the article, but I'd still rather get the review out right away regardless. Depicted are Paludirex vincenti and Paludirex gracilis, proportions are based on figures by Ristevski et al. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Astorgosuchus skull recon

skull recon of Astorgosuchus, I based the general shape vaguely around Asiatosuchus germanicus and the featured material is the holotype material as figured in 1912 by Pilgrim done to finally complete the article which I recently worked on Armin Reindl (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you have access to the paper? Could be nice to also upload the original images. Could also state in the image description if it is taken directly from the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the original paper sadly no, but the redescription as Astorgosuchus uses Pilgrim's figure of the holotype (plates XXVI and XXVII according to Martin et al.) with some minor modification (those being the addition of skull element IDs) Armin Reindl (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Using the photo from the figures directly in your art is derivative work of the original, which is not allowed under Wikimedia Commons policy unfortunately. To be able to upload it, it must be entirely your own work. I would recommend just using colored sections to represent the known parts. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's allowed as long as the original image also has a free licence, but then the original license should also be listed on the file, such as public domain for this one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I made a mistake in thinking that the photographs were more recent. If the photographs are in the public domain, then they are fine to use. Again, my bad. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The figure itself is practically a 1:1 copy of one that was published in 1912 (making it clearly public domaine), any alterations made by the authors are not present in this imgage, tho I can replace the citation with a reference to the original publication if that helps Armin Reindl (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there should at least be an additional PD old copyright tag. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Does that apply here? Armin's artwork is using a PD photograph but is still his own work, and PD works by definition place no restrictions on the copyright of their derivatives. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Legally it isn't required, but on Commons it is, at least they would ask for it during a FAC review. Also just to avoid confusion, as clearly already happened. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What do the dotted lines represent? Those filled in white must be the skull openings, but what about the other dotted line at the rear of the skull? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

those represent the skull table, mostly to avoid confusion and give a general idea of the morphology (given how that entire area is lifted up from the rest of the cranium) but as the shape of it, much like the cranial openings, is unknown its merely dotted, since with this one I did not want to speculate too heavy given the enigmatic nature and overal not entirely certain phylogenetic placementArmin Reindl (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To all it may concern, I've started a regular deletion request and discussion for this image (though deletion is unwarranted in my opinion). Speedy deletion is not justified, as it is not a clear-cut case of copyright violation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The easiest solution another time is to just remove the tag. There was no valid reason for deletion given. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it necessarily avoids confusion, as it confused me … I doubt that the viewer would know that these lines represent the skull table. It is also not clear why the skull table should be indicated by such lines but not other parts. Maybe think about removing it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Aysheaia

Hello. Let me know there are any issues with this Aysheaia. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy, but it genuinely looks like a photograph, that takes some serious artistic skill. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I have no objections anatomy-wise. As per usual, excellent artistic work. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bothriodon reconstruction

Bothriodon currently has no reconstructions on the Wiki, even appears to lack its own category on Wikimedia, so I uploaded the portrait I made based on a 3D scan of the skull. Mettiina (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't say I know much about this one, but looks nice. Where can the reference bee seen? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a screencap of a video which I managed to track down to Youtube: Bothriodon 3D 2016 05 10 0034 and based on the info there seems like it may be of the same skull as in File:Ancodon americanus skull.jpg Mettiina (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice illustration! And for the specimen (MB.Ma.51832), I'd be pretty sure it's the same as the File:Ancodon americanus skull.jpg (peculiar coloration of third-to-last molars, left basisphenoid damage). I also found a paper on researchgate discussing the 3d scan methods that says the specimen known to be the one in the 3d model (see this figure)is labeled "Bothriodon americanus", just as the jpg file is.

But something imoprtant that the paper highlights is the taxonomic uncertainty of the specimen that you did your reconstruction on. Three possible options are that it belongs to Bothriodon, Ancodon, or Aepinacodon. But I guess it would just be fine to use this illustration for Bothriodon since the latter two don't have any wikipedia pages. Hiroizmeh (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, of course, we should always remember to note the exact taxonomic identity of an illustration, at least what species it's supposed to depict. Especially since prehistoric mammals have so many species that it's important in case of later taxonomic revisions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I updated the description with information on the original specimen and the taxonomic uncertainty around it, so that in case it gets assigned to another genus, the art can be reassigned as well. Mettiina (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ophthalmothule

New digital life restoration of cryptoclidid plesiosaur Ophthalmothule cryostea. HFoxii (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Extremely hard to see anything, remember, the purpose of Wikipedia illustrations is to show the anatomy or inferred behaviour of the animals, it's not really the place for All Yesterday's type experiments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

But it seems obvious that deep under the water it is rather dark. In addition, the plesiosaurus itself is illuminated in the drawing, so you can see it well enough. HFoxii (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty hard to make out at thumbnail size at least, particularity because the right fins are cropped out, which makes it harder to discern the overall shape (I wasn't sure what I was looking at until I read the text). I think the reader would be helped by further brightness or other things that would increase the dynamic range, or by showing the complete animal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, if the image is to be used in an article, it has to be easily recognisable to help the reader with understanding the article to be in accordance with MOS:IMAGES. I also don't think that the darkness is realistic in any case; from this perspective, I doubt you would see the trunk in the first place when the head is already so dark. In addition, it also looks as if the neck would be very short; no idea what to do about that though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Still a nice illustration of diving habits once a paleoecology chapter is added to the article.--MWAK (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that it's still too difficult to discern the animal in the image even for that purpose. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This illustration doesn’t line up with Ophthalmothule’s described dentition. The paper describes “The mediolateral expansion of the dorsal surface of the mandible, displays an almost lateral exit angle for the teeth from the alveoli in Ophthalmothule cryostea.” The teeth in the illustration extend downwards, not laterally or almost laterally. I also agree with other editors that the neck appears to short, Ophthalmothule had a notably large cervical count.Fishboy86164577 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ophthalmosaurus

Reconstruction of Ophthalmosaurus icenicus, based on the skeletal reconstruction by Scott Hartman, the illustrations provided in Moon and Kirton (2018), and with loose reference from the soft tissue preserved in Aegirosaurus leptospondylus. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The article could definitely use the updated reconstruction, especially since this one shows the teeth Armin Reindl (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say this would be an improvement over the current illustration. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, but one thing to remember is that the visible part of the eyeball would only correspond to the inner ring of the sclerotic ring, seems to be a bit bigger here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and checked the proportions compared to the skull reconstruction in Moon and Kirton (2018), and the eye seems about the right size for the inner ring of the sclerotic ring, although I could be wrong if my comparison wasn’t precise enough. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Opthalmosaurus eyes are the largest of any vertebrate. Something to keep in mind. Given that, I don't think they are unreasonably large. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's besides the point, though, most of the eyeball would not be visible externally, only the part within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. Look at chameleons, for example. The eyeball itself is huge, but only a small speck is externally visible. Same for all animals with sclerotic rings, you have to look at its inner diameter to judge the externally visible size. But if that has been taken into account, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It was taken into account, specifically referencing the diagram from Fernández et al. (2005). Fishboy86164577 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice then. Here is an example that just popped up on my Facebook feed randomly, showing how little could be visible even with a very big sclerotic ring:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing I should note is that the interior diameter of the sclerotic ring is equivalent to the cornea diameter (and the underlying iris+pupil diameter), not necessarily the visible diameter. As the name indicates, sclerotic rings are embedded in the sclera ("whites of the eye"), forming a tight ring around the base of the cornea. In most animals, the sclera is not visible, but there are exceptions even among those with sclerotic rings (green iguanas as an example here[12][13]). In most cases it doesn't make a difference, but I just thought it should be mentioned. Ichthyosaurs probably had very flat corneas for hydrodynamic purposes (like most fast fish), and I think that the reconstruction presented here gets the eye proportions right. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Elasmotherium

On the page Elasmotherium, there are several reconstructions that depict it with a large, modern rhinoceros-like horn, which has been accepted for a long time. However, a recent paper by Titov et al. (https://zmmu.msu.ru/rjt/articles/ther20_2_173-182.pdf) suggests that this is inaccurate and that Elasmotherium had a much smaller horn. It's also worth noting the depictions in Kapova Cave that show the animal with a small horn. As for the cave art on the page (File:Elasmotherium cave art.jpg), I believe that the current consensus is that it is a depiction of Coelodonta. So should the images on the page with the apparently outdated reconstructions be removed? Should reconstructions with a large horn be tagged with the inaccurate paleoart tag? Di (they-them) (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As has been pointed out various places, the latest paper is not necessarily always the final truth, it's just another theory (and it's not even new), we still don't have the horn. So I see no reason to remove long-horned restorations, but we could show alternatives too. FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with FunkMonk. We should probably show both restorations; to do otherwise would probably violate NPOV/due weight. This isn't like Spinosaurus's tail, where new evidence unambiguously showed that the life appearance differed from previous portrayals. What would be ideal, IMO, would be to have side-by-side reconstructions (either by the same artist or just visually similar) showing the two different horn shapes. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/watch/wZkN00vynhE

Crash bandicoot paleoart

I commissioned File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer.png for use on the Wikipedia page Crash bandicoot (species). I also edited it to create File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer (edited into environment).png. When I asked Dr. Kenny Travouillon, the scientist that named the species, what it may have looked like, he said it was likely close to species from Isoodon and Perameles, so those were the references used in the commission. I believe that the image is probably as accurate as possible based on the advice given from the Dr., so I just post this here to get enough consensus to use it on the page. I also ask which one would be best used, the one without the environment or the one edited into the environment? Di (they-them) (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not an expert on these, but from comparing with photos of living bandicoot, the middle foot claw seems very large? It seems to be smaller than the hand claws in living species? And as long as the environment matches what it would have lived in (and the animal is visible enough), it should be fine to use either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Perameles nasuta was the animal used for reference on the toes, they really do have very large middle foot claws. This is the image that was used as reference. I think that the size in the illustration is not outside the realm of realism, even if it might be slightly large proportionally. As for the environment, the Wikipedia page notes that its name is an allusion to its environment in arid habitats favored by modern bandicoots so it should also be accurate. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be alright I guess, wow that image, fused fingers? Weird... FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Di (they-them) and FunkMonk: I see now this was reviewed, but I had just removed the image. Is there some form of verification that it is a scientific reconstruction of this species, for example, the "edited into environment" is not according with the "wet rainforest environment" fact I gleaned for the article. ~ cygnis insignis 15:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The reconstruction itself is not clearly incorrect. The background is based on a misreading of the article. I don't see this as a reason to remove the image altogether, but to use the background-less version until the correct background can be added. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If the background is incorrect, then yes, we should use the one without, and tag the other one as inaccurate, or have it modified to reflect reality. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I will edit the image to have a more accurate background. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The content was created for wikipedia, what exemption to the general principles and guidelines allows that? ~ cygnis insignis 09:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That issue has been discussed to death, see disclaimer at the top of this page. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ornithoprion restoration

I recently drew this life restoration of Ornithoprion, but I wanted to make sure it was suitable to add to the page. The large eye is based on that of living chimaeras, and the unevenly forked tail is inspired by halfbeaks and ballyhoos, but I don't know if that might be considered too speculative. Are there any other glaring anatomical problems with this drawing? Gasmasque (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The eyes of living Chimaras are large and green because they live at depth, if Ornithoprion was a surface dwelling fish it's eyes would have probably been blue and probably much smaller. Phylogenetic bracketing only goes so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are examples of shallow-water ratfish such as Hydrolagus colliei which still have very large, green eyes, but if this seems like too much of a stretch I could change the eye to more closely resemble that of a typical coastal species. Gasmasque (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fanboyphilosopher: and @Carnoferox: who have a much greater familiarity with eugeneodonts than I do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hemiauchenia's point about the eyes, even "shallow-water" chimaeras like H. colliei are not diurnal active predators; lamnids, swordfish, and tuna are much closer in an ecological sense. I suppose the base of the pectoral fins should be fleshier and the head musculature may be worth changing, though admittedly I don't know much about chondrichthyan muscles. I'll need to consult someone who does. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

All good criticisms. I have changed the eye to more closely resemble that of the living Callorhinchus, which also seems to have been the inspiration for a few other eugenodont reconstructions used on the site. I can make changes to the head and pectoral fins if necessary. Gasmasque (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with previous comments about the eyes. Chimaeras should not be used as references at all; the eyes should resemble those of shallow-water sharks. The gill slits should all be roughly equal in height and not get smaller as they go back. They are reconstructed incorrectly in Zangerl (1966). The pectoral fin should have a more elongated rear tip. The longer lower lobe of the caudal fin is unlikely. I can't think of any chondrichthyans that have that condition. Carnoferox (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made all the requested changes. The new eye is based on lamnids like porbeagles and makos, and the lower jaw has been adjusted to more closely resemble the preserved skull. I have also changed the fins and gills to be more consistent with other caseodonts. Are there any other changes that should be made? Gasmasque (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Crocodilians of the Pebas Megawetlands

A series of size comparisons of the taxa native to the middle Miocene Pebas Formation that I've recently been working on, which might come in handy for future expansions of the respective articles Armin Reindl (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Norellius skull reconstruction

Reconstruction of the skull of Norellius. The article currently has no images. Based on figures in Conrad and Daza, 2015 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2015.980891) Crushed parts of the skull are not depicted in this reconstruction. Feedback appreciated. P2N2222A (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Debeerius in need of revision

The coloration of this Debeerius reconstruction does not match the patterns preserved in the holotype. The holotype has dark stripes running along the back and sides of the body.[14] Carnoferox (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not sure if visible fin rays is reasonable, looking at modern sharks and chimaeras. Maybe it would be worth making a new illustration entirely, the linework was a bit sketchy on this one. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have drawn up a restoration of Debeerius with coloration more closely based on the fossils. I've been told that this animal may have lacked an operculum, but other than that are there any other potential problems with the reconstruction? Gasmasque (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks really nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the extinct chondrichthyes stub template also be updated to use a different drawing? Right now it uses Ghedo's Debeerius, but it seems like an accurate illustration would be more fitting. Gasmasque (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura's Xenacanthus might be a good fit, since it's a very widespread and distinctive chondrichthyan. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Gills of Dvinosaurus

This reconstruction of Dvinosaurus primus have external gills. Over the years Dvinosaurus is considered as neotenic, even in the paper from 2020 writes that is neotenic,[15] but it is strange that this paper doesn't referred about "Bystrow's Paradox". In 2011, like Gerrothorax, it is considered that adult of Dvinosaurus had internal gills, not external ones.[16] Is that study denied about Dvinosaurus? Should D. primus have external gills? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Should be easy for me to remove them if we get consensus that they should be. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Since a figure of Dvinosaurus that is discussed about the existence of internal gills in this paper is D. primus, I think it is probably necessary to remove the gills.

I've removed the gills, also seems the other restoration in the article lacks gills. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be an off-colour outline around the animal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Annoying, wasn't visible on my screen unless I turned down brightness in Photoshop. Should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Head structure of Meganisoptera

Most Meganisoptera (especially Meganeura) reconstructions on Wikipedia are based on traditional reconstructions with discontinuous eyes. However, this reconstruction is based on a poorly preserved fossil of a insect from probably related group, called Erasipteroides. [17] According to recent study, [18] Meganeurites gracilipes have the only fully preserved head in Meganisoptera. Fused large compound eyes and developed mandibles can be seen. The problem is that Meganeura itself did not preserved the head, but I think it's a good idea to use it because Meganeurites is the only reliable record that can be based on the status quo. (There is reconstruction of Meganeuropsis based on that in Wikipedia. [19]) There is also fossil of Meganeurula selysii that preserved the head, but that fossil have been found to have "over-prepared". Kukalová-Peck claims to have reconstructed the heads of Meganeura and Meganeurula based on fossils, with detailed drawings of it, [20][21] but her papers are known for erroneous observations and over-interpretations and is not recommended for use as a source. [22][23][24] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sci Rep study states that the head and body of Meganeurula selysii were "overprepared" rather than deliberately forged. Also, as the only person to have attempted to substantially improve the Meganeura article in years. It's in such a bad state, I have no idea where to start to significantly improve it, much of the literature discussing the taxon is very obscure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the 2018 study did not mention the classification name "Meganisoptera", and it can be inferred that this classification is quite ambiguous. I've fixed about Meganeurula because may be misleading. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded images of Meganeurites from the 2018 paper to commons, and added the life restoration to the Meganeura article until somebody bothers to make a proper life restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is useful! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Manda Formation scene

I'm honestly surprised that this had not been brought up already. This was posted back in May, showing several Manda Formation animals interacting over a photo background. One could take issue with the general cluttered composition, blurry and indistinct forms, and the usage of a photo of uncertain origin as the background. But for now I'll just focus on the scientific issues. The Mandasuchus has a huge head, short limbs, and no apparent osteoderms, looking more like an erythrosuchid than a basal paracrocodylomorph. The Kannemeyeria has a blunt skull, more reminiscent of Placerias than the actual animal. I think the Nyasasaurus and Teleocrater have some kind of fuzz, which isn’t necessarily a problem itself, but it’s difficult to interpret the art regardless. I don’t think any interpretation of the perspective on Cynognathus would make its big wonky banana teeth accurate. The decision to have Kannemeyeria and Cynognathus interacting with the rest of the group is a bit suspect, since they likely fall into an older biostratigraphic zone (though the age of the Manda Beds is still debated). I’m also not sure how accurate the arid-looking background is, and whether it is acceptable under copyright. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If, as their username and userpage suggests, that they are 12 years old (god, I feel old), then I don't think we can be too harsh on them. I'd just suggest removing it and moving on, I don't think it can really be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Mosasaurus lemonnieri

The species lacks a proper life restoration surprisingly despite the rich fossil material we have. Restoration is primarily based on two specimens, the largely complete skeleton IRSNB 3119 and Lingham-Soliar's reconstruction of IRSNB 3127. Unlike typical mosasaurines, M. lemonnieri has a really long head-total length ratio. If Dollo (1892) is accurate in his measurements, this should be around 1:11. Looking to see if there's any anatomical issues I overlooked before adding to the Mosasaurus article. Macrophyseter | talk

Looks fairly good in terms of anatomy and patterning. I assume this is meant to reflect a typically-sized individual and not a large one (which I assume would be reflected in the jawline)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I suppose so. Macrophyseter | talk 04:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Arthropleura

New study of Arthropleura is published, that makes it as the largest arthropod ever lived. [25] But most of reconstructions, including one from the paper and all from Wikipedia, have problems with anatomy. Most of reconstructions make rounded sclerite as head, but it is possibly be a collum plate, and head should be under that. Also as Arthropleura is millipede, it is diplopodous, and Brauckmann (2017) [26] claims that should have 29 segments and 39 pairs of legs, similar to modern Polyxenida. Unpublished paper, Wilson (1999) [27] (needs EThOS account) shows the tail segment and collum with embayments, that is also seen in Microdecemplex, which is also described by WIlson. [28] collum with emnayments is also seen in this document. [29] But Brauckmann did not reconstructed the embayments, which he reconstructed as the placement of eyes in early study. There is possibility that embayments can be result of deformation, but I don't know, as there lacks documents about reconstruction of Arthropleura. The problem is that Brauckmann claims that Arthropleura and Eoarthropleura are sister of Polyxenida, and Microdecemplex is sister of Chilognatha, but Wilson claims that Arthropleuridea itself is siter of Chilognatha. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Junnn11: might be interested in this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The competing phylogeny is a notable concern to interpret the head, since Microdecemplex is the only arthropleurid with complete cephalic description, which bore some unique structures unseen in other millipedes (e.g. cylindrical lateral processes corresponded to the collum embayments; unsegmented and tapering putative antennae) [30]. If the embayments is true for Arthropleura's collum, it might indicate the presence of lateral processes in the unknown head (the reconstruction shown in Braddy et al. 2008 apparently reflect this interpretation). In my opinion, since the collum affinity of the anterior plate is widely accepted, and a ventral head completely covered by collum is plausible for millipedes (found in both Microdecemplex and polyxenid), showing the collum of Arthropleura without any secondary structures (specifically dorsal eyes/antennae, which reflect the outdated head interpretation) might be a way to avoid most of the inconsistencies.--Junnn11 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I made some diagrams for Arthropleura based on the interpretations noted above (references listed in each media). Hope it helps. Some novel features (e.g. anterior projections on 1st post-collum tergite; ovoid, lateroventral pleurite) from Wilson 1999 were tentatively not reconstructed due to the lack of mention in subsequent studies. As far as what I had read, the morphology (regardless of the function) of leg and associated plates seems to be largely unchanged since Rolfe & Ingham 1967.--Junnn11 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Dorsal full reconstruction
Anterior region
Leg and associated structures
Estimation of the new, largest specimen

Actually this looks really nice! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Lepidodendron life restorations

Lepidodendron by Triangulum
Lepidodendrob reconstruction by Falconaumanni

Unreviewed restorations. Not happy with the quality of the first restoration by Triangulum, the bark is just a flat texture, which is unrealistic, and given that this supposed to be a full-sized tree, the size of the individual scales (technically leaf bases) should be much smaller. The foliage and cones are also copied from photos of living conifers, and are unrealistic for a lycophyte. The second restorations by Falconaumanni's foliage also appears inaccurate. A proper restoration of mature aborescent lycophytes (Lepidodendron and kin) can be seen in figure 3 of Arborescent lycophyte growth in the late Carboniferous coal swamps (Open Access). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the photomanip style really doesn't work on the first one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Revueltosaurus needs rework?

This is reconstruction of Revueltosaurus that is used in article, but it seems to be that needs rework. Recent study [31] shows that had much larger, longer body compared with skull, and on the tip of the tail, there should be club-like osteoderm. I'm not familiar with pseudosuchian, so I'll leave the decision to others though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly the artist, Jeffrey Martz, is a co-author of that study. Wonder if he has made an updated version? FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the only proportional difference between Jeffrey Martz's original skeletal reconstruction[32] and the published version in the osteology is a slightly shorter tail. In his interview with Dave Hone (linked as a source in the image's description), he also comments that "There is a lot I would still like to do with paleoart. My life restorations are mostly still stuck in two-dimensional side-view mode. Showing animals from other angles like I did with Revueltosaurus is something I need to play with more". With both these in mind, I think we chalk up the proportions to the angle it's drawn at rather than outdated proportions, so I think it's fine to leave that be. The tubular tail osteoderm, on the other hand, is of course is still needed. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I also notice that the lateral osteoderms are missing (same with the old skeletal too). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Koolasuchus being too large

The scale of this reconstruction of Koolasuchus seems to be incorrect. When the height of a man is 180 cm, the length of the head of this Koolasuchus is close to 1 m, which is far from the actual value of about 65 cm. Probably the result of simply expanding the size of "total length of 5 m" from Siderops. Actually compared with fossil material of Koolasuchus[33] and full body skeleton of Siderops[34], it is suspicious that the value of 4-5 m in total length is reliable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I feel that the source of the size on the page is an old website, which is a bit unreliable. There is a book to describe Koolasuchus up to 3 m long[35], so it can be useable for source I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Western Interior Seaway bony fishes

My reconstructions of several bony fish from the Western Interior Seaway. I’ve noticed a lot of prehistoric fish restorations on wikipedia can be iffy anatomy-wise (missing fins, missing skull bones, shrinkwrapped soft tissue, etc.), so I hope these reconstructions can prove helpful for relevant articles. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think these are a vast improvement over the current reconstructions. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know much about fish, but these look really nice! I do have three comments, though: 1) Is Enchodus thought to be a deep-water fish? I've never seen it restored as such, but I'm not very familiar with this genus. 2) Are the white splotches on the postcranium of Protosphyraena supposed to be patterning or scarring? It might not be a bad idea to tone them down, unless of course they're genuine anatomical characteristics, though this really is more of an optional thing. 3) While I'm not very familiar with pachycormid phylogeny, isn't Bonnerichthys closely related to Leedsichthys? The tail here in particular seems a rather major departure from the anatomy latter taxon, and as far as I know isn't known in the former. Also, while this has no bearing on the accuracy of the reconstructions, I'd recommend using more specific categories than Paleontology and Paleoart on Commons. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Enchodus isn’t traditionally thought of as a deep water animal, however most if not all alepisauroids to my knowledge are somewhat mesopelagic. The appearance of my Enchodus is based off of photos of Sudis hylalina, which can have interestingly transparent/translucent skin. The grey marks on Protosphyraena are scars, inspired from living swordfish and sailfish. The body form of Bonnerichthys is inferred from a notable pattern where Cretaceous pachycormids seem to develop more compact bodies (ie. vallecillo pachycormid, Protosphyraena). Fishboy86164577 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Whats the inspiration for the colorscheme of Protosphyraena? It seems very different to billfish, which are usually considered modern analogues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The inspiration for the rich purples on the fins are colors sometimes expressed by Sailfish. The dark body is inspired by some swordfish individuals which seem to display a much more uniform dark color. Also it should be said Billfish being a comparable analogue does not mean they would have the same coloration, color and pattern are variable from animal to animal even when they are similar ecologically.Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these are quite nice, but they are also a little hard to see against the black background. Making them transparent might be better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally if giving them a different background I'd suggest white instead, transparency can be more annoying than helpful in my opinion Armin Reindl (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Armin here TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the backgrounds to white. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be safe to implement these into their respective articles now? -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Aesthetically, now they look good with the white background. If Hemiauchenia and Slate Weasel are fine with the explanations above then these could be considered passed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mixosaurus

Here's a Mixosaurus cornalianus, based on the skeletal diagram in Renesto et al. (2020). Currently the image is uncolored, but I thought I'd post it here before coloring it as it will be easier to fix earlier on. How does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks very good, the source is certainly the most up-to-date works on the species. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is minor, but the shading makes the dorsal lobe of the tail fin look thinner. Any reason to think that this should be the case? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be convention (although that's really a quite terrible argument), but I can think of some reasons for showing it this way. While from what I understand, the postflexural caudals of Mixosaurus are laterally compressed, they are still quite large. Additionally, in most sharks with low bend angles, the upper lobe seems to be thicker, and cetacean flukes generally seem to be fairly narrow (neither a perfect analogy, admittedly). However, it does look like I may have exaggerated it here, so I'll probably tone it down a bit before coloring. I'll also see if the literature has anything to say about this subject. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the colored version! Not sure how well it turned out, does it look okay or too flat? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks fairly good. Any chance of a white background? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed the background from black to white. I personally prefer the former, but I recognize that the latter is generally preferred. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Inostrancevia scale chart

Largest specimen. Canine exposure is still a possibility. Eotyrannu5-Returns (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree people are going overboard with covering the canines of everything these days, even modern opossums and Tasmanian devils often have exposed canines, though they're considerably shorter, so certainly not downright inaccurate. Nice plantigrade feet, only thing I'm wondering about is what's the current thinking about ear openings, seems it has one behind the jaw? FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that is the most likely position for an ear opening, if it did have an ear hole.Eotyrannu5-Returns (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Brachiosuchus reconstructions

Full body and skull reconstruction for Brachiosuchus to add to its page. The proportions for the body are mostly based on Dyrosaurus maghrebensis and Congosaurus, while the skull reconstruction takes cues from Dyrosaurus, Arambourgisuchus as well as elements of more basal taxa like Cerrejonisuchus and Anthracosuchus (the later of which I restored previously) Armin Reindl (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think when there is a lack of comments, it's usually because people can't find issues with the images, not because they're ignoring them. Looks good to me, though I'm no expert. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Homo sapiens VS Arctotherium angustidens size comparison

I created File:Homo sapiens VS Arctotherium angustidens size comparison.svg, is there any issue with the image in terms of accuracy? Is it suitable to be used on the Arctotherium page? Di (they-them) (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The cited size reference does not strike me as reliable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Head looks too large. You should compare with skeletal materials.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Chinlea

This Chinlea looks like having too long body compared with actual fossil specimen [36] and closely related Parnaibaia. Also, shape of tail fin is not acceptable for coelacanths I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And there is a book that describes skeletal reconstruction of Chinlea. [37] Tail shape doesn't match well. Is that possible that is based on "large specimen" of Chinlea? It is described as 80 cm long in the paper, [38] but there is description in the book to show that is normally around 60 cm but sometimes reached around 150 cm long. [39] That size and weight is previously written in the page but I deleted, as that large specimen looks like not described in the paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Molaria

I made this piece in IbisPaint, sorry if it looks kinda rushed or something. Thoughts?

the background is really dark and I can hardly see the subject Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally unrelated, Dunk, but your signature is massive for some reason... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the animal looks considerably less rotund than fossils would seem to suggest? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on (so far the only detailed) redescription by Whittington 1981 (fig. 73-74 showing reconstruction), antennae very short, eyes absent, body segments more regular with posterior tapering, telson slender and multisegmented. If the featured species is M. spinifera, the trunk will be 8-segmented with an elongated terminal section (trunk 9-segmented without elongated section in M. steini [40]).--Junnn11 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Osmolskina

Looks a bit rough but still in the page. I am not good at anatomy of Euparkeriidae, but do someone have opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

well regardless of anatomy it feels noteworthy to mention that it's basically just a redraw of Nobu Tamura's Euparkeria Armin Reindl (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This should certainly not be retained on the page; apart from its artistic qualities, it has most of the same problems as NT's Euparkeria, which failed review back in 2020. The wildly inconsistent foot anatomy and general lack of realism (in regards to weight distribution and such) also stand out. But we don't need to belabor the point, let's just slap on an inaccuracy tag and move on. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I've tagged it inaccurate. Thank you for researching! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Malpaisomys (lava mouse) restoration

Doesn't seem to have been reviewed. Currently used in the Lava mouse article. A skeletal reconstruction (minus the tail) can be seen here (Open access) in case anybody wants to try and judge the proportions. The genus has been shown to be nested within Mus so living members of that genus can be used to judge life appearance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Judging visually (as an amateur for the record) I think the proportions of the illustration match the skeleton pretty well. As a mouse I don't think the illustration is implausible in terms of accuracy in any way. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the restoration, which I uploaded a couple of years ago. The idea was to post it here for review, but I kept leaving it for later and it was never done. I noticed it was added to the article, so thanks for the review. Perhaps it's also of interest to review these other 2 restorations I made of Canariomys, extinct rats of the Canary islands. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A study came out a few months ago showing that Canariomys is nested within the African grass rat species complex, so it should look like them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mcqueenoceras

The page Mcqueenoceras has no image, and there is a file (File:"Mcqueenoceras cariniferum" is an extinct cephalopod (a member of the group including squids and octopi) that lived during the (12feda3c-f838-4f3e-984c-eadb8cb13e7f).png on Commons of a restoration made by the US National Parks Service. Is this image suitable for the page? Di (they-them) (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The image is wrong and cannot be used. See here: [41] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus

Hello. I made an additional reconstruction of Dunkleosteus terrelli to replace some of the outdated artwork on the page (the image that includes the size comparison). Let me know if there are any issues. PaleoEquii (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Paging Carnoferox. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

looks excellent to me. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add, it looks ready to go to me. Carnoferox (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely stunning. The work of a true artist. Positively photorealistic. It looks like it was caught just yesterday. @PaleoEquii:, mind if you share your secrets? Like what app do you use or how did you make that texture? Miracusaurs (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Miracusaurs I'd advise not just posting compliments, but actually contributing to the discussion. Thanks, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fingers of temnospondyl

Cyclotosaurus
Metoposaurus

We should see about numbers of foreleg fingers of temnospondyl, especially for Metoposaurus and Capitosauria. According to this study,[42] it seems that Metoposaurus (Not Metoposauridae, as Dutuitosaurus had four fingers) and Capitosaur temnospondyls had evidence of pentadactyly of the manus, unlike other temnospondyls like Eryops. For example, on these reconstruction, only Cyclotosaurus have five fingers on the manus, but not for Metoposaurus. I think there are other reconstruction that have same issues. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So only the Metoposaurus is wrong here? Other things about them that should be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, only Metoposaurus is wrong here. But there should be other images that have wrong numbers of fingers. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that only two named temnospondyl species have evidence for five fingers on their hands: Metoposaurus krasiejowensis and Paracyclotosaurus davidi, and in the latter there is some uncertainty. Given the variation in digit number within a family, and the overall rarity of five-fingered hands, I wouldn't necessarily say that there is a "right" number of fingers for capitosaurian and Metoposaurus restorations. I'm also not sure whether the Metoposaurus image actually has four fingers; the hand blends into the color of the body and one could interpret a grey smudge above the white band as a fifth finger. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That is true. Then we should see reconstructions of these two species. These are reconstruction of M. krasieiowensis and P. davidi with four fingers. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The next question then, what placement and size should the missing finger have? FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In "Metoposaurus_diagnosticus_kraselovi_1DB.jpg", probably before the front finger, compared with Figure 3 in paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added fingers and hid teeth in the above. Feel free to add more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks really nice. Thanks! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cladoselache fyleri

updated restoration of C. fyleri based on more modern anatomical knowledge and phylogenetic placement to replace the out of date restoration on the current cladoselache page EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As discussed off-site, I think it's an excellent life restoration. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does it look like there is only one fin spine? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no direct evidence for a spine on the second dorsal, even if some old diagrams reconstruct Cladoselache with one. Moreover, the fin spine of Cladoselache is probably homologous with the head structures of symoriiforms, which do not have a spine on their single rear-positioned dorsal fin anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looks good otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If the old restoration[43] is outdated, it should have the inaccurate tag added with a rationale so others don't use it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some aspects of the old Cladoselache are uncertain disagreements (six gills, second dorsal spine, no claspers, etc.) while others are clear inaccuracies (exposed radials, no caudal keels, etc.) I can add an inaccuracy tag. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)