I always show the teeth of my pycnodontid restorations, but that's just me. I otherwise see no (obvious) problems with your restoration. Mr Fink (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the eurpterid Slimonia acuminata. It also shows the chelicerae, which the other reconstructions don't, and the grasping legs are more detailed and are held in a more lifelife position. PaleoEquii (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Are there twelve segments? I think so but it's a bit hard to differentiate them. The color is quite crustacean-like. We know the color of some eurypterids like Megalograptus, in its case was brown or black. These patterns over red, I think they could have been preserved somehow (considering we do know the color of some eurypterids) if they existed, so since we lack evidence of this I think they're speculative. I am not sure about the number of podomeres (segments of the appendages) in Slimonia, it'd be better if the article's writer could comment here. To do a standing position for a eurypterid is quite daring and I am not sure amateur artists should engage in such complications, at least with this level of detail. I've written several eurypterid articles and I just found out about what setae means. I did not read much about Pentecopterus but I was one of the two main contributors to the good topic Pterygotoidea and I am not sure they had them. And I find the digital 3D rendering to look kind of artificial. All respect to PaleoEquii, whom I thank for expanding our gallery on eurypterids, but I would rather not use this image. I am very perfectionist though so also focus on other editors' words if someone else comments. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
That felt unjustifiably rude so I’m having a hard time writing a succinct reply, but I will try. Lesmahagow fossils would almost certainly not preserve colour or patterning in any reliable form, and I think a more red colouration is entirely plausible. Regarding the number of segments and podomeres, do not assume I did no research to make this. I referenced the easily accessible monograph on the species, as well as the paper by Lamsdell describing its chelicerae, and lastly on a walking leg fossil of this species I have in my own possession. If there is a more specific comment on the number of segments in any part of the body I would be happy to hear it. Skipping over the comment about amateur artist. I’m not sure why the comment about your knowledge of the setae is relevant, given Eurypterids did have them, including pterygotioids - the exact distribution I cannot be sure of, other than the edge of the prosoma and the telson. The last comment is also entirely disrespectful and irrelevant, and I'm not sure what you expected. PaleoEquii (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it looks very good. We should all remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when it comes to fossilized pigments. Melanosomes and other dark pigments are the only types which are readily capable of fossilizing, and in modern animals they often act as a 'backdrop' for brighter and less taphonomically stable pigments. With modern crustaceans and arachnids as a comparison, I would argue that many species of eurypterids were perfectly capable of presenting bold colors and patterns. SD's comment about "standing position" may be a misinterpretation of the pose. This Wikipedia-friendly version of PaleoEquii's Slimonia art is modified from a gloomier "life environment" variant of the same art, where it is more clearly suspended in the water. Finally, I should note that there is strong evidence for the presence of Chelicerae [EDIT: setae] in Slimonia, according to "The Chelicerae of Slimonia (Eurypterida; Pterygotoidea)" by Lamsdell (2022). NGPezz (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I apologize to PaleoEquii for disheartening them and for quite assuming language, it was not my intention. I hold my position regarding the coloring and pattern, but I was not implying segments or podomeres were wrong. As for the setae I clarify that I've just never see them mentioned in any eurypterid article here in Wikipedia, not even in Eurypterid. As for NGPezz, I was also not implying Slimonia had no chelicerae, all eurypterids indeed did, it's one of their main features.
Oops, I accidentally wrote "chelicerae" when I meant to write setae, which the paper I mentioned does discuss. Thanks for catching that. I'm still of the opinion that this piece of art has no issues in need of correction. NGPezz (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Sclerorhynchus and its comparison with other sawed cartilaginous fish
Hello. May I ask for another review again? I am thinking about uploading this image for Sclerorhynchus or Sclerorhynchidae page. I think there aren't many Sclerorhynchus reconstruction on the internet especially the one that compare them with other sawed fish. So is this image good enough to be uploaded? Thank you.
Comparison between common sawshark (Pristiophorus cirratus), Sclerorhynchus atavus, and largetooth sawfish (Pristis pristis). Not for scale
This is a great idea for a diagram. We could use the comparison of the three groups for the Sclerorhynchoidei page and then a version with just Sclerorhynchus for the Sclerorhynchus page. The Sclerorhynchus does need some adjustment in its proportions though. The eyes should be further back, the pectoral and pelvic fins should be wider, the tail should be thinner, and the dorsal fins should be longer (in dorsal view). Here is the link to my redlining of your drawing that shows more accurate proportions: [1] Additionally, on the top half of the diagram you should move Sclerorhynchus in between Pristis and Pristiophorus to match the bottom half. Carnoferox (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, thank you very much for the reference and opinion. I will try redraw them if I got the time by using your reference. I can't change it digitally because I am drawing them on paper. Thank you once again. DD (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother again but may I ask for review again? I have tried to make a new Sclerorhynchus reconstruction based on the reference that Carnoferox sent me in the previous thread. Is this good enough? I haven't got time to draw the other sawed fish though. DD (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Sclerorhynchus atavus
I approve of this new Sclerorhynchus and I added it into your original image with the sawfish and sawshark. I also cleaned up both images so they're ready to be posted on the Sclerorhynchoidei and Sclerorhynchus pages. We'll wait to see if anyone else has comments and if not, then I'll post them. Carnoferox (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the approval and also thank you very much for updating the image! I am sorry for the inconvenience from editing my image. DD (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
So according to the recently published paper on the Waukesha Biota by Gass and Braddy, this restoration of Thylacares by nixillustration is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, so it should be usable?. In that case, there is a discrepancy between the appendages of the illustrations. Some, like Nix, depict it with long, multisegmented appendages that droop downwards. Others, however, like the 2014 paper depict it with smaller, more claw-like appendages. Did a paper get published that changed this, or is it just speculation. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I would be inclined to trust what Nix's website says over what the paper says. There's no evidence of a CC-BY license anywhere on Nix's entry including the image [2]. You could try asking Nix about it, but I suspect it's a mistake on the part of the paper authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Added speedy deletion template now. (Well it looks like Nix's art that was remained in Commons for the longest time was Argentoconodon that was commissioned by Falconfly...) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I made some time ago the restoration for the notoungulate Huilatherium. I made a recent illustration in which I based the body in a more close relative, Taubatherium, showing a more gracile body and a longer neck. Any thoughts before upload it? Rextron (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is anything of the body known from other leontiniids? I checked a few recent phylogenies and it seems like most of the clade usually collapses into some kind of polytomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is the skeleton of Scarrittia[3] and the skeleton of Taubatherium[4] To my knowledge, although some groups as the notohippids are paraphyletic, leontiniids are still together.--Rextron (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I am sorry for keep asking for review, but can I get some opinion about this image I am planning to upload on the placoderm page? This is an image of various placoderm reconstruction that represent most the order (as far as I know). But I think I made this reconstruction for quite a while (like 3 years ago?). Hence I don't know if there are major changes for the reconstruction of these placoderms. So if I may ask, is this image good enough to be uploaded? Thank you...
As I see problems are Campbellodus lacking nasal cartilage (see fig. 5 of here,[5] some reconstructs ptyctodontids having a pair of "horn" on nose but actually should support nasal cartilage) and Coccosteus lacking ceratotrichia on dorsal fin (see this post[6]). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see. You are right especially about the ceratotrichia. No wonder recent reconstruction show that arthrodire having a shark-like dorsal fins.. Okay then, thank you for the input. I will make the newer version of these fishes if I am planning to upload it into placoderm page.. DD (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Request: Dwarf Stegodon size comparison
3.87 m tall specimen of S. zdanskyiSize comparison
I hope this isn't too onerous a request, given that we already have a Stegodon size comparison to work with, that can just be converted into a silhouette and scaled to match the shoulder height of other species. The shoulder height of this individual of S. zdanskyi is 3.87 m according to the source paper, though unfortunately no direct scale bar is provided. Other species that have been given shoulder height estimates in the literature include Stegodon trigonocephalus, which has a shoulder height of around 2.8 m, Stegodon sondaari at about 1.2 m, Stegodon florensis florensis with a shoulder height of 1.9 m, and Stegodon florensis insularis at 1.3 m. The sources for these estimates are listed in Dwarf_elephant#Indonesia_and_the_Philippines. Other species have been given % reduction in body mass estimates, but I don't think those would be easy to scale for a diagram. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks nice. I can't comment on the anatomy, but that should be fine since it seems to follow the skeletal. Most of my comments are just personal preference for what I think these should ideally look like:
The human silhouette is strangely amorphous in places.
I think it's preferable (though not necessary) to have a background grid. This helps viewers observe the length/height at a glance.
Yellow is much harder to see compared to the other two colors.
I would increase the opacity slightly for each of them so the silhouettes can be differentiated more easily.
Overlapping legs (especially purple/blue here) can make it hard to tell which pair belongs to which animal. This isn't a huge issue here, but spacing them out a little might help.
Nice! Could we get a Stegodon ganesa size comparison as well (SH: 3.1 m)? -Otodusm (talk) 9:00, 14 October 2023 (CET)
Xenodens
Hello again. May I ask for another review of my reconstruction? Recently I tried to reconstruct Xenodens based on the paper that was published by Longrich, et al. (2021). So far, the Xenodens page only have the fossil photos for the accompanying image. That is why I want to add my reconstruction if it is sufficient enough. Thank you again for the time and any opinion..
Sorry if I am my assumption is wrong, but I assume my reconstruction more or less kind of okay? There are no major inaccuracies? If so, I will upload it into Xenodens page. But by all means please delete it if it is deemed inaccurate.. DD (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know much about mosasaurs, but I think it looks nice. Maybe the lower jaw in the open-mouth restoration is too thin, compared to the skull drawing next to it? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I observed that this image make the jaw appear thinner than the real dimension of the komodo dragon skull if look from sideview. But that maybe just me and my misperception. Once again, if it is deemed to inaccurate or not good artistically, please just delete the image.. DD (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Diplobune and size comparisons
Here's reconstructions of Diplobune minor and secundaria. I also went ahead and did some size comparison graphics for the taxa I worked on previously. I had already been scaling them for fun/personal reference as I worked on these so it's not much additional effort. Hope these prove helpful!
Very nice! A couple comments on the size charts: The labels seem a little inconsistent (i.e. Cereste specimen/specimen from Itardes, instead of Cereste specimen/Itardes specimen). Also don't forget that genus/species names should be italicized. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded new versions of the charts with more consistent labels. It's unfortunate a lot of these weren't described with proper specimen numbers as far as I can tell. Triloboii (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to respond, but yeah, these look good! It would probably be of interest to mention the Ham 3 individual being a reported immature one as according to Hooker in 2007, but its article already mentions that in the size subsection. PrimalMustelid (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Daeodon by Max Bellomio (uploaded by AC Tartarinov, so I'm not sure about copyright)
Both of these images are currently used, but neither has been reviewed. At first glance the render is technically impressive and well excecuted. The first image was uploaded by Max Bellomio himself, while the second was uploaded by A. C. Tartarinov presumably because he thought the author would be okay with it after they uploaded the first image. I don't know enough about entelodonts to say anything meaningful about their accuracy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
After this review of Prorotodactylus, I noticed Anthropornis image added by @Caz41985: without review, and see other images that are unreviewed. As I see, Anthropornis image is problematic by oversize of emperor penguin, it cannot reach 1.2 meter of standing height, just body length (length tip of beak to tail) is around 1.2 m. This paper[8] actually mentions standing height of emperor penguin ranges up to around a meter, Prévost (1961) reported up to 1.08 m tall, Friedman (1945) measured 0.83–0.97 m for 22 wild penguins, 0.81–0.94 m for authors obtained from skin specimens in AMNH. I am not sure if Anthropornis itself have proportional error or not though. Simply shrinking scale bar as 1 m would best way if proportion is ok, since if scale bar is 1.2 m, Anthropornis is oversized as well as become 1.8 m tall, and 2.2 m long including beak. 1.8 m should be body length of Anthropornis as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Also looks like licensing is doubted by Commons so Anthropornis image would be removed soon unless author will contact e-mail anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Since this user seems to be continuously uploading, perhaps would be an idea to contact them on their talk page to notify them about the role of the review page. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
While I think it generally looks good, think there's something off about the Gryphoceratops fingers. On the left hand, the first clawed finger would be so far towards the midline that the hand would have to be pronated for the finger to fit in this view, but on the right hand it's clear that it's not supposed to be pronated. So my guess is that the first non-clawed finger of the left hand should actually be clawed, and that its missing one non-clawed finger. FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Robertia is supposed to have a skull similar to Eosimops (I can't find direct resources for the former), so I'm having difficulty reconciling the protruding eyesockets and shallow mandible in this reconstruction with Eosimops: [9]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The reconstruction for Homotherium looks off, as it resembles more a nimravid (i.e. Hoplophoneus or Sansanosmilus) than machairodontines because of the restoration's flatter head that looks more like a nimravid but without the elongated upper canines. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can see where the artist is coming from assuming that they borrowed from Mauricio Anton's artwork of Homotherium. However, Mauricio's restoration of Homotherium has the head connected to the rest of the body without any clear outlines whereas the outline of the Homotherium image here has an outline for the back of the head that makes it look as if the head is not well-connected to the rest of the body. Also, the snout is a bit too long and narrow, so it'd be very easy to confuse it with how nimravids like Sansanosmilus are depicted, such as this restoration of the Miocene nimravid by Mauricio Anton. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Having Anthropornis look exactly like a modern emperor penguin and then having it compared to a silhouetted emperor penguin is extremely confusing. It would make way more sense to have a lifelike drawing of an emperor penguin compared to a silhouette of Anthropornis, or the colour scheme of the drawing could be modified to make it look less like an emperor penguin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yeah, since image just includes scientific name, people who is not familiar with that would be confuse. Although it looks too close to emperor penguin, beak length is somewhat referring skull material?[11]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I can maybe update the old version by also removing the human. We don't need a scale in a restoration when there already is a dedicated diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Following this image[13], I've made the jaw deeper, the spikes shorter and straighter, and removed the extra finger claws. I also removed the human, which is kind of useless. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
HI! I've been doing digital reconstructions of various paleofauna over this year. How are my reconstructions for these species? I'd like to insert them into their respective wiki pages if accepted. Opinions welcome.
Pagodroma721 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for putting them up for review. Some of them have been discussed before, and the feet of the elephant birds seem to be overly robust, about twice as thick as would be imn0plied by the bones. Would it be possible to make them closer to the skeletons? FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Size chart of Hughmilleria by @Slate Weasel:, but it looks like became outdated. Study in 2022[14] shows H. wangi from Chongqing Lagerstätte. In the original description of that species,[15] it lacked tip of telson, but specimen shown in 2022 study clearly indicate much longer and sharper telson compared to H. socialis. Also although it was originally considered as the smallest pterygotoid with length only around 6 cm, isolated carapace (d in Fig.1 on 2022 study) shows much larger specimen, probably reaches cf. 15-20 cm, but since lacking actual measurement and only scale bars exist, I am not sure that is possible to treat as legit size or not. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Ta-tea-two-te-to: updated, how does this look? (I must confess that my knowledge of arthropod anatomy is pretty poor.) I scaled the silhouette to the size of the specimen preserving the complete telson based on the scale bar, since the specimen is nearly complete (disregarding the limbs) I think this should probably be fine. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The now banned user Falconfly was notorious for sneakily inserting their own weird ideas into articles, and some of this happened through commissioned paleoart and compilation images. Notably a lot of art depicting mammals only known from teeth as flying, all of which luckily got deleted as "out of scope" after years of wrangling. But I noticed they still have a bunch of uploads left, most of which was never reviewed, and much of which is in use. So here it is for evaluation. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the cladogram was created in the phylogenetic program TNT, and the lack of credit may run into trouble with the TNT usage license. Besides, image-based cladograms are generally subpar for Wikipedia's purposes anyways. The eutricodont collage presents art with no relation to Falconfly whatsoever, so it's unproblematic, for once. NGPezz (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. Sorry for keep asking for a review again. Can I get some opinion of my Tarjadia reconstruction? I just stumbled upon this species few days ago and it seems there are not many reconstruction of this animal eventhough its remains are fairly complete. So I tried to do it and want to know if is this good enough to be uploaded on the Tarjadia page? Thank you as always..
ah, thank you.. Yes, I based it on that reconstruction. And you arw also right about the tail. I am kind of unsure when drawing the tail. If I am basing it on Nix Illustration (which we all know are usually reliable), the tail look stiff. But if from what I seen in Gabriel Ugueto's Parringtonia reconstruction which is also an erpetosuchid, the tail look drooping to the point of touching the ground. So I guess I tried to find a middle way? But that is just me too. Perhaps other have different opinion? DD (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Erpetosuchids and other early pseudosuchians had the same strong tail and hip muscles as dinosaurs, so any tail orientation that would look acceptable on a quadrupedal dinosaur would look acceptable here. I strongly suspect that the relatively bendy tail of the skeletal reconstruction is artistic license due to space constraints of the image. NGPezz (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, I guess the tail is still acceptable then. And make sense about the space constraint reason.. Thank you for the input and opinion! DD (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You can look under "file usage" where a file is linked from, and no, it seems it isn't linked from a paleoart review archive. This is the case for most of NT's art, though, after he left as a regular editor (because Commons admins kept mistakenly deleting his files as copyvios), he just kept uploading files without adding them to any articles or review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been wanting to do some illustrations for a bit and this first one is of the mawsoniid parnaibaia. For the reconstruction i used the description paper (Yoshitaka Yabumoto "A new Mesozoic coelacanth from Brazil (Sarcopterygii, Actinistia)," Paleontological Research 12(4), 329-343, (1 December 2008). https://doi.org/10.2517/prpsj.12.329). I'd rather have it reviewed before I upload it since it's a genus with not much info outside of the original paper and I may have missing something. SeismicShrimp (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This image was just uploaded and added by this user, called " Frank Markussen". It is weird that I couldn't find any other works by this artist, this user only contributed for that and searching this name don't result paleoart other than this. Now, I noticed this work is pretty close to 3D model by Raul Lunia[16] who is known as creator of models that is used for most of "stock photo dinosaurs". Here is link of Raul's model of Cronopio on sell.[17] It is clearly exactly same models, and since it is paid model, it is problematic to use it in Commons? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There are a variety of anatomical problems with it. The elongate upper canine is much too short, and the profile of the head doesn't actually reflect the morphology of the skull. Compare to the official life restoration associated with the paper [19]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, it seems like all other restorations show it with exposed canines too... But I thought that was a no-no now! FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Made the snout longer and broader, but keep in mind that the NT image is in a very different perspective than the reference images, so there's a greater deal of foreshortening. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Jfstudiospaleoart we appreciate your efforts, but don't forget that your illustrations need to be reviewed here before being added to pages.
I'm no mammal expert, but the claws on most of them look cartoonishly large.
Tylocephalonyx and Borissiakia would probably be better in more neutral poses—right now the posture/perspective looks quite awkward, almost as if they are walking bipedally. Also in Borissiakia, the right foot is closer to the "ground" than the left foot, which is unnatural.
For Zhuchengtyrannus, it appears the tip of the lower jaw has been accidentally erased. The soft tissue around the mouth also looks strange, with excessively droopy flesh around the top and exposed teeth on the bottom. What is this based on? It would be best to go off of the recent study on the matter. The legs might be a little too short, as well.
NT Tullimonstrum looks like having too robust jaw compared to reconstruction in McCoy et al. (2016).[21] Other reconstructions that interpreted as vertebrate have issues, model have eyes too back, one by Entelognathus have completely speculative keels, and for one by Prehistorica details may not be clear and eyes may be too high. While article Marine life had NT's one as image, so I replaced it to fossil image but reverted by Epipelagic. Since most of reconstructions are drawn as vertebrates, I think it is best to create diagrammatic one that shows multiple interpretations, for example Mikami et al. (2023) have easy-to-understand figure.[22]Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
How does this look. Now that I use an online website, I can easily edit this. The one on the top reflects the older invertebrate hypothesis, while the one on the bottom reflects the more recent vertebrate/chordate hypothesis. Are there any inaccuracies here?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be usable at the moment. The lines are too thick and the illustration looks sloppy. It is best to indicate what structure was estimated in each paper, rather than just the two estimates of vertebrate/invertebrate. I would like to try this, but I have no plans to do so at the moment because I need to spend time on my graduation research. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought I remembered that the art of the now inactive editor Smokeybjb had mainly been reviewed (and that I had commented on some of it, maybe skectes were posted first?), but seems a huge chunk of it never was, so I've given it its own subsection below because there's so much of it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Well like I said in an earlier discussion, I don't think we should jump on the subdermal osteoderm idea immediately. The conclusion adds up, but it was a really recent publication so I think its worth waiting to see how other papers treat it before going around editing every notosuchian piece of art there is on Wikimedia. That aside, the authors make specific mention of leatherback and softshell turtles as potential analogues in soft tissue, tho again, given we only have one study going into this I could just as much see other interpretations of the overlying soft tissue pop (some artists outside of wikimedia have already began playing around). The bigger issue with the Armadillosuchus is that it takes clear inspiration from the mounted reconstruction, which is largely speculative and doesn't accurately reflect the osteoderm arrangement. Based on the type description, the osteoderms appear to have not extended as far latero-ventrally as seen in the mount and wouldn't have formed that taco-shell as I tend to call it. There's also the fact that the "mobile bands" as described in the paper lose some of the lateral aspect further back. So the first five bands are described as being two double rows (four parallel osteoderms) with the 6th and 7th being a single double row, likely continuing as a traditional double row over the rest of the body (I hope my description is clear enough). The other crocs are largely fine, a bit rough in terms of detail perhaps but nothing outright inaccurate as far as my knowledge on these specific taxa goes. The osteoderms on Voay are a bit clunky if I had to point something out, but again that seems to be more connected to detail and style. Chances are they'd be more akin to that of Crocodylus given they are phylogenetically close (C. thorbjarnarsoni by Smokeybjb is a great reconstruction I want to add) Armin Reindl (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Good to know, I don't think I'll touch it then. By the way, the caption of the Yarasuchus says "Outdated life restoration depicting Yarasuchus as a "raisuchian" with osteoderms". But it isn't tagged as inaccurate, and is this the consensus view? Can it be saved somehow? By removing the back osteoderms? FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Osteoderms are indeed improbable for Yarasuchus. The pose and anatomy are based off a skeletal in the original 2005 description, which considered it a particularly lithe 'prestosuchid' rather than its current position as an aphanosaur. Admittedly the anatomy is incompletely known in this genus, but the stylistic issues with the art (sunken fenestrae, strangely asymmetrical fingers) are a bigger concern in my opinion. @DrawingDinosaurs: wrote most of the article and can elaborate further. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, wouldnt beaded lizards make a somehow better comparison for the "hidden" osteoderms than turtles? The notosuchian armor would have to be mobile after all, way different from a turtle's shell. Juandertal (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Idk I didn't study the osteoderms, it's simply what the authors suggest, as I recall based on the structure of the osteoderms themselves. Tho again, that's why I argue that we should not fully committ to the idea until other researchers have weighed in with their publications. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The hupehsuchians look pretty skinny, perhaps too much so. Might be perspective but their mandibles look extremely narrow compared to their upper jaws. Also, not sure if this is technically inaccurate, but I'm not a huge fan of the extremely prominent digits with frog-like webbing, that looks more like what I'd expect for a semiaquatic animal like a frog, otter, or duck rather than something that probably spent its whole life in the water. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we have any articulated mandibles of Hupehsuchus, but I'd imagine that the lower and upper jaws would be of fairly similar width, as in Eretmorhipis: [26]. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, Witton's hupehsuchians seem to have much less prominent digits than Smokeybjb's, however, what I think is the only life restoration in the literature (in Carroll & Dong, 1991; I can send the restoration to you over Discord if you wish) seems to show very prominent digits, so this probably isn't something we can really change in the image (I guess it just reminds me of the "ray-finned" mosasaur trope). The sunken supratemporal fenestrae on Hupehsuchus still probably should be painted over. I also do wonder if the lower layers of osteoderms in hupehsuchians would have been subcutaneous; I think that's how they're depicted in the life restoration in Carroll & Dong, though that could just be low resolution obscuring details (and it looks like that's not how Witton restored them, so maybe not). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. I am sorry in advance, but may I get some review for my proterochampsids reconstructions? Recently I am interested with this group and decided to make some reconstructions of them. I have draw most of the genus especially that haven't got any images on their page. For most of the reconstructions, I am using fossil photos and descriptions from a paper by Trotteyn, et al. (2014). I will include the link to the paper below. So can I use these images for the genus table on the Proterochampsidae page and their respective pages? Thank you very much and sorry if this thread is taking your time..
A little of side notes: I am aware that Stenoscelida remains are only its right hind limb bones. That is why I had to use the silhouette from the official reconstruction as the main reference. I am sorry if it seems lazy for me.
For the Proterochampsa, I am also aware that the page still have Nobu Tamura reconstruction on it. But without any intention to belittle him, I find his version to be too crocodilian-like. The osteoderms also are too numerous while it is said that so far we haven't found any of Proterochampsa osteoderm yet (although it is maybe due to preservation factor).
I am relieved if it is not just me and thank you for the opinion.. Then, are these images good enough to represent each genus that haven't got their reconstruction images? DD (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
These are quite nice, and I agree that the Proterochampsa is a notable improvement. I was wondering whether you've factored in the distinctive foot anatomy of proterochampsids (enlarged second toe, reduced fifth toe), since it's not entirely clear from this angle. Also, just a general tip if you're posting multiple images in a row, a gallery would be convenient if you want to display them horizontally. NGPezz (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the appreaciation and opinion.. Yes I have factored the reduced fifth toe and enlarged second toe although yes unfortunately some of them are kind of hard to be seen. I used Gabriel Ugueto reconstruction of them as the based for the finger shape and position.. I also tried to reconstruct the osteoderm based on their description like if the species have osteoderm or not.
User:A. C. Tatarinov (Yes, again) uploaded multiple cropped files of paper figures containing multiple fauna, and looks like they expanded resolution with some kind of de-pixelization AI. Look at second file, poor Pliodasypus armadillo lost its eye... Note that with Creative Commons, uploader have to indicate if changes are made. How should we do to these images? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why they couldn't have just cropped the image, the use of AI here makes the images look more sloppy and less detailed. And as Ta-tea mentioned, some of the animals are being distorted because of the AI. I would not use these, and simply crop out the specific fauna needed. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, the eyes of Falcontoxodon and C. falconensis look strange even in the original image, almost as if the artist forgot to add the eyes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Going onto wikicommons and expanding the original images, they already look fine, so i'm not sure why A.C. couldn't have just cropped them normally. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for bothering again, but may I get another review for my reconstruction? I am planning to upload this Impidens reconstruction for its page. But to be frank, I would like some opinion if it is good enough since I am having quite a hard time drawing it. There aren't many references that I can use so I mainly observed Gabriel Ugueto and Joschua Knuppe version as an example. I also reconstruct the head by using the mandible photos and drawing of Trirachodon and Cricodon skull.
No you are fine, this is what the page is for. One thing I will note is that it looks like the cynodont here has whiskers on its snout. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure facial hair is a contentious topic when it comes to protomammals. I could be completely wrong on that, but aside from that this looks pretty good. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thank you for the appreciation and opinion! Yes, I am aware that the existence of whiskers in protomammal are still debatable. I guess I am too heavily relied on Gabriel Ugueto reconstruction that show Impidens with whiskers? If it is deemed too speculative, I will gladly try to fix it by erasing the whiskers or cover it.. DD (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information! That is a really useful information for me to be aware of when reconstructing protomammals in the future.. If the proportion are nice and accurate enough, I will upload this version but after the whiskers have been erased or covered a bit.. DD (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I will try to get at least Klallamornis and Plotopteridae, maybe also Tonsala to Good Article status, and I think a sizechart, at least, would be a great addition for the quality of the articles. I could try to do one myself, but my graphical skills are next to nonexistant... There is 16 taxa to represent : Empeirodytes, Phocavis, Plotopterum (joaquinensis and sp.), Stemec, Stenornis, Copepteryx (hexeris and titan), Hokkaidornis, Klallamornis (abyssa, buchanani, clarki and cf. K. clarki), Olympidytes and Tonsala. Another reconstruction would be great (Nobu Tamura's Copepteryx is getting a bit old), but as it's a much more complicated task it's not a priority right now.
While I'm at it, using this as an occasion for reviewing the old Copepteryx by Nobu Tamura. While it is from 2008, it was made before the bulk of the plotopterid articles in the 2010s, so it might be slightly outdated, although I don't see any major issues on it - the beak might be a bit speculative, and it might be a bit skinwrapped compared to modern pelagic birds. Larrayal (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe some of us could divide them between us? Though I personally don't know much about them, so will need some guidance. NT's can probably be fixed easily if issues are pointed out. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd say the most wanted would be either Klallamornis or Tonsala, those are the best known genera (with Copepteryx, for which Nobu Tamura's still mostly holds up). On the global appearance, the pose should be upright like modern penguins. For the colouration, modern and recently extinct penguins, giant auks and flightless cormorants had generally a black back, and sometimes a white belly. I think Tamura went for that, and it would be a more conservative stance. In the other hand, plotopterids are speculatively nested the sister group of a clade including Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae and Anhingidae, so a lighter colouration could be possible, although those black and white colourations evolved for a reason. Note also that it was a near contemporary of the crimson-and-grey penguin Inkayacu. The legs. Normally, unlike modern suliformes, the nostril should be a narrow opening instead of completely absent. For non-feathered tissues, two options : either pitch black (like gannets and most cormorants) or bright colored (as in boobies, some shags and anhingas) like pale yellow, pink, red and blue - and we see the same kind of colours in penguins. Given the purported sexual dimorphism present in plotopterids, both possibilities are valid. The feet is completely palmed. For references, large pelagic suliformes are good, like Brandt's cormorant, great cormorant and Abbott's booby. For the wings, they are mostly similar to penguins, and probably would have a fat coat (although less important than modern penguins, which lives in a much colder environment, so no lumps of fat around the neck.) The great auk is also a good reference for the wings, don't use the flightless cormorant, it's a feet propeller. For the eyes, either blue (cormorants), brown (anhingas) or pale (boobies). No indications on soft tissues, those of sulids are the most likely to represent an archaic form. Larrayal (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice, I may tackle one by drawing over some loose sketches I did after great auk specimens. But do we know if they would have walked on their metatarsals like great auks apparently did? If not, they probably rested like that anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Normally, yes, at least for sitting. Not much is said about it in the paper, other than their stance on land was very similar to that. Larrayal (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Before I take it further, Larrayal, how is something like this for a start?[29] based on that Japanese Copepteryx skeletal on top of a great auk. I guess it could go for any genus you want. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Which Japanese Copepteryx ? The only mounted specimen of Copepteryx that I know of is in Moscow, but there's two mounted specimens of Hokkaidornis at the Ashoro museum in Japan. Regardless, both species are pretty close, so it wouldn't be a faulty reconstruction. Otherwise, pretty good reconstruction, no flaws other than the tail who could be a little bit longer, like those of penguins and unlike the great auk. Larrayal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I meant a skeletal from that Japanese paper Ta-tea-two-te-to linked earlier. And yeah, the tail is the only thing I didn't change from the great auk sketch, there's not enough room on the paper, so I'll have to lengthen it digitally hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's[30] with a longer tail and more clean up, Larrayal, how does it look, before I go on? Should the plumage be smoother like in penguins, or like now, a bit more scraggly like in modern relatives? And I'll leave you to decide what genus it should represent. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems quite good ! The plumage could indeed be a bit smoother as in gannets and penguins, indeed. Should be good to use on any good page, I hope to get Klallamornis in GA by the end of summer so it would be appreciated for it without modifications, but a new Copepteryx could be good too. Plotopterid taxonomy is mostly about sizes anyway. Larrayal (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go with Klallamornis, I think it's a "waste" to illustrate something that already has an image, especially since so many of them have nothing, and I'd rather modify the existing Copepteryx if there are some pointers as to what to fix. I'll smoothen the contours of my sketch and follow your colour suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I've added the colourised restoration on the right, Larrayal, based on various cormorants. The plumage is a bit smoother than before. I labelled it as Klallamornis abyssa because it's the type species, but feel free to suggest if another species makes more sense. I've written in the description that it's based on the more complete Copepteryx, but feel free to change that if it's inaccurate. Will be interesting to see if others join in on making these restorations, seems there are a lot to go, so maybe I would make one more. We could probably need one genus swimming. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away for a good month, couldn't take a proper look at it. The final result is quite good, I have nothing to criticize on that and should be good to use as is currently.
For the swimming pose, it would probably be quite similar to penguins, with the wings used for propulsion and the legs kept along the body or, at most, very seldom used for steering and turning, though some taxa might have been using their feet a bit more often than earlier thought ; the stance at sea wouldn't be too different of a large penguin with the neck and face of a cormorant. A membrane covering the eye underwater wouldn't be visible, as in modern gannets and cormorants. In case of any doubt when using penguin references, you can also refer to images of gannets and boobies underwater ; they've vastly different adaptations than plotopterids, which are much more similar to penguins, but they are wing-propelled divers too and have a substantially similar overall anatomy. Don't use cormorants or anhingas, they are foot-propelled divers. The wings would be even more robust than a modern penguin, with a visibly longer humerus ; overall a bit closer to the wings of an oversized great auk than of modern penguins. Hope that helps ! Larrayal (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Yep, sorry. I've been pretty busy last month. I've some project for the future, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to tackle them, will make sure to notify you if help is needed somewhere ! In the meantime, if you want to do some bird reconstructions, you might be interested at reconstructing Annakacygna, as it's still lacking any kind of images. Larrayal (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Usually we don't "have" to review museum images, like we don't review images from journals, but of course such images can still have inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The Halkeria is inaccurate due the central palmate scales being hexagonal, which is definitely not what they are in real specimens [31] , which I've previously noted elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm an illustrator who dabbles in paleoart, and I'd like to provide illustrations for Wikipedia paleontology articles that may be in need of life restorations, as a way of giving back to this great resource. I'm happy to tackle whatever part of the animal kingdom needs a little more love (plus the Ediacaran biota!), so if anybody has any species they would like to see illustrated, please let me know. I'm very new to the whole formal scientific illustration thing, so I welcome any and all feedback as the whole point of this is (as you well know) to produce accurate reconstructions for educational purposes.
Nice to hear, what groups would you consider your favourites to illustrate? Because there's plenty to go around in all of them... FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You can look at the link below for various species I've doodled, but generally I enjoy illustrating stuff that tends to be a bit overlooked and underappreciated by the public at large, such as Cambrian fauna, therapsids, pterosaurs, and less iconic dinosaur groups like basal sauropods and oviraptorids. I also like to try to bring better-known groups up to date with the latest research, because I would like the general public and popular culture to have a more accurate image of these animals rather than continuing to rely on decades-old reconstructions and paleoart memes.
Also, thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I've seen it around and it's quite well done. I think your illustrations bring a lot of life and interest to the paleontology pages. Kylinxia (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Also it would be helpful to see your previous works. My request is Xiushanosteus and Tujiaaspis, important early vertebrates described last year but not have pages yet due to lack of image probably. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a bit embarrassing, but I have no idea how to upload images here... anyway, here are some sketches of the species you requested. I'd like to get some feedback before finishing them.
No worries! It can be a little confusing at first. You can upload your work to Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard tool. Also, it looks like you might need to change the Google Drive links so anyone with the links can view. I currently get a "You need access" message. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I replaced the original Xiushanosteus image file with a more polished version, so if it's still showing up as a sketch, just clear your browser cache. I'll have Tujiaaspis done in a bit. Kylinxia (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded a new version. I guess I was so focused on getting the head elements right that I forgot to count the number of fins. I will finish Tujiaaspis ASAP. Kylinxia (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I've suddenly become more busy than I anticipated and I don't think I'll be able to finish Tujiaaspis any time soon. Hopefully the Xiushanosteus illustration will be of some use. Kylinxia (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Please ignore my earlier message about Tujiaaspis; I've recently restructured some things and I'd love to keep contributing when I have the time. I'll try to get Tujiaaspis done sometime this week. Kylinxia (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, thank you for offering to help out and give back. There's always more work to be done than we have the people and/or time to do it. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Can I ask for another review of my reconstruction? I have made a reconstruction of several borioteiioids that have a decent skeletal reconstruction. I don't know why but as far as I am aware, there are very few of borioteiioid species reconstruction available on internet. That is why I am having a quite difficult time when reconstructing them. I mainly use teiids as reference for the scales since most recent phylogenic studies said that they are borioteiioids closest relatives? If my reconstruction is good enough, I am planning to upload it on Polyglyphanodontia page.. Thank you once again.
These are the reference that I used for drawing their skull:
Reconstruction of Various Borioteiioidea. First row: Adamisaurus, Polyglyphanodon, Tuberocephalosaurus. Second row: Tianyusaurus, Gilmoreteius, Darchansaurus. Third row: Sineoamphisbaena.
I am sorry if i am mistake, but i presume there aren't major issues with the reconstruction? If it is so, may I upload it into the Polyglyphanodontia page for showing the variety of the group? Thank you in advance.. DD (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't too long ago when I learned that Rarosaurus was the indet. Polycotylid from Jordan. When I did, I was so excited that I wanted to do art for it right away not just for Wikipedia, but for just how fascinating of a Plesiosaur this was already. The only problem with this art piece though is the fact that the figures from the original paper describing this animal can't be found anywhere online. I used both Dolichorhynchops and (slightly) Thililua for reference. I hope this is okay! Please let me know your thoughts.
I can't give any comments on the postcranial anatomy since that's unknown, but the rostrum in this reconstruction looks similar enough to the fossil material. You'd have to find someone more knowledgeable about polycotylids to assess the rest of the head and body. Carnoferox (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I hope I'm not bothering anybody, but I have made a restoration of the Ordovician nectocarid Nectocotis. I know my paleoart isn't the best, but I will fix any mistakes present in this. By the way, I based this mainly on the figure present in Smith, 2020. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
For nectocaridids I think we should wait until new study about its affinity releases. There is abstract that will describe large amiskwiid from Sirius Passet and reconsider about affinity of nectocaridids. Smith supports cephalopod affinity of that which is mostly denied by other researchers. (Have you seen my DM on Discord anyway? I sent link of usable server to discuss about paleo-aquatic fauna.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
D. secundaria
D. minor
Anoplotherium chart
Bachitherium chart
Diplobune chart
Daeodon by Max Bellomio (uploaded by author)
Daeodon by Max Bellomio (uploaded by AC Tartarinov, so I'm not sure about copyright)
Updated one
Aepyornis maximus (male)
Ninoziphius platyrostris
Aepyornis maximus (female and juvenile)
Mullerornis modestus
.png)
.png)
Avian convergence
Compilation of eutriconodonts
Allotheria Cladogram Per Chimento 2015
Bonus Ergilornis
Cropped NT one
Old one by Avancna
model uploaded by HFoxii
One by Entelognathus
One by Prehistorica
.jpg)
SSTM 5025 (Nanchangosaurus sp.)
Original file
Original file but already modified to expand resolution, now reverted
Original file, already modified to expand resolution but now uploaded better one
Original file
_cf._Didelphis_sp._(2)_cf._%E2%80%A0Proeremotherium_sp._(3)_aff._%E2%80%A0Holmesina_floridanus._(4)_%E2%80%A0Pliodasypus_vergelianus.png)
._Walking_with_sabertooths_(fig._8).png)
._Walking_with_sabertooths_(fig._8).png)
Ediacaran alga
Ediacaran jellyfish
nautiloid
.png)
Anomalocaris (tagged as inaccurate)
Dunkleosteus (tagged as inaccurate)
Hallucigenis (tagged as inaccurate)
Wiwaxia (looks like having wrong scale placement, will tag)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://i.imgur.com/WlEQYOk.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scarrittia_canquelensis_43.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://jornalcontato.com.br/home/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Taubatherium.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://i.imgur.com/gswU2eT.png){kind=link}
![[12]](https://i.imgur.com/l9wwZP6.png){kind=link}
![[13]](https://dinopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Iguanodon?file=Iggy.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cronopio_dentiacutus.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://i.imgur.com/eZz7BQx.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://i.imgur.com/fCUqWsf.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/68c9e8ce-1018-48d3-8e83-04fec0164db8/zsc_177_f1.gif){kind=link}
