Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Dinosaurs Project‑class

	Dinosaurs portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Problems with uploading new images

Hello guys! I have got a problem with uploading images. They have started a new system of uploading images on commons. How shall it be used? when I write which image I want to upload as a new image and write what I have changed, they say that there already is a version of the file. When I should upload new versions of my Scipionyx, it became 2 extra versions instead! And I had to write new categories, licenses tec. Can you help me? How shall I do so it just becomes a "New version" of the previous file? Conty 08:30 13 April 2010.

I had the same problem yesterday, but it worked after a while, I think because I checked "ignore warnings". FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had this problem too. The trick is to check the box at the bottom to "Ignore warnings." Then it should work. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoration advise from Bob Bakker

Just stumbled across this, and it covers some stuff we've been talking about here (number of claws, knees and so on), as well as much else: http://blog.hmns.org/?p=1094 Seems to be for kids, but interesting anyway, here's a video about the same thing with Bakker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIBm-BjWoBg&feature=player_embedded#! FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, here is an interesting article about restoration advice given to Julius Csotonyi by Royal Tyrrell Museum researchers:[1] Look at the notes on the images, reminiscent of the stuff you'd see on our review page, and seems even the "pros" get stuff wrong at first iteration... FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Toy based on Wikipedia paleoart

This is pretty funny: http://www.dinotoyblog.com/2011/04/02/ampelosaurus-collecta/ FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, is this a violation of the CC license, assuming they don't give any credit to the artist? MMartyniuk (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because that specific image was released into the public domain[2], so they don't have to credit him, but doing so would had been nice anyway of course... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Slightly related, I discovered this weird meta thing, an image of Segnosaurus I drew and uploaded for Wikipedia years ago, now used in a Polish museums display next to actual fossils, and a picture of this display has then been uploaded to Wikimedia again... My mind is blown. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
More fun use of Wiki images, Thomas Holtz used size diagrams by our very own Dinoguy and Conty during a lecture: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.dk/2013/08/youtuber-ana-mcmullen-has-uploaded.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Even stranger, the math website http://www.khanacademy.org/ created by Sal Khan uses File:Ankylosaurus dinosaur.png in one of its videos. see here. Iainstein (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Retooling of images

Since there are so many articles that lack images, I was thinking of retooling some images I have made that are now slightly redundant, since the articles they are in now have more than one restoration. So what I was thinking is that I would delete a file and then reupload it under the name of a related animal, for example I would reupload the image I made of Coelurus as Mirischia, and then voila, all our compsognathid articles are illustrated. Anyone have anything against that? Other possible candidates for retooling are the Bambiraptor, Neovenator, and Caulkicephalus I made. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed, but I would suggest some simple image manipulation to make the images at least a little different, because, you know. For example, a quick palate rotation or brightness/contrast adjustment. de Bivort 04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that all the time anyway, so they'll soon look different enough. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

With some modifications, Coelurus is now Mirischia, Bambiraptor is Graciliraptor, Neovenator is Chilantaisaurus, Caulkicephalus is Ludodactylus, if the images need to be edited further to match, please notify me. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a restoration I made of Eolambia is now anatomically outdated, so I modified it to match the known remains of Tanius [3] and placed it there instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate size diagram

This size diagram indicates that Alamosaurus sanjuanensis was ~50 ft. A new paper, however, finds a specimen attributable with a cervical vertebra comparable in size to the enormous Puertasaurus. It needs to be amended and I have tried here with a basic photo editor. Thoughts? Taylor Reints (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought about updating the image when I first heard of the new specimen, there are a few problems however. There are several reconstructions availible for the more complete smaller specimens, so size estimations are more certain. On top of that there is a publish figure with scale bar that can be used for reference and cited. The new paper describes only three incomplete bones that are refered to Alamosaurus, because of this, no reconstruction or total length estimates are given. I'm not sure what to do with this diagram, the scale of any silhouette will be basically made up. Sometime tomorrow I will add a note in the description mentioning the new larger specimen and clarifying the specimen that the silhouette is based on. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost contributors

We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin

Now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArthurWeasley

Hope they'll come back anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm not as active an illustrator as I used to be, but I still feel like an active member of the WP:Dino illustrators community. This is a serious blow. de Bivort 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the rest of us'll have to work overtime to keep up... I'd like to see more of your stuff, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

proscribing problematic pronation?

Hi all - So, I wonder about removing images if they have known anatomical flaws? For example, most/all of the hadrosaur images I made have been removed for having pronated hands. A lot of skeleton photos have also been removed. Would it not be preferable to note in the caption that the hands were not pronated, but keep the illustrations? If a single flaw, even a comparatively small one, is sufficient to remove an image forever, this strikes me as a strong discouragement to image creation. I dunno, what do you all think? de Bivort

I've brought it up before: [4] I think we should at least discuss it before removing everything (especially since some featured articles have been left without taxobox images). I don't doubt the finding, but it isn't very obvious when a hadrosaur hand is pronated/not pronated, the figures in the paper[5] make this obvious. Key line: "and the palms face caudomedially, though more medially than caudally." It would not really be visible in a restoration, since most of the "action" happens inside (crossing of radius and ulna), and the palms would not face each other (see footprint diagram), as in other groups. Contrary to the situation with theropods and ceratopsians. So I think we should take the images on a case by case basis here. Albertonykus should be notified of this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Gah, so sorry for the inconvenience! I should check the talk pages here more often. I concur that there is a good amount of leeway in the interpretation of life restorations here, and that a more detailed examination of each image is in order. The footprints (and the study itself) do appear to rule out a fully caudally-facing posture for the palms though, so I still support purging/editing images that unequivocally show the hands pointing backward. Otherwise do feel free to undo any of the damage I may have wrought. Curses! Albertonykus (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Because some of the skeletons and restorations were wrong no doubt, I've not reverted ally our edits at all. For example, Debivort's image here[6] shows the thumb very far back on the right hand, which indicates the arm is rotated too far. Could you fix it, Debivort? As for skeletons, this[7] shows obvious rotation of the left lower arm, so I'll have to look for a new image it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, wrong mounts can be valuable from a historical perspective, for example the AMNH Anatosaurus skeletons. Such should not be used in the taxobox, however. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to avoid removing mounts that were specifically captioned as being outdated/historical in the articles they appeared on. Albertonykus (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But what do you guys think about the principle here. My instincts say that it's better to have an image with a minor known flaw(s) – while acknowledging the flaw in the caption – than to remove an image all together (especially in image sparse articles). After all, we know that the reconstructions have several to many flaws, we just don't know what they are at first. de Bivort 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, we have an abundance of hadrosaur images, so the only one that was left entirely "naked" was Secernosaurus. It was relatively easy to find replacements for the rest. But I'm tempted to say an article could have a slightly incorrect image, as long as it is the only one we have, until we can find replacements. In any case, I've restored most of the images that were removed, because they were not actually incorrect, per that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whew, many thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Will try not to perform wholesale overhauls like that under such ambiguous circumstances in the future. Albertonykus (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, was forced to modify a few images as well[8][9][10], which is always a fun challenge! FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I made this attempt to fix it quickly, but does it look right? I've totally confused myself. [11]. Seems like the other leg is wrong now. Can you point me to a good example? de Bivort 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's too drastic, you could move it just to the middle of the hand, like this[12] (roughly done here). The other hand looks fine. If you look at the footprints in figure 6[13], the hand isn't really turned so much. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a slightly inaccurate depiction (particularly a museum specimen, whether it's an actual fossil or a cast) is much preferable to having no image at all. They should be marked in the captions as outdated, but there's no reason, IMO, to completely remove an image because of what appears to be a common problem found in many museum displays. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite puzzling how some museums have mounted their dinosaurs. As Mallison also pointed out for Plateosaurus, here's a Bactrosaurus where the radius and ulna do not only cross, but their connection to the wrist has been reversed![14] That is completely unknown in any animals, and is not just an outdated error, but a complete anatomical failure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, but if it's a choice between no image and an image where two bones incorrectly cross one another, I'm definitely in favor of retaining the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Luckily in this case, I just found another unused image of an actual fossil, and added it instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now we're on the issue of restoring hadrosaur hands, something just occurred to me which I have never seen addressed before. If the ancestral condition for archosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs (the condition is seen in theropods, ceratopsians, thyreophorans, sauropodomorphs, etc.), is to have clawless digit four and five on the hands, all restorations of hadrosaurs (disregarding the issue of whether the unguals were entirely covered in pads) with three hand claws would be wrong. If they had any hand claws, there would only be two, on digit two and three, since digit one, the thumb spike, was lost. The only artist I've seen restore it this way is Bob Bakker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this and I haven't been able to figure it out from lit searchers (not that I have much lit on hadrosaurids unfortunately). I'm pretty sure I've read that footprint evidence shows three functional claws on the forelimb. Unless this is misinterpreted, it would probably mean that the claw was re-evolved or frame-shifted onto digit 4. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even modern crocodiles have unguals on digit four and five, yet no external claw. The hadrosaur handprints I've seen just seem to show an elongated blob... In any case, such a fourht claw would had been very small:[15] Most restorations show all three at nearly equal size. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur spine flexibility

Exactly how flexible were Dinosaur's spines? I'd assume they would be mostly rigid, considering that Bird's spines are. But there is no specific guideline on the flexibility of their spines, have there been any studies trying to determine how much dinosaurs could move their spines? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in birds, most trunk vertebrae are fused together (sacrum and notarium), making the spine rigid. This is because birds don't like their spine bending downwards each time they make a wing beat. Non-avan dinosaurs usually don't fly, and most trunk vertebrae are free (moveable against each other). Its no problem to estimate the flexibility of the spine: the structures that limit flexibility are the articular processes (pre- and postzygapophyses), and by looking at these processes you will be able to draw conclusions about spine flexibility. However, some dinosaurs show additional features that make the spine more rigid, e.g. accessorary articular processes, ossified tendons, and stuff like that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Image for Arcovenator

I've been working on the article and to my surprise someone did hazard a full body image. Are such scant remains worth the bother? Or should we circumscribe the reconstructive efforts to what body parts have been reconstructed in the paper itself (in this case, the head)? --Dracontes (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, in any case, it seems to be tipping over. The uploader never posts his images here, and they usually have problems. I have no problem with hypothetical illustrations, as long as they don't have direct mistakes. But this one does. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect the skin to be a lot knobbier in an abelisaur, feathers or not... MMartyniuk (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Feathered coelophysoid from Liaoning

Just saw this, pretty incredible, third picture from the bottom: http://www.palaeocast.com/episode-39-dinosaurs-of-alberta/ So though it is already a trend, seems we'll have to draw our primitive theropods with feathers from now on. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Truly unique! Well, most images might stay accurate, as the feathers seem to only be on the head, neck, and forelimb, the regions that tend to be drawn with feathers. IJReid ^discuss 22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The images of Gojirasaurus, Tawa (dinosaur), Segisaurus, Camposaurus and others would be incorrect... Probably other primitive theropods would need feathers too. We can perhaps ask Tomopteryx to fix the Camposaurus, but the rest would have to be done by us. And by the way, Currie mentions in the interview that now not only one but four theropods with feathers are known form Dinosaur Park! FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the fossil in question looks like a compsognathid. It bares a particular resemblance to GMV 2124. So I'd wait for a publication before jumping all over this. That said, if you want me to change the Camposaurus I can. If this thing gets published and is a coelophysid then I'll more like just do a whole new image for the animal. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can wait! Am I the only one who didn't know about that specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hindsight, I definitely think that is a compsognathid. Liaoning is nearly all Cretaceous deposits, and a coelophysoid from there would almost certainly cause a humungous ghost lineage. Also, coelophysoids tend to have longer snouts and flat skull roofs. IJReid ^discuss 14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tend to doesn't mean always do, though; adaptation makes things look very different to others in their family. That, and there's already possible ginormous ghost lineages in theropods already (maniraptors, if Eshanosaurus is a therizinosaur) and the chances of fossilization is actually really low; so if it is a coelophysid, that merely means many coelophysid genera were around during the gap, but weren't fossilized. As for the specimen's identity, comparing the shape of the skull to both those of Coelophysis and Sinosauropteryx shows that the known elements have more similarities to the skull of Coelophysis than the skull of Sinosauropteryx; though it also seems to be slightly crushed, and a portion of the upper jaw is missing, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of "OMG CRETACEOUS COELOPHYSID" juuuust yet. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It says Liaoning, not Jehol, so it could be middle Jurassic, which would be less unusual. There are Tiaojishan Formation sites in Liaoning. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

When drawing to Lepidus, a friend gave me this link to the another discovery showing a ichnofossil of Eubrontes, showing that this had protofeathers [16]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Those Eubrontes were probably made by a dilophosaurid, and this has been covered on TetZoo. The identity of the marks as feathers has been questioned. [17] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There are several studies that relate to Eubrontes with coelophysoidea, here are three publications:

Harris et al., eds., 2006, The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 37. Milner ARC.

Harris JD, Lockley MG, Kirkland JI, Matthews NA (2009) Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4591.

Gierlinski 1997 What type of feathers could nonavian dinosaurs have, according to an Early Jurassic ichnological evidence from Massachussetts?. Przeglad Geologiezny. vol. 45. nr 4, 1997.

And Eubrontes is coelophysoidea for several reasons; Chronologically data especially in the upper Triassic to Jurassic, so basal Tetanurae Saurischia or discarded, was abundant at one with them and now comes a study that will try to show that their morphology is clearly coelophysoidea. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Two Wikipedia images in Nature!

This figure is funny[18], they use a silhouette of my Aristosuchus for Dilong (which was based on the Coelurus skeletal by Jamie Headden), and Conty's silhouette of Dryptosaurus, though credited to T.M. Keesey (I guess because they found it on Phylopic?). So better upload some more images here! FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Troodon

http://sta.sh/01nhlmh28diw

Hello, my name is Midiaou Diallo. I usually specialize in either Paleoart or Speculative Evolution. I noticed the Wikipedia page for Troodon lacked any proper illustrations, thus I decided to make my own reconstruction of the animal. Two females playing in the snow. Scott Hartman's skeletal was used as a reference.The animals were given pseudo-beaks, hardened skin that has nearly fused scales, as true beaks aren't capable of overlapping teeth. This was done due to their close relationships with avians. Tongues were also given prongs towards the back, due to modern birds having odd integument placed on the tongues based on diet and size. Certain Troodontids, although possibly omnivorous, could possibly host said prongs (looking at you, eagles and herons).The claws are longer than in the skeletal due to them having keratin on them. Lighter color variation given due to winter season. Midiaou Diallo (talk)

Hi there, I don't see the image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now I see! Which Troodon species is it supposed to be? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Troodon inequalis Midiaou Diallo (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, do we know if there was snow in its environment? FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added the image. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The license is non-commercial, though, so it will be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll get in touch with Midiaou about the license. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

License edited to reflect original license on artist's page.

http://midiaou.deviantart.com/art/Possibly-Wikipedia-630328546 Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we have Midiaou Diallo confirm here that it's the original license, in case we run into trouble? FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm Midiaou Diallo (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Though I don't know much about the relevant climate, it looks anatomically correct to me. Hope to see more contributions, your gallery looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yay! Can't wait to see it put up. Have something else coming up any moment now ;)Midiaou Diallo (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Now added to the paleobiology section. I moved the old restoration closer to the skeletal it was based on, which is kind of interesting to show, how the bones are fleshed out in a sense... Anyhow, feel free to post future works in progress on the "main" review page (this is only a talk page mainly used for discussing the review page itself). FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

totally good and acceptable for me Levi bernardo (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What to do about theropod lips

The theory about theropod lips[19] is sure to be treated like gospel (already is) once published, but will have wide ramifications if we "enforce" its findings. Personally, I'm not convinced (mole rats have exposed teeth covered in enamel[20], for example), as it only takes one exception to make their conclusion unreliable, and we need some confirmation from other researchers as well. Anyhow should we 1: Remove all restorations of dinosaurs without lips? 2: Only replace images that show exposed teeth if we have available replacements that show lips? 3: Use both until the theory has been dealt with by other researchers? I'm for 3... If 1 is chosen, this would logically extend to sabre-toothed mammals as well (or rather, all non-amphibious animals that have enamel covered teeth)... For the record, I of course believe that theropods could have had lips, I'm just not convinced that they should be depicted with lips. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaur 'Lips' are going to be controversial until fossilized facial skin is preserved. I prefer lips for most theropods with the possible exception of spinosaurs, especially Spinosaurus. That said, I agree with option 3 for the time being, that we can include both. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think spinosaurs would be exempt due to their supposedly amphibious habits, according to that theory. But I think you'd need much more than just comparative anatomy to determine whether enamel needs hydration to exist... Experimental work, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for Spinosaurus are actually to do this it's maxilla teeth, they jut out sideways at an angle. You can kind of see it in these pictures. [21] [22] [23] It's probably not impossible for soft tissues to cover them but I find it hard to imagine. It's teeth don't hang down vertically like most theropods which could theoretically just slide into a bottom lip, it would need a specialized lip structure to encase those teeth. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes me think of some pterosaurs as well. Didn't they have enamel covered teeth too? Some of those tooth configurations would be impossible to fully cover in lips... Not that I've ever heard anyone even suggest pterosaurs had lips? But that is a ramification of the theory; all teeth with enamel supposedly need hydration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems Mark Witton just made some of the exact same points here:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I was at the zoo a few weeks ago, and noticed that the canines of most of the Tasmanian devils there were poking out of the mouth of most individuals even when closed:[25] I wonder if that "hydration" paper will ever be accepted by a journal... FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

See also here on page 93 for a new abstract relevant for life reconstructions: "No lips for T.rex" ([SVP 2017 Programm and Abstracts]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

We should not rely on that paper at all. It has been stated by many paleontologists at many places that crocodilians do not have face scales, they have cracked keratin covering their face. So the "large flat scales" present according to this paper, and based entirely on crocodilians, is woefully incorrect. In addition the lacking of lips is only mentioned as impossible because theres no "room" for them between the "scales" and the tooth row, while "scales" could extend onto lips, and the attachments where lips would be are not covered. Luckily this paper is not published yet, so we can reasonably disregard it without worrying about OR. IJReid ^discuss 22:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

They used the same kinds of bony landmarks that have for example been used for figuring out the facial integument of Pachyrhinosaurus. Though they may incorrectly use the word "scale", this doesn't itself invalidate the finding of the paper (which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just this abstract). Whether these structures are called scales or cracks doesn't really change the fact that they exist on crocodiles, and could also exist on theropods. That said, it doesn't seem that either camp has a solid case at the moment, so I think it's a free-for-all until that pesky mummified theropod head is found... Though we might be more lucky with Burmese amber... Which leads me to this photo of a baby-bird of some sort in amber:[26] That's even more well-preserved than anything published so far, but I think it may be privately owned... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding illustration to Zhongjianosaurus

Hello fellow editors of Wikipedia, I was wondering if I could possibly add my depiction of the animal (as seen here: http://midiaou.deviantart.com/art/Zhongjianosaurus-674801147). I added the proper copy right and publication edits, so it should be good to go. Midiaou Diallo (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It says "No Derivative Works 3.0 License", though, only commercial licenses are allowed... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Thought I had that in before. Midiaou Diallo (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool. The easiest way would just be to make a Wikimedia Commons account and upload it directly there (so no one will doubt it is your image). FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate restorations published in CC-licensed journal articles

This is an issue I've been thinking about for a while, but the life restoration[27] in the recent, free Corythoraptor Nature paper made me want to bring it up here (it appears to lack primary feathers on the second finger, as would be present following phylogenetic bracketing). It happens depressingly often that peer-reviewed journal articles include life restorations that have anatomical inacuracies, at least in respect to what is the common consensus among the more life appearance-minded palaeontologists and palaeoartists. Wikipedia is always in dire need of free imagery, but sometimes these inaccurate images turn up in CC-licensed papers too, which means that even if we can legally use the images here, we may not want to do so, due to their apparent inaccuracies, which is of course an unfortunate dilemma.

In some cases, I have modified such journal images (like this Carnotaurus[28], by making the eyes smaller and removing the hand-claws), but such tampering could also seem like WP:original research; who are we to disagree with how an animal is depicted in a peer-reviewed paper, in images supposedly approved by the article's authors? This free restoration of Beibeilong also appears to show a pronated hand[29], but would be much harder to modify due to the style, but does this mean we shouldn't use it? Other images are so blatantly inaccurate that we probably can't use them for anything, for example these pachycephalosaur restorations[30] which don't even seem to match skeletal elements of the animals they are supposed to depict, in addition to other errors... So what to do? Scrap images even if they have minor errors? Is modification of such images "original research"? Any thoughts are welcome... FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it's okay to modify official reconstructions as long as there is no specific justification in the body of the paper for the way the reconstruction is made. See also Scott Hartman's commentary on schematic vs realistic skeletal reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, for the record, you mean this[31] post? FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Integrated image request?

We often need size charts and restorations for various articles that people are working on expanding, but it occurred to me that it would be rather hard to request a specific image being made. We do have an old "most wanted images"[32] section at the almost forgotten "signup sheet" page, but I think few people have it watchlisted or even kow about it, and requests placed there have been hanging for years now. So I was thinking that maybe we should use the review page, since this is what most people watch anyway. This worked when I requested a scale chart during the Stegoceras restoration review, for example.[33] A request for an image could be added to the list just like an image for review, but it could just be titled "Request: Somethingsaurus size chart" or "Request: Somethingsaurus life restoration" to differentiate from restoration reviews. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be better than the old system we never really remembered about. IJReid ^discuss 01:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We never had a description of what this page was for, so I added a little intro, including the possibility of "requests", with this edit:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Shortcut

I already brought this up on the image review page, but since many people use this page, it might be nice to have a shortcut. I have no idea about the rules for making shortcuts (not to mention if they even exist), so I will leave this up to other editors. Opinions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think IJReid is our most Wiki-technical member... FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Seeing as I've just made one for the Cladogram Requests I think one for here is simply work. Would WP:DINOREV be acceptable? IJReid ^discuss 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe more specific? Review could mean any kind of peer review as well... DINOARTREV? A bit long... DINOART? FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. DINOART seems good, not like we have anything else that could be. I'll create it now (nothing more than a redirect :P) IJReid ^discuss 23:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could also make WP:PALEOART, but that's a discussion for another page... --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Approved Images Category

Category:Approved dinosaur images does not seem to be used, unless we only have 6 accurate images. Should we start using it again, or possibly create a reviewed paleoart template on Commons, just not do anything, or do something completely different? (It seems like now would be a good time to make these descisions, as WP:DINO is having a bit of a remodeling!) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you can follow the links for pretty much every reviewed image back to this review page if you click on them, I think the category is a redundant left-over... Especially since images that are inaccurate are now tagged as such on Commons, so we already have an exclusion method... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The category doesn't seem to have much use, since nowadays most images used have been reviewed in some way. IJReid ^discuss 00:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I noticed that articles on Acta Palaeontologica Polonica are released under CC BY 4.0 [35]. Surely that means we can use images from them freely here? So long as it's properly attributed etc... or am I missing something? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, we already have quite a few[36] of them actually! FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the link! Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Colouring and removing background from preexisting images

I've come across plenty of times where people have taken current life restorations, and edited them to remove the background, or add colour, and then uploading them as a new file. I'm pinging users specifically involved Mariomassone Steveoc 86 Tomopteryx just to name the ones I can remember. I think we should try to create a policy on such occassions, such as requesting to the original author for an update to colour or remove an off-white background, or overwriting files instead of creating many duplicates (not all of which are accurate). IJReid ^discuss 04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Others: Levi bernardo Paleocolour Fred Wierum FunkMonk Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the licence of a given image on Commons dictates what's allowed to be done with it. Only images that can be "remixed" or modified are allowed to be uploaded there. So permission ins't really needed, but one can always ask. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In my case, I'm doing it to illustrate cladograms, and thought that the original uploaders wouldn't have time to do so. Sorry if this has caused alarm. Mariomassone (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if my images get cutout and coloured, so long as they don't introduce inaccuracies. I like to be informed just so I know if I update an illustration I might have to update other 'spin-offs' as well. I think that it's best if the duplicates serve a purpose; obviously, I think we should reduce the number of duplicates but I like what mariomassone is doing with the cladograms. I wouldn't want users just arbitrarily cropping and flipping if it wasn't adding anything of value. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the colouration, maybe just dial them back so they look more natural; reduce the Saturation a little and maybe reduce the opacity of the overlay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion at least, we do not need all the duplicates we have. I don't think creating all the (flipped) images is really important, if the only difference is getting the animal to face the other way. File:"Ornithomimus" sp. by Tom Parker.png and File:-Ornithomimus- sp. by Tom Parker (flipped).png have no difference except the way the animal faces and the colouring, so I'm wondering if the duplicate is really necessary to illustrate cladograms. IJReid ^discuss 14:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I do like consistency and standardizing. I like when things all face the same way, it pleases my OCD. ;) When placing an image in an article you can decide for example what side the image alignes to, or how big the thumbnail is using certain wiki codes; is there wiki code to flip and image without permanently changing the file? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a MOS guideline at least that says the subject of an image should preferably face the text, so there is some use for flipped images in that regard. But I'm pretty sure there's no automatic way to flip images... Also note, when Carnotaurus was on the main page, one of the admins actually uploaded a flipped version[37] of one of the restorations to be displayed there... FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, a flipped version of your original upload of the Indosuchus illustration would make a neat addition to the Ceratosauria cladogram. Mariomassone (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On this note, the pose was originally more standard running pose, as you can see in the earlier version of the file I just restored:[38] Maybe I should revert back to the old version? Anyhow, feel free to use the old version and flip it if you want, Mariomassone, then we have both anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk Done, see Ceratosauria page. Thank you Mariomassone (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice the old version wasn't made in vain after all! I reposed many illustrations a while back (to differentiate them more from the skeletal diagrams I based them on), but in hindsight, some of the new poses are a bit too "unusual" to show the animals properly... FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A little late in the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I don't mind having my images flipped. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Fast-Scrolling Problem

Recently the number of images being made has boomed, which is nice to see, but it does present problems. For example, User:Lusotitan posted the Rajasaurus section 5 days ago, but it now is already 10 headings away from the current section for Cetiosauriscus. This can cause images to be forgotten about, leaving them in a gray region between approved and unfinished. Perhaps it would be a good idea to somehow indicate if an image still needs feedback? I'm not sure if this would actually fix the problem. Thoughts or suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

or {{done}} is added to a section once whatever the issue was has been fixed in some pages.[39][40] Perhaps we could have something like "approved"... Then we will be able to see which images need more feedback/fixes, if they are not tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the page of that template, it seems almost like

Being worked on

was made for this page! This would be pretty nice, as I am still working on my Megalosaurus skeletal, which is pretty far up... I think I'll go add that unless anyone strongly objects. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I added {{done}} to a few sections. Undo me if it doesn't look good. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it, think it looks great. Lusotitan 00:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Added throughout. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha, almost ready to add "resolved" to this very section! We could mention this new "rule" in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah probably should. Should we make it so that resolved sections get archived as well into their yearly page, to reduce the overall page size? Or shall we still wait until the end of the year to archive? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Good question... I have no strong opinion, though it is of course "easier" to just do it yearly... Images that aren't done by that time can of course stay. I usually archive according to when the last comment was made in a section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, just wondering. I've also considered using the method that WP:RX does, to get ClueBot to automatically archive pages to a yearly archive once they are marked with a { {resolved} } or { {done} }. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If it can be set up, it would be cool! Especially since the last few years, I've been the only one doing manual archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea how to set it up, I'll look a little more, then I'll add it. If it doesn't work I'll edit the page and remove the ClueBotIII template immediately ... IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, hope consolidating it with the old archives won't be too difficult... And by the way, this talk page itself could maybe also need archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the archiving works, but seems we have to link the archive page here manually? FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that archiving right away might not necessarily be a good thing, as sometimes we go back to an older section and make further edits there. If everythin was archived immediately after it was done, then we would have to keep adding sections and make a lot of clutter. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There may be a point in that, for example I went back to Fred's Centrosaurus restoration long after it was approved because Mark Witton made a blog post about facial scales, couldn't have done that easily if it was archived immediately... FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If need be I can try to write a bot that collapses done sections... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(Outdent) A bot would be a difficult thing to code, but you can try. The bot archived the wrong sections before because the {{done}} or

Resolved

tags need to be within the section, and apparently the section header doesn't count. For now, either the sections are archived after a tag is added, or after a year without comments or tagging passes. I could help write the code for a bot if wanted, to collapse all sections tagged with {{done}} IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternately, we can scrap auto-archiving/collapsing altogether, and just manually collapse sections when we add {{done}} to the section header. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute, ClueBot just archived everything, but I'm not yet done with Megalosaurus, Scolosaurus, Omeisaurus, the other Megalosaurus, and I'm still waiting to have my Quilmesaurus get final approval. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I stopped the darn beast. Either it archives stuff into the wrong year or it archives the oldest discussions. I removed the template. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Do people think that we should archive this page here? I can add the archival template to test (should cause fewer issues than on the review page). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it will at least be easier to make work than the review page itself... FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added it in, if it archives everything, revert and change the |age= to 2360. Tag anything you think can be closed, and if should be archived. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with uploading new images

Hello guys! I have got a problem with uploading images. They have started a new system of uploading images on commons. How shall it be used? when I write which image I want to upload as a new image and write what I have changed, they say that there already is a version of the file. When I should upload new versions of my Scipionyx, it became 2 extra versions instead! And I had to write new categories, licenses tec. Can you help me? How shall I do so it just becomes a "New version" of the previous file? Conty 08:30 13 April 2010.

I had the same problem yesterday, but it worked after a while, I think because I checked "ignore warnings". FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had this problem too. The trick is to check the box at the bottom to "Ignore warnings." Then it should work. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Toy based on Wikipedia paleoart

This is pretty funny: http://www.dinotoyblog.com/2011/04/02/ampelosaurus-collecta/ FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, is this a violation of the CC license, assuming they don't give any credit to the artist? MMartyniuk (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because that specific image was released into the public domain[41], so they don't have to credit him, but doing so would had been nice anyway of course... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Slightly related, I discovered this weird meta thing, an image of Segnosaurus I drew and uploaded for Wikipedia years ago, now used in a Polish museums display next to actual fossils, and a picture of this display has then been uploaded to Wikimedia again... My mind is blown. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
More fun use of Wiki images, Thomas Holtz used size diagrams by our very own Dinoguy and Conty during a lecture: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.dk/2013/08/youtuber-ana-mcmullen-has-uploaded.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Even stranger, the math website http://www.khanacademy.org/ created by Sal Khan uses File:Ankylosaurus dinosaur.png in one of its videos. see here. Iainstein (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Retooling of images

Since there are so many articles that lack images, I was thinking of retooling some images I have made that are now slightly redundant, since the articles they are in now have more than one restoration. So what I was thinking is that I would delete a file and then reupload it under the name of a related animal, for example I would reupload the image I made of Coelurus as Mirischia, and then voila, all our compsognathid articles are illustrated. Anyone have anything against that? Other possible candidates for retooling are the Bambiraptor, Neovenator, and Caulkicephalus I made. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed, but I would suggest some simple image manipulation to make the images at least a little different, because, you know. For example, a quick palate rotation or brightness/contrast adjustment. de Bivort 04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that all the time anyway, so they'll soon look different enough. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

With some modifications, Coelurus is now Mirischia, Bambiraptor is Graciliraptor, Neovenator is Chilantaisaurus, Caulkicephalus is Ludodactylus, if the images need to be edited further to match, please notify me. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a restoration I made of Eolambia is now anatomically outdated, so I modified it to match the known remains of Tanius [42] and placed it there instead. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate size diagram

This size diagram indicates that Alamosaurus sanjuanensis was ~50 ft. A new paper, however, finds a specimen attributable with a cervical vertebra comparable in size to the enormous Puertasaurus. It needs to be amended and I have tried here with a basic photo editor. Thoughts? Taylor Reints (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought about updating the image when I first heard of the new specimen, there are a few problems however. There are several reconstructions availible for the more complete smaller specimens, so size estimations are more certain. On top of that there is a publish figure with scale bar that can be used for reference and cited. The new paper describes only three incomplete bones that are refered to Alamosaurus, because of this, no reconstruction or total length estimates are given. I'm not sure what to do with this diagram, the scale of any silhouette will be basically made up. Sometime tomorrow I will add a note in the description mentioning the new larger specimen and clarifying the specimen that the silhouette is based on. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost contributors

We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin

Now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArthurWeasley

Hope they'll come back anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm not as active an illustrator as I used to be, but I still feel like an active member of the WP:Dino illustrators community. This is a serious blow. de Bivort 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the rest of us'll have to work overtime to keep up... I'd like to see more of your stuff, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

proscribing problematic pronation?

Hi all - So, I wonder about removing images if they have known anatomical flaws? For example, most/all of the hadrosaur images I made have been removed for having pronated hands. A lot of skeleton photos have also been removed. Would it not be preferable to note in the caption that the hands were not pronated, but keep the illustrations? If a single flaw, even a comparatively small one, is sufficient to remove an image forever, this strikes me as a strong discouragement to image creation. I dunno, what do you all think? de Bivort

I've brought it up before: [43] I think we should at least discuss it before removing everything (especially since some featured articles have been left without taxobox images). I don't doubt the finding, but it isn't very obvious when a hadrosaur hand is pronated/not pronated, the figures in the paper[44] make this obvious. Key line: "and the palms face caudomedially, though more medially than caudally." It would not really be visible in a restoration, since most of the "action" happens inside (crossing of radius and ulna), and the palms would not face each other (see footprint diagram), as in other groups. Contrary to the situation with theropods and ceratopsians. So I think we should take the images on a case by case basis here. Albertonykus should be notified of this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Gah, so sorry for the inconvenience! I should check the talk pages here more often. I concur that there is a good amount of leeway in the interpretation of life restorations here, and that a more detailed examination of each image is in order. The footprints (and the study itself) do appear to rule out a fully caudally-facing posture for the palms though, so I still support purging/editing images that unequivocally show the hands pointing backward. Otherwise do feel free to undo any of the damage I may have wrought. Curses! Albertonykus (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Because some of the skeletons and restorations were wrong no doubt, I've not reverted ally our edits at all. For example, Debivort's image here[45] shows the thumb very far back on the right hand, which indicates the arm is rotated too far. Could you fix it, Debivort? As for skeletons, this[46] shows obvious rotation of the left lower arm, so I'll have to look for a new image it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, wrong mounts can be valuable from a historical perspective, for example the AMNH Anatosaurus skeletons. Such should not be used in the taxobox, however. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to avoid removing mounts that were specifically captioned as being outdated/historical in the articles they appeared on. Albertonykus (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But what do you guys think about the principle here. My instincts say that it's better to have an image with a minor known flaw(s) – while acknowledging the flaw in the caption – than to remove an image all together (especially in image sparse articles). After all, we know that the reconstructions have several to many flaws, we just don't know what they are at first. de Bivort 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, we have an abundance of hadrosaur images, so the only one that was left entirely "naked" was Secernosaurus. It was relatively easy to find replacements for the rest. But I'm tempted to say an article could have a slightly incorrect image, as long as it is the only one we have, until we can find replacements. In any case, I've restored most of the images that were removed, because they were not actually incorrect, per that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whew, many thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Will try not to perform wholesale overhauls like that under such ambiguous circumstances in the future. Albertonykus (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, was forced to modify a few images as well[47][48][49], which is always a fun challenge! FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I made this attempt to fix it quickly, but does it look right? I've totally confused myself. [50]. Seems like the other leg is wrong now. Can you point me to a good example? de Bivort 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's too drastic, you could move it just to the middle of the hand, like this[51] (roughly done here). The other hand looks fine. If you look at the footprints in figure 6[52], the hand isn't really turned so much. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a slightly inaccurate depiction (particularly a museum specimen, whether it's an actual fossil or a cast) is much preferable to having no image at all. They should be marked in the captions as outdated, but there's no reason, IMO, to completely remove an image because of what appears to be a common problem found in many museum displays. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite puzzling how some museums have mounted their dinosaurs. As Mallison also pointed out for Plateosaurus, here's a Bactrosaurus where the radius and ulna do not only cross, but their connection to the wrist has been reversed![53] That is completely unknown in any animals, and is not just an outdated error, but a complete anatomical failure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, but if it's a choice between no image and an image where two bones incorrectly cross one another, I'm definitely in favor of retaining the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Luckily in this case, I just found another unused image of an actual fossil, and added it instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now we're on the issue of restoring hadrosaur hands, something just occurred to me which I have never seen addressed before. If the ancestral condition for archosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs (the condition is seen in theropods, ceratopsians, thyreophorans, sauropodomorphs, etc.), is to have clawless digit four and five on the hands, all restorations of hadrosaurs (disregarding the issue of whether the unguals were entirely covered in pads) with three hand claws would be wrong. If they had any hand claws, there would only be two, on digit two and three, since digit one, the thumb spike, was lost. The only artist I've seen restore it this way is Bob Bakker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this and I haven't been able to figure it out from lit searchers (not that I have much lit on hadrosaurids unfortunately). I'm pretty sure I've read that footprint evidence shows three functional claws on the forelimb. Unless this is misinterpreted, it would probably mean that the claw was re-evolved or frame-shifted onto digit 4. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even modern crocodiles have unguals on digit four and five, yet no external claw. The hadrosaur handprints I've seen just seem to show an elongated blob... In any case, such a fourht claw would had been very small:[54] Most restorations show all three at nearly equal size. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)