This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Several skeletal reconstructions and diagrams done of Ornithoprion based on the figures provided in Zangerl's 1966 description. I've talked about this over in the Discord and these should be distinct enough to be Creative Commons, but let me know if they need to be differentiated further (and of course if there are any anatomical issues). No photos of the fossils are available on commons (Or anywhere but the description, for that matter) and even then they are quite severely crushed, so I'm not sure what can be done besides closely copying the figures in the paper to accurately represent them. I'm working on finishing up an extensive rewrite of the currently very barebones page for this guy, so I thought it could use some images besides the frankly horribly inaccurate life restoration I did a couple of years ago. Gasmasque (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will correct, good catch! The paper is from before the name change, so it must have just slipped my mind to adjust that while doing this. Gasmasque (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zangerl's original figures show the two with a gap between them, and it is suggested that the rostrum was articulated and flexible and not fused to the Meckel's. If this illustration seems implausibly exaggerated or confusing then it can be changed, but I do want to emphasize that this was an apparently flexible structure. Gasmasque (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional fossil illustration and life reconstruction of another eugeneodont called Paredestus. There isn't a ton published on this guy, but the dentition described in the paper is extremely unique, and I thought it was worth doing a life reconstruction (based primarily off of other recons published for edestoids). Gasmasque (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another eugeneodont reconstruction/diagram, this time for Romerodus to coincide with another major page revision. Well preserved/described material depicted in white, preserved but uncertain material in gray and closely based on Caseodus, and body outline very closely based on known R. orodontus specimens. Any feedback at all on this or the previous Paredestus illustrations is greatly appreciated! Gasmasque (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fish from the Yixian Formation is excellent and sorely needed. Although I'm not sure about the big dark box on the left-hand side of the labeled version. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the premaxilla is too short for what's preserved (which is not nearly the entire thing), causing the eyes to be too far back. The bulging eyes also don't seem very likely, especially considering that they depicted here as being larger than the orbits. Not sure about the external ear opening either. It is nice to see a hupehsuchian restored with normal-looking paddles though, some of our current reconstructions are really badly shrinkwrapped there. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Telmatosaurus should be reviewed at WP:DINOART. IIRC early diverging hadrosauromorphs wouldn't have had the Edmontosaurus-like hands but not sure and don't have time to double-check at the moment. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above points. The right arm seems out of the comfortable range of motion. I'll also add that the tail is much too long based on related taxa. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inabtanin looks nice. I wonder if the 'finger' part of the wing should be longer, considering how long the first wing phalanx is. The background might also be distractingly saturated. Could it be lightened a little? -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sketch of Equus ovodovi using colored and mechanical pencils on paper
A colored-pencil sketch of Equus ovodovi, taking into account the general cranial proportions of Equus coliemensis (the only Sussemione with skull material) and the general body and limb proportions of zebras and wild asses, the clades most closely related to Sussemiones. Coloration primarily inspired by Asiatic and African wild asses. Dynamoterror1011 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gracilisuchus generally looks fine, but the lower jaw seems too tall. There is some crushing in MCZ 4117 but the thinness of the lower jaw is fairly consistent across specimens. Either way, this is a substantial improvement over the current image. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, if you know the subject of mosasaurs, you have most likely already come across this image of Dimitri Bogdanov reconstructing a Tylosaurus proriger, which was even used in certain studies. Although reconstitution seems good for the body, it is still very bad and obsolete for the tail. I therefore suggest that a user skilled in editing can correct this error, so that it can be used appropriately in an article. Amirani1746 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Here's the file in question :[reply]
I wonder if we even need it anymore, since there are many other accurate restorations of it here? Won't be easy to edit since the entire posture is outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, not that much ! There's only two reconstruction of T. proriger on Wikimedia : one which is slightly more recent (2015) than this one (2007). It doesn't appear to have ever been discussed here, but is probably, although a bit bendy, more on par with modern understanding of their anatomy. The second one is from 2022 and passed review, but presents the inconvenient of not using a white background. If somebody could correct that, that would be useful to replace the one from 2007. Both are from Bogdanov.
20152022
Honestly, in the English wiki, the 2007 image is barely used anymore aside from the Mooreville Chalk and the Matanuska Formation, so we could just remove the earliest recon and substitute them the more recent ones. Tylosaurus has a substantial research history article, and (although a bit skinwrapped) the 2007 recon seems to be pretty accurate to the knowledge of the animal at the time, so it could maybe be used in that article as an historical interpretation, and as such it is probably better to keep it as it is currently. Larrayal (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this NT one already with a white background that would be pretty easy to fix the tail of for use in cladograms:[7] Perhaps should also not show individual fingers and hide teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The American mastodon I drew recently, the Borston's is an older drawing that someone on the WikiPaleo Discord server asked I post here, leaving them both here for review now. Olmagon (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these were uploaded more than a year ago but for whatever reason never got reviewed. Others were completed around that time but weren't uploaded. I was hoping to add Macrocnemus to this collection but I'm not sure if (or when) I'll ever get to that. The two multi-specimen diagrams are restricted to those with published length estimates or mostly complete skeletons. The Trachelosauridae (Dinocephalosauridae) chart is similarly confined to only the genera with sufficient size information to avoid OR (as much as I wanted to add the two taxa named last year...).
I see no major anatomical issues. I wonder, however, if it would be more appropriate to restore Pectodens in a walking posture. Likewise, I wonder if a standing, not sitting posture for Langobardisaurus would be less misleading wrt its limb proportions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two diagrams for Inabtanin (a new putative azhdarchoid) plus Moganopterus and Pterodaustro—two ctenochasmatids that have been on my to-do list for quite some time.
Can you show an overlay of the skull of Pterodaustro over your silhouette? I'm confused by what's going on with the back of the skull, as the mandible seems to articulate significantly below the level of where I'd expect the quadrate to be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes / Skye McDavid, see here. I think the issue is that Pterodaustro is just a weird animal? It's also worth mentioning that there is some skull shape variation in the various fossils and reconstructions, which is why I referenced one of the most recent published ones. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a 3d skeletal reconstruction of cladoselache using updated methods and information of cladoselache and its realtives to fill in gaps and fix certain elements EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 2:30, 11 september 2024
skeletal reconstruction of cladoselache, a composite of C. fyleri & C. kepleri
Hello. It's been a while. If I may, can I ask for a review of my drawing? This time I tried to reconstruct an Echovenator... I mostly based the reconstruction from here for the skull [9] and this restoration on Wikipedia for the body Xenorophidae . I am aware that I am kind of playing safe and giving the head not much tissue? But I want to make the reconstruction a bit conservative since we dont know how big are the tissue especially the one that involve in echolocation in primitive toothed whale... So that is my reasoning for the reconstruction. Is my image good enough to be put at the Echovenator page? Thank you...
I am sorry if I assume wrongly, but if there are no major issues, is it good enough to be use for the Echovenator page? DD (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you are right.. I just opened the Albertocetus and I am aware that it is not as elongated as my reconstruction... Thank you very much and I will have to fix that.. DD (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I made a quick reconstruction depicting Zhenghecaris as a peytoiid radiodont. This interpretation is backed by Zeng et al. (2017), Moysiuk and Caron (2019), and Moysiuk and Caron (2021). Specifically, Zeng et al. described additional elements of the cephalic complex in the form of isolated lateral elements similar in construction and overall form to Zhenghecaris. The appendages are based on Cambroraster, as is the body. The background elements of the reconstruction are Isoxys and Eoredlichia. Prehistorica CM (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would be happy to undertake the task if some reference images could be provided. Stuff like skeletal reconstructions, description on how the animal would have looked in life, this sort of thing. Paleo Miguel (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for reply! The paper decribing Owadowia include a photos of holotype specimen. The most distinctive feature for this taxon is the short and massive snout.
Generally speaking, I do not see any serious anatomical errors. The snout is short and massive, the skull looks wide, but this is probably due to the perspective that is presented. In my opinion it is great and looks very natural. Thanks for taking on this reconstruction! Aventadoros (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry for the late reply, got a lot on my plate (including ironically a Sutekhsuchus size comparisson). The rostrum could be a little longer perhaps but I think its pretty good overall. Armin Reindl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to make one more radidont that took longer than expected. To model the appendages I downloaded the raw CT data, put it into Blender, and modelled the podomeres and endites to follow the holotype, as well as referencing the description of course. I gave it 4 sets of GLS associated with reduced flaps, although reduced flaps are not preserved, and the GLS are incompletely known. I feel that this is reasonable speculation given the apparently elongate neck region. I put the setal blades on the dorsal surface of the flaps as well, which I believe better represents the fossil evidence, where in Shucaris they are seemingly only associated with the flaps, rather than the trunk. Something similar is also seen in Amplectobelua and Lyrarapax. Regarding the Erratus, I gave it generic, upward facing frontal appendages given its phylogenetic placement, even though this area is completely missing in the fossils.
Regarding the existing appendage illustrations, I wish to suggest (and if they choose to ignore these comments it does not bother me,) that the relative proportions of the podomeres be changed slightly to better reflect the holotype. I will admit that not every appendage presented in the description looks alike, but most commonly, and also in the holotype, there is a very distinct increase in podomere height, starting at the first DAR (distal articulated region, "claw") podomere, maxing out at the joint between the 3rd and 4th DAR podomere, and shallowing out until the 7th DAR podomere. Here, the podomeres are rectangular and tall - but towards the distal portion they are almost completely square in profile. Importantly, the shaft podomeres are shorter than the succeeding podomeres, and the second shaft podomere (BP1 in the description) is wider at the bottom then at the top, similar to amplectobeluids. The first shaft podomere (BP2) is even shorter and more elongate. Wawrow's model already presents this quite well. Altogether, this is what gives Shucaris appendages their very distinct crook-shape, which you can see in most fossils ascribed to it. This is what gives it the name "ankylosskelos" ("curved leg"). I think it would be best if the representative diagrams show this very important characteristic of the appendage. As far as I know, Wawrow is planning to make these adjustments to their model soon. Sorry for the paragraph Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only minor concern on the full body reconstruction is the amount of (at least for now, on the general understanding of radiodont anatomy) unusual speculative features. But since their plausibility was formally mentioned elsewhere I think It's Ok afterall.
Not really?, you can see in the piece that the GLS stop once you get to the larger trunk flaps, and the shadow below the radiodont indicates its above the seafloor. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting for uploading a skeletal drawing of Shuilingornis I made. It was revisioned by Andrea Cau (one of the authors of the paper describing the Holotype). Thanks in advice.
Thank you for adding this in here, apologies for not properly following reviewing protocol. Any image I make I will link into here first. I also have a Crossopholis image I could add in here (I can take it down from the pages for now). 2001:1970:546A:4400:2560:DF58:EF42:EC94 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply, I just came back from the UK. I see the artist has already taken notice of the scale areas (very well preserved in Meiolania) but I should highlight that this should extend to the "horns". As is they very much appear to be illustrated akin to bovid horns, i.e. clearly set apart from the rest of the skull, when chances are that they'd be similar in texture to the rest of the head given that its not that different in structure. Nothing against giving them a dash of colour of course (I did so for my reconstructions) given that they were likely used for display to some extent.
Tho a respectable effort, you might also want to reconsider the perspective and proportions of the drawing. The way the horn in the back protrudes from the skull, the placement of the eye and the overall top of the head don't add up.
While the coloration of extinct animals obviously deviates from living ones and this should not be counted as an inaccuracy, do note that the pink coloration seen on the underside in most photos of Psephurus is the result of bruising/stress, and not the animal's natural colors. If that is indeed the motivation for the pink snout and head here, I would suggest against including that. If that is included as a unique, speculative feature of Parasephurus then i see no issues whatsoever. It's great to see some interest to fossil paddlefish, especially Crossopholis.Gasmasque (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to becoming a trend for at least some dinosaur paleoart, I guess because some modern birds have it. Are we sure it would be unlikely in these cases? An easy fix either way, but I think @LiterallyMiguel: is active and reachable, so they should probably do it themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if this is not condition in birds. These are crocodile-line archosaurs though, rather than dinosaurs, thought given that the strong differences from modern crocidilians I'm not sure how useful they are as a guide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes i speculated with partially open nostrils with some birds and reference, since the nostril holes on their skull are really big, and their separation is really thin, but if it's not the most plausible i can happily close it LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh sorry, next time will ad theme there before. are them good or i gotta change something on the reconstructions? note that those are simple sketches just to put a reconstruction for these poorly known taxa, will do more of these in the future for extinct mysterious species. UniverseScienceItaly (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Phanagoroloxodon looks decent given that's only known from skull material, and seems to accurately reflect the known skull morphology. I'll need to consult a copy of Evolution and Fossil Record of African Proboscidea for the other two species, which I'll try to do in the next couple of days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a new rencostruction of a newly described genus of pliocene Gray whale from Italy. there is not a page for this taxon yet bu here a full reconstruction of the poorly known genus. UniverseScienceItaly (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am aware this is inaccurate reconstruction, but more problem is that should this image exist in Commons? This reconstruction is based on model made by et:Elga Mark-Kurik, in exhibit of Natural History Museum of Helsinki. In the EU, copyright lasts 70 years after death. The skin color, face, and tail fin shape of this illustration are similar to the model in question, and there is a fear that copyright issues may arise due to this. Even in Japan, there are pros and cons to using this model of Sacabambaspis commercially. For products produced by companies, they have a licensing agreement with his son, Simo Mark-Kurik. Any opinions for that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're all very good at a glance. My only comment is that its a bit difficult to tell which of these creatures should have fur. Obviously the unambiguous mammals and unambiguous reptiles are fine, but when it comes to stem-mammals, the drawings become difficult to interpret. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The description paper used a fossil peccary skeleton (can't remember which one) for the paper but it's an eocene whippomorph, it probably had the most work done out of any of the restorations in this post. SeismicShrimp (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Can I ask for another review for my reconstruction? This time i tried to reconstruct Helaletes that is mainly based on the skeleton image on its Wiki page. Also I used modern day tapirs for additional reference but making it skinnier based on the skeletal proportion difference. So if I may, is my reconstruction good enough to be put at Helaletes page? Thank you in advance...
I am sorry if I am assuming too soon, but are there no major or glaring issues? If there are none, can I add it to the Helaletes page? Thank you in advance.. DD (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A life reconstruction of Deltaherpeton hiemstrae, a colosteid from the Mississippian of the Carboniferous.
I am asking for a review of my artwork of Deltaherpeton, a Colosteid from the upper Viséan of Iowa. References used are as follows: The skull reconstruction was based on the figures and photographs of the linked paper [1]. Postcranial anatomy of the reconstruction was based on the linked paper [2] with the exception of the forelimb anatomy, which was based on paper [3]. Coloration, fat/skin placement, and musculature is roughly based on extant amphibians, such as general amphibian anatomy and Giant Salamanders (Andrias).
Both of these images were added to the Taurovenator page without review, both by
@César Díaz Frías: since I intend to pick at the article over the next couple of days I figured it was worth checking in. They seem solid to my eye, outside of a bit of wonky perspective on the head reconstruction (although that's definitely a nitpick on my part!).
I know that Dire wolf already has a life restoration on its page, but I was wondering if this one might be better. It's an illustration published by the United States National Park Service. Do you think it might be worth replacing the one already there? Di (they-them) (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this section of the Mosasaurus article says, the size of M. lemonnieri is estimated by its describer Louis Dollo to join around 7 to 10 m (23 to 33 ft) long. However the diagram showing the size of the largest known specimen shows it as reaching 12 m (39 ft) long, probably being based on the likely incorrect estimate of Paul (2022). I even doubt that the code name of the specimen (IRSNB R 3189) is correct, but that remains to be seen. I thank in advance anyone will solve this problem, best regards, Amirani1746 (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size estimate here is definitely not based on GSP (note that this chart was made prior to the publication of his book). The initial development of the chart was discussed here, which details what was used for scaling. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the redescription of M. lemonnieri; however, IRSNB 3189 has been mentioned in other literature (such as [16]), so I think it probably does exist, even if the number is incorrect. Macrophyseter, do you have any information on this specimen? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good point is made that the code name might not be IRSNB "R" 3189, since all of the specimen's mentions in the literature don't have the "R." It's not impossible that IRSNB transferred the specimen to "R" in recent times but considering their online database remains incomplete I doubt there's any way to find out without contacting the museum curator. The best reference remains Lingham-Soliar (2000), which shows a photo[17] of the specimen. ~12.5 meters is the length I got when scaling that skull to Dollo's ratio in my old crude size diagram; since Slate Weasel referenced directly from the complete skeleton IRSNB 3119, their version should be more precise. I wouldn't be surprised if GSP simply used a similar method to reach his concurring estimate. Macrophyseter | talk16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that we can't really say the 12m estimate in the article itself due to wp:synth. Consensus agreed that diagrams are somewhat free from this as long as the methodology is clearly laid out, but this does not extend to text. Macrophyseter | talk17:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1/11 scale estimate of Dollo (1892) remains to be proven, because since Fanti et al. (2014), this scale is probably obsolete. However, I also doubt that this ratio can be applied to M. lemonnieri, given that the study by Fanti et al. only uses it for M. hoffmannii, and that no major study on M. lemonnieri has been done since Madzia (2019), and again that was only for its teeth. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about these, but many of them we don't have other restorations of, so could be nice with some stamp of approval or not before we use them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No qualms with any of the arthrodires. I would say that the Diplognathus and Dinichthys especially are improvements over what is currently used, and seem to be in accordance with both Engelmann's work and with the anatomy of Amazichthys. I can't speak for the others, unfortunately. Gasmasque (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple size comparisson for Sutekhsuchus dowsoni based on the holotype skull and Gavialis proportions done with the input of Paul M. J. Burke. Armin Reindl (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While browsing photos from Wikimedia Commons, I came across two photos of the same mosasaur specimen that I immediately recognized: IRSNB R3211, one of the many specimens of M. lemonnieri. However, as the titles of the two images indicates, they are attributed to the species Plioplatecarpus houseaui (Dollo, 1889), while most other photos (like this) and descriptions (like Mulder et al., 2004 and Street (2016)) attribute it to M. lemonnieri. Knowing that in addition the accompanying panels behind it don't really help to know if this statement is true or not, I would like that Macrophyseter or even Slate Weasel help me resolve this ambiguity. Amirani1746 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first time that a label for something else nearby was misinterpreted as a label for another specimen by a photographer. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 3211 label on the support below the skull so I think this is fairly definitive provided IRSNB R3211 is a published lemmonieri specimen. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TO IJReid and FunkMonk : After some research carried out, it would seem that, in the scientific literature conforming to the ICZN in any case, that the most recent attribution for this specimen was made by Lingham-Soliar (2000), in which he actually attributed it as a juvenile M. lemonnieri. However, in Street (2016), a PhD thesis rediagnosing M. hoffmannii, the specimen was found to be very different from other formal specimens of M. lemonnieri. Therefore, the author considered it as the holotype of a completely new proposed species of Moanasaurus (p. 276-277), but as the thesises do not follow the laws of the ICZN, it will be necessary to wait before that a real redescription will be carried out on the specimen. Thus, as its identification is currently doubtful, I propose to rename the pictures under the code name of the specimen. Furthermore, a description relating the identification history of this specimen would not be denied. Amirani1746 (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a 3d skeletal reconstruction of hybodus using updated methods and information on hybodus and its realtives to fill in gaps and fix certain elements EvolutionIncarnate (talk)
skeletala reconstruction of the extinct shark hybodus
For reference, here are previous reconstructions of various elements of Hybodus skeletal anatomy from the literature, both from the 1980s, so quite old, [19], [20], though at least the skull anatomy is still widely reprinted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am already in full agreement with this reconstruction, and am updating my own Hybodus hauffianus life reconstruction to accommodate it. This conforms much closer to the known fossils of H. hauffianus and recent reconstructions of Asteracanthus. Most diagrams labeled "Hybodus" in both popular and academic works are generalized composites of several (now distinct) genera or are specifically based on Egertonodus. The atypical anatomy I think is more of a reflection of how poorly researched most shark paleoart is. Gasmasque (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that being the case (Gasmasque is way more familiar with Hybodus anatomy than anybody else on the noticeboard) I think the images are okay to use. The only change I would make is that I think there is too much lateral grayspace, which reduces the effective size and detail of the image in thumb view. I think cutting the lateral grayspace by about half would suffice. I would do it myself but I don't want to be seen to as rude to a creator who has obviously put a lot of effort into their reconstruction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what I know about hybodonts has come from resources provided to me by EvoIncarnate, and she is, in my opinion at least, very much the expert here. Recent work on hybodontiformes as a general group seems to suggest them to be benthic, with pronounced labial cartilage (similar to a wobbegong or horn shark) and, potentially, barbels. Even if the genus Hybodus itself did differ somewhat from other members of its family or order (suggested by Skumpf et al. solely based on a diet of belemnites, and not its body or tooth morphology?), I don't think that's all that good of a reason to continue aligning with mid-late 20th century research while our picture of related taxa has changed so much. I have very similar opinions regarding other understudied fossil sharks like Cobelodus, in the event those ever come up here.Gasmasque (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a response to my comments on Discord regarding your WIP restoration that I've sort of already walked back there anyway, rather than anything in this skeleton, but I may as well respond here. I don't think any hybodont sharks were probably ever truly pelagic in the same way that for instance modern lamniform sharks are, but the literature generally does suggest that Hybodus in particular did consume active prey like cephalopods and fish (see the refs in the Hybodus#Biology), rather than the obviously more benthic prey of for example durophagous hybodonts like Acrodus or Strophodus. I admit my knowledge of living sharks is limited, so I am not sure if living sharks with a similar diet and fin shape have barbels or not, and I would probably defer to your better knowledge of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be totally fine to give my reconstruction smaller/no barbels, the exact lifestyle of Hybodus is definitely noted to be pretty different from Asteracanthus and the barbels are based predominantly on unpublished specimens anyway. The published consensus regarding Hybodus hauffianus itself does lean towards it being less benthic (even if I personally find some of the reasoning weak), but I don't think I should let my personal leanings override creating a generally applicable, "uncontroversial" life reconstruction for the sake of the wiki. It is worth noting a benthic lifestyle does not at all restrict the animal from a diet of fish and belemnites, though. I really do appreciate genuine discussion on the topic, a lot of cartilaginous fish recons seem to pass through the review page without much of any discussion at all. Gasmasque (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Can I ask for another review of my paleoart? This time I tried to reconstruct Miodelphinus based on the preserved skull that is shown in here https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/10/miodelphinus.html. I also using its modern closest relatives like ganges dan indus river dolphin for the color reference... Is my reconstruction good enough to be put for the Miodelphinus page? This is my first time using digital art so I am aware that it is crude and kind of messy... But alas it is what it is for now... Thank you in advance!
im not an expert on dolphin anatomy, it seems great to my untrained eyes - i was about to say the snout could maybe curve more upward, but looking at modern river dolphins this point seems probably irrelevant. my suggestions would be to crop out some of the unused space and remove the text label, assuming its to be used on the Miodelphinus page. could also maybe use a little bit more contrast in terms of lighting? Prehistorica CM (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the reply and input.. Ah okay, I will crop the text then and the upper unused space. About the contrast, I am sorry becauase I really havent get the hang of lighting and coloring.. So should i dim the background or should I brighten the animal? DD (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't brighten the animal, but if whatever art program youre using has the option, modify the rgb curve so its not a straight line and that its concave maybe? or just like, increase the contrast with a photo editing program. the problem is that the whole image is rather bright and the dolphin blends in with the background too much. even just darkening the background would be sufficient. sorry i realize this is more artistic advice than anatomical. Prehistorica CM (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No its fine, artistic also account..hahaha. Okay, I will try to dim the background then.. Oh and for the progran I am using ibis pro x. But I will try too look how deal with it.. DD (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, just to make sure, you've not drawn the blowhole on the snout, have you? the bit of air coming from the base of the snout might be throwing me off. Prehistorica CM (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. May I ask for review of my drawing again? This time I tried to reconstruct Mandageria... The reference I am using are mainly from https://twitter.com/austmus/status/632789584619765760, artbyjrc, and the image that show Mandageria as blue/blackkish fish (I am sorry I dont know the name of the artist...). Is my version good enough to be upload as full body reconstruction in the Mandageria page? Thank you in advance...
Ah I see, thank you for giving the paper source. And thank you for the opinion.. Yes, I would really appreciate input from others.. DD (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a reconstruction of Houcaris it may have some inaccuracies in the frontal appendage or elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenghecaris (talk • contribs)
There seems some of gaps between segmentation and fins, and yeah frontal appendage have too low number of segments. Other animals and texts are hard to see due to lighting I think. Also as Maotianshan Shale is estimated to be shallow lagoon, it would be better to make it not look like deeper ocean. As it is only known from frontal appendages and affinity is unknown, I don't think this taxon needs full body reconstruction at the moment anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Houcaris is In a bit of a taxonomic limbo right now, so I don't think it should get a full body restoration until those issues are resolved. Also the Houcaris here seems to be lacking the lateral sclerites (P-elements), but that's probably not the biggest issue here (again because we lack everything other then the frontal appendages). Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I came across two photos of the same hyaenodontid skull on Wiki Commons, and I'm confused about its identity. They came from same author and they are taken on same location. First one (from January 2007) is labeled as Hyaenodon cayluxi (synonym of Hyaenodon leptorhynchus). Second one (from May 2013) is labeled as Cynohyaenodon cayluxi. Can someone solve this case? The Explaner (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely Hyaenodon, since:
It has 2 molars at the top instead of 3 like the dental formula of Hyaenodon and not the complete dental formula of Cynohyaenodon.
It has a very high supraoccipital crest, which matches up more with Hyaenodon than Cynohyaenodon.
I'm guessing that either the museum labels at some point were misleading or incorrect, hence the skull being titled as belonging to Cynohyaenodon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Cynohyaenodon cayluxi and Hyaenodon cayluxi the same species? They share the same author, Filhol, 1873. The wiki page for Hyaenodon notes that cayluxi is a junior synonym of H. leptorhynchus, and apparently this claim originated from a single inaccessible schweizerbart paper (Lange-Badre 1995). Yet cayluxi is the type species of Cynohyaenodon, and from what I can tell that genus is still considered valid from the admittedly small sample of recent papers which discuss European hyaenodonts. Maybe the French paleontologists who made the label had some disagreements over the years.NGPezz (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyaenodon cayluxi and Cynohyaenodon cayluxi are actually separate and valid species names - both were recognized by Filhol, but the former was named in 1876 while the latter was recognized as a separate species in 1873. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also possible that the uploader himself made some inferences based on species names (and cross checking Wikipedia) and inaccurately named one of the files, assuming the two cayluxi were the same taxon? But wow, naming two related species the same is ridiculous... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was mistaken (understandably so, I hope). Filhol is not the only person to have done this kind of thing but this is a great example of how obnoxious unstandardized early taxonomy could be. NGPezz (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yixian Formation fish
Yixian Formation fish with labels
Telmatosaurus that was originally gonna be Qianjiangsaurus but then a skeletal came out
A little late reconstruction of Inabtanin alarabia
.png)
Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum
Ticinosuchus ferox
Erpetosuchus granti
Brachyprosopus broomi
Eodicynodon oosthuizeni
Vaughnictis smithae
Tanystropheus spp. size
Tanystropheus spp. specimens
Augustaburiania size
Langobardisaurus size
Langobardisaurus skull
Trachelosauridae size
Dinocephalosaurus specimens
"Protanystropheus" size
Trachelosaurus size
Pectodens size
Inabtanin size
Inabtanin skeletal
Moganopterus size
Moganopterus skeletal
Pterodaustro size
Zhenghecaris shankouensis
Taikicetus
Regnellites
DiBgd's one
Rhynchosaurus articeps
Andescynodon mendozensis
Gobiatherium mirificum
Vetusodon elikhulu
Howesia browni
Mesosuchus browni
Diademodon tetragonus
Procynosuchus delaharpae
Palaeagama vielhaueri
Cynognathus crateronotus
Heliosus apophis
Exaeretodon argentinus
Dvinia prima
Cambaytherium thewissi
Thuliadanta mayri
Paracolodon fissus
Rostriamynodon grangeri
Ninumbeehan dookoodukah
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tylosaurus_BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://i.imgur.com/uablMYQ.jpeg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://pasteboard.co/buTPmw5Qmf0E.png){kind=link}
_(20248316020).jpg){kind=link}
