Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Discontinued yearly archives: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page: Criterion sufficient for using an image: 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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). 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. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?

Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.

He who needs to be silenced’s reconstructions

• 
  Ianthodon
• 
  Barbclabornia
• 
  Glaucosaurus
• 
  Eohupehsuchus
• 
  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
• 
  Qingtoushan Formation
• 

I’m not sure how this works, I have been told to share here so here I try

• Added other works from same user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  Big box Is lower half of Minecraft Steve for scale. 74.57.20.91 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not at all clear. A normal human silhouette should be used. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, did this a while ago, I’m gonna go back and change it. 74.57.20.91 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The premaxilla of Eohupehsuchus seems a little short relative to the fossil. I'm not sure the eyes would protrude from the skull like that? (Slate Weasel might be able to weigh in too) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

The right limb seems too extremely folded on Telmatosaurus. Some of the stripes bleed through the outline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This one was a little less effort due to the fact that it was full of hiccups, so feel free to make edits. 74.57.20.91 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Added new work representing Permian site. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Shucaris ankylosskelos

• 
  Shucaris and Erratus
• 
  Shucaris appendage by @Junnn11
• 
  Shucaris appendage by @Wawrow

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)

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.

Anyway thanks for the suggestions! I'll modifying my diagram within this week. Junnn11 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the reconstruction is accurate but the position of shucaris makes it look kinda like it has legs which may be misleading. Zhenghecaris (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

OK Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Mosasaurus lemonnieri size

• 

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)

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 [7]), 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)

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[8] 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 | talk 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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 | talk 17:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

The 1/11 ratio for M. lemonnieri is actually based on a nearly complete, mostly articulated vertebral column and skull: File:Bulletin de la Société belge de géologie, de paléontologie et d'hydrologie (1892) (20248316020).jpg (although allometry admittedly could and probably did affect things to some degree, though I don't know how much this has been studied in mosasaurs). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

New DBogdanov works

• 
  Moschorhinus
• 
  Dinichthys
• 
  Dunkleosteus
• 
  Westralichthys
• 
  Macropetalichthys
• 
  Pseudopetalichthys
• 
  Diplognathus
• 
  Tafilalichthys

New works, not used for now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  Perhaps the Diplognathus reconstruction can be used to replace the one currently in the taxobox, if the anatomy is more up to date? The Morrison Man (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Returning to this to point out the Pseudopetalichthys reconstruction is far more accurate than any others used on the site. The other reconstructions, all provided by @Apokryltaros, seem to mistake the internal pectoral element for an external armored spur, which does not seem to be correct. A similar issue is present in the currently used reconstruction of Stensioella and several other genera of pseudopetalichthyids. It is an easy mistake to make considering these are placoderms, but these don't seem to have had external armor "plates". Gasmasque (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sutekhsuchus, Chrysochampsa and Ahdeskatanka

• 
• 
• 

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)

Also Chryochampsa size comparison based on the holotype skull.Armin Reindl (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright Ahdeskatanka too, thats it for now tho. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

hybodus skeletal

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

Looks fine to me, but my knowledge of cartilaginous fish anatomy is limited. Maybe @NGPezz: and @Gasmasque: have some thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here are previous reconstructions of various elements of Hybodus skeletal anatomy from the literature, both from the 1980s, so quite old, [9], [10], though at least the skull anatomy is still widely reprinted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

lateral gray space reduced! thank you for the input EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Miodelphinus

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!

Miodelphinus miensis

DD (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello. Sorry for asking again. I have tried to alter and reduce unused space. Is it better now? DD (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Theres still a bit of empty space up top, but other than that it looks good Prehistorica CM (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, I will cut the upper space again then. Once more, thank you very much for your input.. DD (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

about that, isn't it suppose to be not visible from total side view? I observed some picture like this https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sca_esv=b42237714339f3fb&source=android-browser&sxsrf=ADLYWIINawqD62aCK413-LUTwY0Gd-osHA:1730268325859&q=river+dolphin&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0DJ7g6q1SUpTw4cD2HgLJVN-DyQln-PEBM_ZXBfF_rmPWjJ_V9ADsx_hReH0g80SYXzX3Us7ieV_Xb6-0rJH9SzVrVJYgsE099B1irWGH9tbuMgjEPzh3cSf9K-VLCYP5Dve6sTGJThiEVwkA4GReBUUh4VcLOpa30yru2UHSYakZMRcdLDEvc4R8kPPap7A2Njt8uIbAGaId5oRW3WLK_xaYv7rw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH-7bnt7WJAxXT1jgGHa-_GQEQtKgLegQIDhAB&biw=384&bih=675&dpr=2.81#vhid=wRg8VXWmhB8N9M&vssid=mosaic and the blowhole are not visible (although the position of these two species maybe different) DD (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ninumbeehan dookoodukah

• 
  Ninumbeehan dookoodukah

SeismicShrimp (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Clementechiton

Clementechiton

I made a reconstruction of Clementechiton does it have any problems ？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenghecaris (talk • contribs)

It is unneeded to have image of obscure taxa studied nobody but Mcmenamin. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, also the image is a bit dark and blurry. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mandageria

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...

Mandageria fairfexi

DD (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

First reconstruction is originally from this paper,[11] while there is skull revision later.[12] As I see it looks fine but probably needs more critiques from people good at fish. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

The operculum (gill covering) should probably be more distinct from the rest of the head, as seen here for example. But otherwise it looks pretty good. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 12:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Aah I see. Okay. I will try to make the operculum especially the line more apparent.. DD (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have bolden the opercular region and the gill slit edge. Is this good enough? DD (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Houcaris

Houcaris

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)

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)

Who's that hyaenodiontid?

(?) Hyaenodon cayluxi

(?) Cynohyaenodon cayluxi

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Things from the past few weeks

• 
  Edingerella madagascariensis
• 
  Aphaurosuchus escharafacies
• 
  Stegomosuchus longipes
• 
  Tetraclaenodon puercensis
• 
  Siamotherium pondaungensis
• 
  Rastosuchus hammeri
• 
  Paenanthracotherium bergeri
• 
  Otacillus aumondi
• 
  Nshimbodon muchingaensis
• 
  Nannaroter mckinziei
• 
  Microbunodon sp
• 
  Microbrachis pelikani
• 
  Kosmodraco magnicornis
• 
  Konzhukovia sangabrielensis
• 
  Jaggermeryx naida
• 
  Hypisodus minimus
• 
  Floridameryx floridanus
• 
  Dongnanosuchus hsui
• 
  Dibothrosuchus elaphros
• 
  Coloradisuchus abelini
• 
  Champsosaurus laramiensis
• 
  Bothriogenys sp
• 
  Bageherpeton longignathus
• 
  Argochampsa krebsi
• 
  Arambourgia gaudryi

SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Concavotectum

• 
• 
• 
  Paranogmius

Seems this image in use have issue, by lacking pelvic fins. Also according to @Orthocormus:, eye placement is wrong, same happening on Paranogmius reconstruction. (It is helpful if you can post reference where should its eyes be.) Probably someone can edit image? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Plagiolophus

Hey folks, here with more European palaeotheres: Plagiolophus

• 
  P. huerzeleri
• 
  P. minor
• 
  P. annectens
• 
  Size Comp

Triloboii (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Any sign off on this and others, PrimalMustelid? For future reference, so we know they have been approved. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Very well, pass. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, pass. These are all very good reconstructions! Paleoaficionado (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Artwork of the New Captorhinid

Currently working on placoderm art but thought I'd take a short break to work on something described today, Indosauriscus kuttyi.

SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus

Back again with a lateral portrait of Andrewsarchus mongoliensis

• 
  Andrewsarchus

Triloboii (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Approved. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Should the posterior part of the mandible not be taller so the head tapers a little bit more? I know we don't have the mandible for this taxon, but that's fairly typical of mammals isn't it? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. The jaw here is mostly from "Paratriisodon henanensis" which was later referred to A. mongoliensis. It only preserves a tiny bit of the angle of the jaw, so this portion is reconstructed here based on the shape of the angle in other whippomorph taxa. It could certainly be reconstructed a little larger, but I don't think what I have here rn is unreasonable. I'd be happy to show the bones underneath this recon if you want to see how it works Triloboii (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were referred remains. I suppose the length of the head just makes it look odd knowing what the holotype skull looks like. But if you used actual specimens for the scaling, then I don't think there's any issue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Homotherium

Head of H. serum

I don't have an image to be reviewed, but I want to point out that a newly discovered Homotherium cub mummy may impact how the animal should be reconstructed. The paper is here, and the mummy has dark, reddish-brown fur. The reconstructions on the Homotherium Wikipedia page currently have whitish-grey fur, so they may need to be revised. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple species of Homotherium and only this one juvenile is believed to have had brown fur, so theoretically only depictions of juveniles of H. latidens should be changed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Our only restoration of H. latidens (which I'm not sure otherwise passed review) appears to have roughly the right colour:[13] But yeah, the rest we have are of H. serum, so we can't necessarily assume they had the same colour. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Discord, I will try to fix that head restoration (added above). Seems to be mainly the way the back of the head connects with the neck and the width of the snout base that is off, but feel free to add other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Triloboii is also working on his restoration, which hopefully will be completed at some point in the not too distant future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Which species? FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

H. latidens. H latidens and H. serum are basically morphologically identical though (the name applied largely depends on which continent the remains are from), and it's not unreasonable to think they are the same species (something which has been repeatedly suggested in the recent academic literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool, either way, then it should probably reflect the colouration of that mummy (felid kittens don't differ so much in colouration from the adults). FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Unspecified tetrapod

This is simply labeled "Labyrinthodontia". Does anyone know what exactly this is supposed to be, how accurate it is and how it could be used (other than illustrating the page about "Labyrinthodontia")? Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's unfortunately all the website said, so may not be of much use. But the author could be emailed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's meant to be Tulerpeton, based on the proportions of the six-toed hindlimbs. Even so, that's no guarantee, it could just as easily be an outdated salamander-style Ichthyostega based on the shape of the skull and long teeth. Or maybe it's not meant to be any one animal in particular. NGPezz (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus skeletal + size

• 
  Skeletal (holotype)
• 
  Size comparison (estimated adult)

Skeletal reconstruction of the one holotypic vertebra of Nipponopterus, plus a size chart based on the paper's estimated adult wingspan. I'm a little hesitant about that size given the holotype (which is described as a "subadult") is much smaller... -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the estimate is wingspan, perhaps a flying silhouette would be preferable? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Pterosaur size estimates are essentially always given as wingspans, rather than length/height. This size chart is still consistent with the wingspan estimate, even if it is shown indirectly. Flying silhouettes (especially dorsal-view wingspan silhouettes, for which there are very few decent references) introduce new complications with posing and fitting neatly into a believable diagram. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the walking pose is preferable. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Large bird sizes

I found this on commons. I'm planning on using it for a long-term project about the size of birds throughout their evolution. Any issues that some Cenozoic people can identify? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is surely oversized. Seemingly each square is 30 cm considering human's height, and that make Kelenken skull way oversized, which is actually 70 cm long but in this chart nearly 1.5 m. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Gastornis being labeled as "predatory" is pretty outdated. Honestly why is it here, this would work better as a strictly Phorusrhacid size chart. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Scale diagrams for extinct birds are generally pretty lacking, I may try and get working on some relatively soon. This was the best one I could find. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely needs a scale bar. Could really use an entire overhaul—the silhouette detail is inconsistent (especially with the shaggy Gastornis) and the gradient background is unnecessary and distracting. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the inconsistent silhouettes as mentioned by SlvrHwk, I think its probably worth looking into the licensing around them. I can't say how much modification or difference would suffice but on first glance the Kelenken seems very much to be slightly repurposed from the artwork of Stephanie Abramowicz, while the Phorusrhacos appears like a slimmed down and slightly reposed derivative of the WWB depiction. There are some obvious differences I admitt (Abramowicz's art has less open jaws and a more raised leg), but for cautions sake its probably better to make an entirely new image.Armin Reindl (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the gradient is pretty tedious as well. Its probably worth doing scale charts for several large extinct birds, as they appear to be relatively lacking in commons. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Anji Biota and Archopterus

Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the Anji Biota of Ordovician China, a deep sea glass sponge reef. Mainly featuring Archopterus, so I suggest it be added to that wiki page, seeing as the Anji Biota does not have one of its own. Prehistorica CM (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems nice to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, very nice recon as always. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Unshowcased works

• 
  Haikouichthys
• 
  Allodelphis
• 

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a submission for Allodelphis woodburnei, including the dolphin with and without background. If there are any changes I should consider, I'll be quick to work with it. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthropleura

Hello. I finally got around to finishing my reconstruction of Arthropleura. I based it mostly on the new fossils of Arthropleura sp. from Montceau-les-Mines, although reduced the spines slightly, to represent an older individual, or a different species. I would have also made clean / orthographic renders, but the page is already short and cluttered as is, so first we would have to find a place to put this one. Prehistorica CM (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty nice for me! My concerns are, spine-like humps are known mostly from smaller specimens so not sure if it is also like that for adult one, and antennae segmentation being over 7, although yeah, MNHN.F.SOT002123 seems have more antennae segments than smaller specimen. (problem is not specified in the paper or supplementary material) Do you have opinions, @Junnn11:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO the spines are still acceptable if it represent older Montceau (potentially new) species. The basal section of the antenna was interpreted as a specifically long 1st segment, but yeah it does not seems to be the case in that specimen. Junnn11 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthropleura mammata also probably had similar spines as a juvenile, and I did make sure to reduce their size from the height shown in the CT data. I hope the antennae are not too much of an issue, I think its inarguable that there are more than 7 segments in the larger specimen, but I understand its a weird position for wikipedia. sorry about that. I will also note here that I have done a massive overhaul of the Arthropleura article. I hope that isnt an issue. Prehistorica CM (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Placoderms and Chondrichthyans

My first set of placoderms along with a few other fish with a more updated look, I had help from Richard Carr for a few of the weirder placoderms like rolfosteus and gymnotrachelus. The general proportions are based on the equation from Engelman 2023 but with a bit of wiggle room since one or two were a little shorter than they probably would be.

• 
  Tubonasus lennardensis
• 
  Gymnotrachelus hydei
• 
  Rolfosteus canningensis
• 
  Pholidosteus friedeli
• 
  Mcnamaraspis kaprios
• 
  Latocamurus coulthardi
• 
  Kiangyousteus yohii
• 
  Heintzichthys gouldii
• 
  Harpagofututor volsellorhinus
• 
  Diademodus hydei
• 
  Bryantolepis brachycephala
• 
  Enseosteus marocanensis

SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No complaints here, and really glad to see these represented. As stated before I especially like the Harpagofututor and Diademodus, and I appreciate the changes made to the latter prior to uploading. Great job as usual! Gasmasque (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bashkyroleter

• 

Hello all. Can I have another review for my drawing? This time I tried to reconstruct Bashkyroleter based on the skull found on its Wikipedia page. For the body, I mainly using Dmitry Bogdanov reconstruction of other closely related species as base reference. And yes, I am aware Dmitry himself had drawn this taxa a while ago... But it is kind of obscured by other species from its location. So I thought I want to try making a more clear reconstruction?

Thank you in advance always...

DD (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Daeng+dino&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image DD (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are no major inaccuracies, I think I am going to upload it to the taxa page... But as always, if it is deemed inaccurate, please just take it down... DD (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comparing to skeletal reconstructions of other nycteroleters, I don't see any major discrepancies other than the fact that there should be five digits on all limbs (not super clear here). Perhaps more important is that the file should be renamed to specify the species (mesensis) because the genus is considered to be polyphyletic in recent literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Ah yes, I am aware about the 5 digits but it is not quite visible from the angle I drew it.. About the species, I am not aware of the specific species. I will change it then.. Thanks! DD (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Amphimeryx

Another Quercy artiodactyl, this time tiny

• 
  Amphimeryx murinus
• 
  Size chart

Triloboii (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Already was the one who provided material images for the restorations, approved as usual. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus by かずたき

This unreviewed image of the recently described azhdarchid Nipponopterus was added to its page without review. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is rough. The wing/hand posture is completely wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have an extra arm bone. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which? I see a scapula, upper arm, lower arm, and metacarpals. That said, it is pretty rough, and not sure about the proportions (the body looks too big). FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

not an extra arm bone per se but having the humerus articulate with the scapula below the vertebral column contradicts every well-preserved pterosaur specimen ever found. In effect, the scapula is where the humerus should be. Body/neck ratio also wrong for azhdarchids... the arm is so wrong that I don't even care about the shrinkwrapped nasoantorbital fenestra. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Port Kennedy Bone Cave Fauna

I have recently been working on reconstructing Port Kennedy Bone Cave fauna, inlcuding Smilodon gracilis, Megalonyx wheatleyi, and Mericonyx inexpectatus. Specifically these were reconstructed in the context of the local Philadelphia area (with the Smilodon and Megalonyx being depicted in the Wissahickon). I noticed that the wikipedia page for the Port Kennedy Bone Cave lacks reconstructions of the animals discovered there, so I suggest these be added on the page.

Prehistoric philly

Miracinonyx inexpectata

Spinosaurid (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing all the taxa you mention? The sloth image also needs a Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The Smilodon in the drawing just look off compared to those of Mauricio Anton (e.g. [14], [15], [16]), even considering the obvious differences in detail and art style, so I would oppose inclusion. The restoration of Miracinonyx looks a lot better, but again there are issues with the tail, which looks crudely drawn like it shrinks where it joins the body, unlike that of say the living cheetah. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus life reconstruction

Uploaded by @Mikailodon and added to the Andrewsarchus article without review. Figured it was best to post it here, seeing as the original full-body life construction was replaced for being too speculative (since Andrewsarchus is known exclusively from craniodental elements). Borophagus (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The texture of the skin looks a little off. I'm not sure of any mammal that has skin texture like that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The skin was inspired by rhinos, since it was a large land mammal. The related hippo is also somewhat in the mix. Mikailodon (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If those are intended to be oxpeckers, I am not sure that any passerines are even known from contemporary strata. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The accompanying article(?) lists them only as "tick birds", so I'm assuming that was the intention. Looking into it, there doesn't seem to be any records of Buphagus in the fossil record (let alone from any of the locales Andrewsarchus comes from), and there is no molecular data on their date of origin or even point of divergence from other muscicapoids. If they don't represent buphagids, they must represent a clade we have no evidence for, which would make them completely made up. Either way, very speculative. Borophagus (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

These are just speculative, and may or may not be traditionally be oxpeckers, they’re at least just random birds. Also, oxpeckers are not really the only "tick birds," egrets and magpies are a couple that will often hitch a ride on large animals to eat their parasites. Mikailodon (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Glad you love it. Mikailodon (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we do not exactly know what it looked like beyond the head, its close relatives can restore a close picture, which is what I tried doing here. Nothing else too speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed previously regarding Dmitri Bogdanov's reconstruction, which was deemed too speculative. Contrary to what you state, Andrewarchus has no known close relatives, and any detailed reconstructions of its postcranial anatomy should be considered very tentative to the point of diminishing educational value. Yours additionally includes entirely fictional passerine birds, something which is generally best to avoid to avoid misleading unaware, casual viewers. Wikipedia isn't a paleoart gallery, for better or worse, and even reconstructions that are visually appealing and within the realm of possibility may not see use due to there being more encyclopedic alternatives. Frankly I am of the opinion that if this were to be suitable for the page, Bogdanov's reconstruction would be as well, and its more clear silhouette and lack of fictional species would make it a preferable alternative. Gasmasque (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, although the birds aren’t fictional, they’re just speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Du Toit's torrent frog

Illustration of a live Du Toit's torrent frog

Chart showing the sizes of Arthroleptides species

Ok I realize this isn't exactly paleoart since this species survived into modern times (and might not even be extinct yet) but I figured I'd put it here anyways, if there's a similar review page for illustrations of extant fauna then I don't know about it. This species was last seen in 1962 and the preserved specimens have lost their original color so I had to restore it based on field notes, so there's some element of reconstruction like in paleoart rather than referencing photos of live individuals (which to my knowledge do not exist). Olmagon (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Dongnanosuchus

• 
• 

Armin Reindl (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed images by Tourmaline Ctenacanth

• 
  Tuanshanzia linearis
• 
  Grandilingulata qianxiensis
• 
  Tuanshanzia fasciaria
• 
  Proterotainia sp.

These images got removed from their respective pages for being unreviewed, so the obvious answer was to post them here and get them reviewed. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely notebook lines are unneeded, needs to get rid of. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, however, in my experience, attempting to remove these notebook lines is not only difficult but also makes the images worse. I'll need to create some new illustrations at some point. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Titanoides new life reconstruction

Little(ish) fella to replace the old Bogdanov art

Life reconstruction of the paleogene pantodont Titanoides primaevus.

Zhombah (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks very good, but the file is a bit low res. Is that the original or did it get compressed? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't typically work at a super high resolution (simply out of habit), but i could absolutely resize the image. The conversion to a .png format may have caused some compression. Zhombah (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Koonaspides

Koonaspides

At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)