Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Spinosauridae life reconstructions

Baryonyx walkeri
Suchomimus tenerensis
Riparovenator milnerae
Ceratosuchops inferodios
Cristatusaurus lapparenti
Vallibonavenatrix cani
Siamosaurus suteethorni
Irritator challengeri
Ichthyovenator laosensis
Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis
Oxalaia quilombensis
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Iberospinus natarioi
Family chart

Hi y'all! Been a long while since I contributed anything to the Wiki. So thought I'd take on a challenge and create restorations for almost every spinosaurid. Been hammering away at it for two weeks but finally finished. These will all be included in a size chart similar to Fred Wierum's dromaeosaur one.[1] So I wanna iron out anything that should be fixed before I go ahead and put them in the diagram together. Cheers! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Look really cool, a few observations: if these are to be put in the same diagram, I'd assume they are supposed to exist in the "same universe" if that makes sense, so while I now see some have exposed teeth and some have them covered in lips, if these were designed for the same reality, it should be consistent? The feathering on the Cristatusaurus's tail looks like it's floating because the white pattern has the same colour as the background, and therefore looks like a gap. And some of these have very colourfiul, busy patterns, would that be realistic for such huge predators, which you might imagine would try not to be too conspicuous when hunting fish and dinosaurs? FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only teeth exposed are the front most ones, and that only along the spinosaurine branch of the family (as opposed to the fully lipped baryonychines), so I'm guessing the intent is to show exposed teeth as a hypothetical derived feature that appeared as these guys got weirder. Tho honestly I don't see an issue with depicting both seeing as the illustrations are not immediately tied to each other and either hypothesis is possible. I do agree with the plumage on the Cristatusaurus tho, on white background it does look a bit off at first glance. Armin Reindl (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just saw the part about the size chart including them all, still, given the infered evolutionary progression I don't think that's an issue Armin Reindl (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Sigilmassasaurus bright pink? I think it's too fanciful. It wasn't a filter-feeder like a flamingo that gets carotenoids from algae, and it probably didn't have the filaments that would appear pink in the first place. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Blue also isn’t possible for these simple feather structures. I understand that we don’t know anything about the patterns and colours of spinosaurids, but most of these seem to be well within the range of unbelievable. I also suggest not having such harsh lines segmenting the thigh, it makes it look like the leg is only connected at the hip. Luxquine (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

While on the subject of color, the color scheme of the Spinosaurus just feels off. Maybe it's the sudden, sharp contrast between the beige body and the black-and-white speckled head, sail, and tail. I suggest you use the color patterns of your previous spinosaurine illustrations. Or, to make them similar enough when displayed on a chart, use the general color schemes (but not the patterns ofc) of the baryonychines on the spinosaurines, since the former look plausible already. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The lips were indeed done the way they were for the reasons Armin Reindl pointed out. As for the colour patterns on both their bodies and the filaments, I've finally finished re-doing them so they're all more ecologically plausible, with the help of feedback from a friend who's a wildlife educator and provided good references. Everything look good now Miracusaurs FunkMonk Luxquine? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The feathers of the Siamosaurus and Irritator need to be changed; the former has bright red filaments which are only possible via carotenoids (which aren’t accessible in enough quantity in predators of vertebrates to sequester) or iridescence (which isn’t possible in stage one feathers), while the latter still has blue feathers on the head which is also only possible via iridescence. Luxquine (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oop, looks like I missed those two. Changed them both to black. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me then! FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe tone down the blue on the Siamosaurus' neck and the Riparovenator' sail a bit, so they're more of a pigeon or seal color? Also, the patterns on the Irritator still look quite odd; it looks too much like a beach painted on a dinosaur-shaped canvas. Maybe make the blue-gray stripes chestnut brown or something? Miracusaurs (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

One thing, watermarks/large signatures are generally discouraged on Commons, I wonder if they should perhaps be smaller/less conspicuous? FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thought, perhaps give either Sigilmassasaurus or Spinosaurus a more classically rounded sail to differentiate them, but also because many seem to be doubting the Ibrahim/Sereno configuration? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Aight, taken care of most of the above issues and finished the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool! I have a couple comments regarding the size chart.

It is somewhat distracting how most of the taxa are facing left, while only four are facing right. It seems like they could all be flipped fairly easily without messing with the spacing, with the exception of Ceratosuchops. Perhaps if Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops switched spots, this could be solved?
A scale bar should probably be included somewhere in the diagram. Maybe in one of the bottom corners? And/Or next to Mr. Stromer, to indicate his height.
I think listing a length after the name of each taxon would be beneficial. That would make it easier to compare the lengths of different species. Something like "3. Iberospinus natarioi (9m)".
This is completely subjective, but I think the key at the bottom would be easier to read if the names were arranged in columns, as opposed to rows. That's just my personal preference, though.

Overall, this is great. Very informative and visually appealing. Good work! -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi SlvrHwk, thanks for the suggestions! I'll work on implementing these changes, though just a heads up that it might take me a bit as I've got a lot on my plate lately, plus I'm already pretty burnt out from working on this chart for so long. But your feedback has been noted! I totally forgot to include a scale bar haha. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Evgenavis diagram

Evgenavis nobilis
Skeletal reconstruction of Evgenavis nobilis

Skeletal reconstruction of Evgenavis nobilis
Holotype tarsometatarsus of Evgenavis nobilis

I made this diagram for the Evgenavis page, which currently has no images. The outline is based on Longipteryx since Hartman et al 2019 found Evgenavis to be a Longypterygid. If the version with the outline is too speculative for wikipedia's standards, i can make a version that is just a diagram of the tarsometatarsus. Feedback/corrections appreciated. P2N2222A (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a few minutes after posting this I noticed the position/scaling of the tarsometatarsus was slightly off. that has been fixed. P2N2222A (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of speculation, I think this would be more useful as two separate images: the skeletal diagram and the fossil illustration. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

as suggested by User:SlvrHwk, I have created separate files for the skeletal diagram and the fossil illustration. P2N2222A (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Longipterygids don’t have a full fan of tail feathers as the silhouette suggests, and generally have modern bird-like feathering and posture on their necks that would make the neck look considerably shorter and fatter. Kingfishers are a good reference for how the feathering and posture of the neck should look. Luxquine (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. The outline in the current version was based on this reconstruction of Longipteryx. I will modify the outline. P2N2222A (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

fixed outline per User:Luxquine's feedback. P2N2222A (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As accurate osteologically as that reference is, it unfortunately skinwraps the animal. The neck needs to be a smooth and unbroken transition into the body, making it effectively impossible to point out where the head goes into the neck and the neck goes into the body. This fossil is a good reference. Luxquine (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Modified the outline again. P2N2222A (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks great! Good job! Luxquine (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Issue in size chart of Brontornis and Kelenken?

This image is used in page Brontornis, but it looks like that both birds in the image are oversized, probably just enlarged them to the height that is often described. Kelenken should have skull that is 71 cm long, but in this image head is over a meter. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

On this occation, I'll request someone make an accurate Kelenken diagram, since all we have seems wrong[2], and I'm thinking of expanding the article soonish for GA/FA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I know someone who did an excellent full body skeletal of Kelenken, gonna ask if he ever considered uploading to Wikipedia as well Armin Reindl (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well good news, he's interested in putting his work out there, probably gonna take a bit until he finds the time to upload however Armin Reindl (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

After reading more of the description, it seems the head wouldn't have been that low, but more like other phorhusrhacids. The holotype skull is just distorted, dorsoventrally flattened, and most restorations have just followed that for some reason, including mine, so I'll also have to fix it, and it should be taken into account in a new size diagram, Armin Reindl... FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sierraceratops

Here's a Sierraceratops life restoration recently uploaded by the author (SmirnovaNataliaArt). I think it looks pretty good. But maybe anyone have some comments? HFoxii (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a little dark. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is not very visible in the miniature, but I do not think that this is a significant problem. I added a restoration to the article. HFoxii (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The author uploaded a lighter version. HFoxii (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to match what's known. Most other restorations seem to give it a downwards pointing spike at the sides of the lower frill, but that's an unknown region anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If I were to nitpick, the postorbital horns and epijugal are clearly drawn as generic ceratopsid elements rather than the diagnostically unique ones in this taxon, and the frill could probably more strongly embayed. But the paper itself admits horncore robustness and length might be mere individual variation, and the angle does not permit accurately judging if they're mediolaterally compressed like they should be, so it's a bit silly to get hung up on that trait. Meanwhile even the press art doesn't even make an effort on the horns. So if the authors okay'd that, I think this is perfectly fine. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Vespersaurus Life Restorations

There are currently three life restorations of Vespersaurus uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In my opinion, the restoration by Hypnoflow used in the article is too speculative. There is no evidence of a feather cover in ceratosaurs, especially such a dense one. I propose to evaluate the reliability of the available reconstructions and choose which one should be placed in the article. HFoxii (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A dense (maybe) feather cover is present in Pterosauria and Ornithischia, and to my knowledge, the notion of such integument being plesiomorphic for dinosaurs is considered credible. I certainly wouldn't consider depicting a small noasaurid with feathers to be outright inaccurate. Hypnoflow (whose image is not used in the article) appears to depict it with a beak, but the Vespersaurus hypodigm includes teeth inferred to belong to the species, so that does go against inferred anatomym and as such, we should not use it. As far as I can tell, both Juan's and Ildarotyrannus's seem more or less equally credible to me, and as such, I see no particular reason to change the image currently used in the article. Ornithopsis (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the Hypnoflow image is clearly unreliable. I also respect the methods of phylogenetic bracketing, but I think we should rely on fossil evidence whenever possible. No feathered ceratosaurus are currently known, but there are two scaled ones (Ceratosaurus and Carnotaurus). HFoxii (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence that Ceratosaurus had predominantly scaly skin. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

There are dermal ossifications of varying sizes preserved along the dorsal mid-line of the neck and proximal tail of the holotype (see Gilmore, 1920; pp. 113–114). Theropod integuments are beautifully described in a new paper by Hendrickx et al. (2022). Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that feathers were present, but at least there is good reason to believe that non-coelurosaurian/non-tetanuran theropods did not have a dense feather cover. HFoxii (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the restoration by Ildarotyrannus is more in line with what has been published in the scientific literature. Juan's restoration isn't inaccurate, but it's probably overly speculative for a Wikipedia article. HFoxii (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The presence of a few midline osteoderms is hardly strong evidence that Ceratosaurus lacked feathers, so it isn't really all that relevant to the probability of feathers in noasaurids. Note that most evidence for scales in that paper are from the feet or tail (which are known to be scaly in the predominantly-fuzzy Kulindadromeus), from late, large, derived species (such as Carnotaurus and Tyrannosaurus), or from species known to also have feathers (Juravenator). It's not really the clearest of evidence. Feathers are not a priori any more speculative than scales; which traits are speculative depends on the phylogenetic bracket, and the phylogenetic bracket here is not particularly clear. Sources such as Godefroit et al. 2014 and Yang et al. 2019, which suggest feathers may be plesiomorphic for dinosaurs, provide adequate justification for depicting something such as this with some kind of fuzzy integument. Ornithopsis (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, I agree that, in theory, ceratosaurs could have had some feathers. However, it is unlikely that they had thick feathers all over their body, as we know that at least some parts of the body of Carnotaurus and Ceratosaurus were covered with scales and/or dermal ossifications. I think everyone would agree that a feathered ceratosaur is not a common sight in palaeoart. Such life restoration focuses the reader's attention on a detail that is the artist's original interpretation. HFoxii (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Limusaurus, also a noasaur, was depicted with protofeathers[3] in some of the press release artwork back then it was announced. Noasaurs are so removed from Ceratosaurus itself that its integument should have as little bearing or less than the integument of Tyrannosaurus itself should have on small, basal tyrannosaurs, some of which are known to have had protofeathers anyway. Should be fine to show both versions here, if the article is expanded and gets more room. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why the discussion ? Juan and Ildarotyrannus are both right, we don't have any proof of feathers on ceratosaurs, but we don't have any proof of scaly skin on small theropods either. So, why chose between both images ? They could be added both, with the precision that the presence or absence of feathers are both highly speculative. This way, we can keep two quite good visual supports. Larrayal (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

third one should totally be flagged for inaccurate. It's overly shrinkwrapped and looks really weird and wrinkly. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like it has excess skin rather than too little? Wouldn't be inaccurate per se, but does look a bit weird. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really appeal to my personal aesthetic tastes, either, but it isn't shrinkwrapped, and the wrinkles are not an inaccuracy. Plenty of birds and lizards are weird and wrinkly in places, so we can't rule out the possibility that some dinosaurs were as well—and it isn't really such a conspicuous feature that I would be concerned about it being misleading. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Allen Formation

This chart by PaleoNeolitic needs to be updated to include Kelumapusaura machi, a new kritosaurin hadrosaur. Thankfully, its describers offer a size estimate: 8-9 meters long. Miracusaurs (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Very cool, gonna add it shortly. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And before I forget, it's also missing the titanosaur Menucocelsior arriagadai. Miracusaurs (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing 🤏 wait for it. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Morrosaurus sketch

I took a look at our old list of requested images[4], and saw Morrosaurus there, so here's a quick sketch:[5] If/when it looks ok, I'll clean it up and make it furry, a la Kulindadromeus. I don't have much experience drawing small ornithischians, so any clues are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest a less dynamic pose as it may be confusing for readers. Luxquine (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the angle is intentional, since it's only known from parts of the legs[6], to keep the more unknown parts obscure. It's kind of pointless to make unknown parts of the animal a big part of the image. It should look less confusing when it's rendered and not just a bunch of sketchy lines, I'd think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am generally of the opinion that we should try and have a field guide-style illustration with standardized composition when possible, so I get where Luxquine is coming from. I also agree with FunkMonk's general point about depicting known anatomy, but I think that the important thing is that our illustrations should not unduly emphasize unknown parts or unnecessarily obscure known parts; a more standard pose would not have those problems for this taxon. As such, if it were entirely up to me, this pose probably wouldn't be my first choice for the only illustration of a taxon–but it also is far from being weird enough to be confusing, so I don't object to it either. It looks good so far; perhaps someone more familiar with ornithischian anatomy would have more pointers. I agree with depicting it with Kulindadromeus-like integument. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't agree with showing direct front or back views for such laterally compressed animals as most bipedal dinosaurs either. And I do agree with the field guide style of showing idealised poses and individuals. But I don't think this particular image is that extreme; I wouldn't draw such a pose for a dinosaur with more of the front part preserved. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I quite like the pose and have no issues with it artistically, while lateral-view images are beneficial when displayed in small form, I much prefer non-orthogonal views as restorations in articles because we already get orthogonal views for bones and scale diagrams. As far at the anatomy is concerned, the neck should be more elongate, and the skull should have a more sloped snout, I have an old Talenkauen diagram where the snout is almost more similar in profile to Heterodontosaurus than Hypsilophodon or Thescelosaurus. The tail could probably also do with being longer, and the shoulder region a bit deeper. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, I'll try to get it more in line with Talenkauen. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with the "field guide" approach. A field guide of dinosaurs would be just about fossils and sediments, not life reconstructions – we are a serious encyclopedia and there is no time travel. I do think that we should choose postures that best show the important anatomical features, and this image does a good job here imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm using "field guide" metaphorically. I mean that I think we should generally try and have illustrations of taxa with a somewhat standardized pose and composition to facilitate comparing their appearance at a glance, in much the same way as a field guide does. To be clear, I mean that we should try to have an illustration for each taxon in such a pose; we don't want our articles to be full of zillions of left lateral view walking poses of the same species. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ok, though I personally prefer skeletal diagrams for this very purpose – because they show what skeletal elements are known. In this case (and many others), most of a life reconstruction is not that far away from fantasy because of incompleteness, and having such standardised poses as suggested in every article may mislead the reader to think that we can actually use this like a field guide, which we for many taxa simply can't. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the image should be flipped, it's known from the right leg only (not sure how I missed that a few years ago...) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Here[7] it is with some slightly more Talenkauen-like proportions as suggested by IJReid, longer tail, neck (and smaller head), more convex snout (if I understood the suggestion correctly), and a deeper chest. I might flip the image later on, but for now, I'm fairly sure the legs would have been symmetrical... Interesting discussion here, in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would say the neck could be even longer still, but with the unresolved situation of internal elasmaria it could work fine how it is. Nothing else I notice. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Added feathers and tail scute-thingies, as well as other details.[8] Will colourise it next. Haven't followed Kulindadromeus entirely, as this is of course not the same animal, so there should have been some variation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Added the colourised version above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I would say it looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Fukuivenator

New study [9] shows that Fukuivenator is classified as basal Therizinosauria, with some anatomical changes. This reconstruction looks like outdated, with some denied features such as dromaeosaur-like claws. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best used as a "historical" restoration instead of modifying it, as it's so transparently depicted as a dromaeosaur. I've replaced the infobox image with one only showing the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah I agree you about that. by the way here is skeleton of Fukuivenator that is recently taken and based on newer reconstruction. Fukuivenator is studied in that museum, so it looks reliable to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be clarified that Fukuivenator has never been considered a dromaeosaur, and that the original NT life restoration depicts it as a dromaeosaur-convergent omnivorous maniraptoriform, as in the 2016 study. As for the accuracy of the NT depiction itself, the skull is a bit too large and low, as with the Velociraptor-like skeletal in the 2016 paper. Admittedly the top edge is not preserved in the fossil, so it's hard to say anything about that area with absolute certainty. The arms are also a bit small relative to the legs, and the toes in general are too stubby. There's not much conclusive evidence on how large the hallux is, but a second toe shorter than the third is still supported by the redescription. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the restoration when I added the new skeleton, but it could potentially be used to reflect the original interpretation, though the old skeleton (and diagram) already does that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, yeah, I think we could definitely use that. Very short article, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the older photo shows the fossils prior to preparation, and the newer shows them after, next to the reconstructed skeleton? If so, that's pretty interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And so, work on the Fukuivenator 3D model has begun! It is based on skeletal by Genya Masukawa published in Hattori et al. (2021). Undoubtedly, in the final version, it will have feathers. HFoxii (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The final version is ready! Any comments? HFoxii (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The rendering artefacts on the feathers are quite bizarre and detract significantly from the image. Furthermore, I don't see why the antorbital fenestra should be visible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes: Surely it's better now? HFoxii (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
It is, but what is going on at the top of the head? Are the feathers floating there? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
After this flaw and some other little things related to feathers have been fixed, I think that the reconstruction can be added to the article. HFoxii (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Zizhongosaurus

I don't think that is accurate. Articles like List of Asian dinosaurs show indiscriminate image postings by User:Miracusaurs, but this seems to be particularly problematic and is also used on the page of the dinosaur itself. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The images I added to the "List of dinosaurs from continent" pages are simply whatever life reconstructions I could pull from Wikimedia Commons - no other criteria used. As for this image itself, it looked plausible when I saw it at thumbnail view, but zooming in I noticed multiple inaccuracies, including but not limited to: a cartoonishly-drawn eye, a partially visible fenestra, strange articulation at the tail base, and the fact that the right forelimb is a copy-pasted hindlimb. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

From the same artist, also egregiously unusable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's also an unattributed modification of cisiopurple's Xinjiangovenator: https://www.deviantart.com/cisiopurple/art/Xinjiangovenator-812717691 Miracusaurs (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if you find unused images and want to add them to a list, you should post them for review here first. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll post some here soon. Miracusaurs (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Camarasaurus size chart by PaleoGeekSquared

Most sources I've seen have indicated that C. grandis and C. lentus are roughly the same size, reaching a maximum length of roughly 15 m. Gregory Paul even has C. grandis as the slightly smaller of the two at 14 m. So where's the claim that C. grandis reached a length of 18 m coming from? Both species seem to have reached similar sizes based on bone measurements (C. lentus: WDC-BS: longest humerus 1140 mm, longest femur 1452 mm, DINO 4514: femur 1470 mm; C. grandis: GMNH-PV 101: humerus 1130 mm, femur 1485 mm). GMNH-PV 101 is 13.7 m long as mounted. 18 m is closer to some estimates of C. supremus than any estimate I've seen for C. grandis. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the image's initial review, the anatomy was checked but not the size estimates. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The animals aren't scaled with the curvature of the vertebral column taken into account either, making them too large. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Velociraptor

Hi! This Velociraptor reconstruction I did a while back was updated per request on the last image review page, but it was archived before it could be evaluated as paleontologically acceptable. Is there anything you guys would change about this reconstruction, or is it good as is? --Entelognathus (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I still think it could be closer to the skeletals in the proportions of the head and placement of teeth. The nostril seems to be in a pretty random location compared to the location of the bony nostril, and the eye seems a bit too big. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Which skeletal would you recommend for the skull? -- Entelognathus (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Hartman's as usual:[10] And note the fleshy nostril should be placed at the front margin of the bony nostril, and the visible part of the eyeball should fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ypupiara

This is a sketch I made of Ypupiara which I added to the article a while ago. I did not know about the review process at the time, but coming across it again I realized it needs to be reviewed. I think there are some things that need fixing (maybe eye position). If you see anything, please let me know. - BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a beak, or just skin texture? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just skin texture, but I can see how it looks like a beak. I'll edit it and make it look less beak-like soon. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t look like a beak to me, there are clearly scales drawn on. I wouldn’t make them more prominent than they already are. Luxquine (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the eye more posteriorly to match what is known about other unenlagiines' skull shape and eye placement. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus

Is this restoration of Sarcosaurus (here interpreted as a basal neotheropod) suitable for use in the article? HFoxii (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any comments? Maybe there are some inaccuracies? HFoxii (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hfoxii it looks pretty good to me, aside from the feet (i'm using the word 'feet' to refer to the part of the leg below the ankle since dinosaurs are digitigrade) being a bit too chunky. everything else looks really good though. Aside from the foot issue, it's a really nice drawing. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firewing The Wyvern: Does it look better now? HFoxii (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Feitianius paradisi

Let me know if anything needs changing. :) Luxquine (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks anatomically fine to me.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking pretty much fine and naturalistic. I'm particularly interested in this style, looks like a mix of traditional line and digital painting (?). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't say much about the accuracy, but the crest reminded me very much of this photo:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pyroraptor and Atrociraptor

Pyroraptor olympius life reconstruction
Pyroraptor olympius standard skeletal
Pyroraptor olympius skeletal as an unenlagiine
Atrociraptor marshalli skeletal

I've created a set of illustrations of Pyroraptor olympius, originally intending only to publish the life restoration, but while researching it I ended up creating skeletals that might also be worth using in some way. There are two skeletals of Pyroraptor, one depicting it as a generic dromaeosaurid and the other illustrating what it might look like as an unenlagiine (which is a possibility, though uncertain at the moment). The Atrociraptor skeletal is a bonus that I thought would be nice to have on the wiki now that the taxon is getting new media attention. Mettiina (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, one thing I'm wondering, it seems like you've made even the wing and tail feathers very loose and "downy", so I wonder what that's based on? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

As we don't have preserved dromaeosaurid feathers from the Late Cretaceous I'm basing their appearance on modern flightless paleognaths that retain and still actively use their wings i.e. ostriches and rheas. They seem like a good model for how dromaeosaur feathers may have changed in fully terrestrial lineages after giving up the gliding lifestyle. Based on the recent study on the feathers of Anchiornis it seems likely that the pre-flighted maniraptorans didn't really have the tightly zipped feathers of volant birds to begin with, which could mean they only evolved after advanced powered flight was achieved, so probably in pygostylians. Mettiina (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice, sounds sensible. Quite different from how dromaeosaur plumage is generally restored these days, where fluffiness is almost pushed to the max. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That life reconstruction is absolutely stunning. Kudos! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And speaking of Atrociraptor, I retooled an older generic dromaeosaur restoration I had done as that genus years ago, and while I have since toned it down, I wonder if the overly grouse-like ornamental and fluffy plumage is too much and should be modified? FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Berezovsk stegosaur

Here is new life reconstruction of stegosaur (Stegosauria indet.) nicknamed "Yurashka" from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) Itat Formation at Berezovsk Quarryy, Krasnoyarsk Krai (West Siberia, Russia). This is a remake of an older model File:Stegosauria indet. from Itat Formation.jpg. The reconstruction is based on Averianov & Krasnolutskii (2009) paper and skeletal by Ivanbel. In addition to improving the overall quality of the model, it was decided to make the model more stegosaurid-like, based on the results of our own phylogenetic analysis. Although this is an original study, no one has classified the Berezovsk stegosaur as a basal stegosaurian, so everything is fine. The phylogenetic position of the Berezovsk stegosaur is unclear, and such an interpretation is equally probable of the basal position. The walking animation is based on trackways from the Morrison and La Puerta formations. I think that this reconstruction could be added to the Itat Formation article. Also, perhaps the walking animation is appropriate for the Stegopodus article. HFoxii (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov)

A competent restoration. But the walking animation is not appropriate for Stegopodus unless tracks are superimposed underneath. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Retooled megaraptoran

So I yet again returned to my old restoration of Siats, which was probably way too fluffy for such a large megaraptoran, and since that article has another, scaly restoration, perhaps it can be retooled as the small genus Vayuraptor. Any thoughts on this modified version?[12] FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the proportions are too robust for a small stem-megaraptoran like Vayuraptor. Either make it more like a slightly beefy Compsognathus or retool it as a bigger genus like Fukuiraptor or Phuwiangvenator. If the latter, make the snout more elongated and the thumb claw larger. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It may be best to retool it into something like Yutyrannus or another large early tyrannosauroid. They're some of the only theropods which straddle the line between large predators and confirmed extensive feathering. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Tratayenia? It's pretty big, but not as big as Siats. Yutyrannus already has multiple restorations. There seems to be coming a description of a pretty complete megaraptoran soon that may settle their relations with other theropod groups better... FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tratayenia would probably work after a bit more proportional changes. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which changes could that be? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe making the snout lower and the hand claws larger, more flattened and curved. Tratayenia was a well-nested megaraptoran, so Megaraptor and Murusraptor are good templates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Before I adjust details, more like this[13], Fanboyphilosopher? Will probably also paint it over so it doesn't look so rough... FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I like it, though the right hand may need some re-touching to make it clear that the inner two claws are the bigger ones. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Now updated and renamed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Plantigrade therizinosaurids

So, long time ago I stumbled upon the enigmatic Macropodosaurus and started to collect information about it. Sennikov has published two interesting monographs (2006, 2021) about this ichnotaxon concluding that therizinosaurids are the most likely track-makers and had a plantigrade stance (sadly, critical elements like tarsals, calcaneum, and astragalus are omitted). Decided to re-draw my Segnosaurus to reflect the new paper in the Macropodosaurus article. While I could continue "updating" more of my therizinosaurids, I feel like opinions from others are required. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a minority opinion, though? Russian researchers have many unconventional palaeobiological hypotheses (cf. aquatic Scutosaurus). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems inferring plantigrade theropod walking from tracks is iffy, as indicated by Jens Lallensack's latest paper[14] on the Paluxy River tracks. Perhaps the same doubts can be applied here. I think this would verge on WP:fringe if not confirmed by other researchers, and should not be followed as the default here. It can of course be discussed and illustrated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like to see the originals of these tracks, or at least 3D models of them. It doesn't look like the mechanism we described for the Paluxy River tracks, though. But we can get these somewhat elongate shapes if there is a lot of soft tissue at the rear of the foot, behind the metatarsals (this may be the most likely explanation). It is furthermore difficult to distinguish such tracks from those of crocodylomorphs (Batrachopus). So I think that the evidence available at the moment is still weak. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thought as much. My main issue with Sennikov's work is the lack reliable mechanical analysis, rather than just comparative anatomy. Still, it's very interesting how reduced the metatarsals of therizinosaurids are. Also yeah, it seems that no other researchers (besides Molina-Pérez & Larramendi 2016 book) have sneaked into the proposal. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think for this particular image, though, if we want to use it as a general restoration, and not an example of this particular theory, it should be made digitrade again. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to upload a separate version with standard leg posture to be used in more general articles, PaleoNeolitic? FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Crap I totally forgot about this! I can certainly try to make a new pair of feet; I'll upload this plantigrade restoration elsewhere. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ondogurvel

I made a life restoration of the newly described alvarezsaurid Ondogurvel alifanovi. What do you think? User:BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wing looks kind of odd, like it has two arms stitched together? I can kind of see what you're going for with the wing on the second finger, but above that it doesn't seem to adhere very much to the actual arm. I also kind of doubt those tiny, vestigial second fingers could support anything like a modern bird/dromaeosaur-like wing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I made edits to the secondary feathers to make them look like they are attacked to the arm. I also heavily reduced the primary feathers to look more reasonable on the vestigial second finger. What now? User:BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I heavily suggest the addition of a second hind leg, it looks a bit… wrong to me to not have the other one visible. Luxquine (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How does that look with the other leg? Anything else? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you think this can be added to the article yet? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the tiny wing feathers on the second digit are still a bit improbable, but I guess it's fine overall. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it is a bit odd, but it's not like the second manual digit was not just a stump; it was a jointed finger with a claw on it, and while it was almost certainly vestigial I think it is reasonable to have a few small primaries loosely placed on it. I might consider reducing the primaries further seeing that some people find them a bit improbable. I also went ahead and added the restoration to the article's taxobox. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2022‎ (UTC)

I changed the pose a bit and reduced the primary feathers more. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Anhuilong skeletal diagram by Skye McDavid

Skeletal reconstruction of Anhuilong diboensis

I made a skeletal diagram for the Anhuilong page. Based on photos of the bones in Ren et al 2020 Outline is based on various more complete Mamenchisaurids. P2N2222A (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The head looks a little rough. I'm not aware of any mamenchisaurids with skulls like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

good point. modified the head slightly P2N2222A (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The musculature on the front limbs (especially near the top) seems lacking. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

an expert I consulted with while making this made the same recommendation. fixed P2N2222A (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Almond Formation Ceratopsian

This is a skeletal of the known elements of the taxon. I used the AMNH's photo of the specimen^[1] the missing elements were based on Anchiceratops holotype, CMN 8535^[2] and "Bistaceratops" ^[3]. The scale bar was lifted from Farke (2004)^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanoceratops (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Montanoceratops! I have a few critiques regarding your illustration:

The dark gray fossil material is confusing. Since it's preserved bone, it should probably also be white (or maybe light gray).
The words "Scale Bar" below the scale bar are unnecessary.
It's best to leave off the signature/watermark, especially in this scenario, where the depicted fossil material belongs to a ceratopsian, but certainly not Montanoceratops! It could potentially be confusing or misleading. Additionally, watermarks like this are discouraged on Commons - see here and here.
Why is it labeled as "gen. et sp. nov.?"? Has that assumption been published, or is it WP:OR? I would probably stick with "Chasmosaurinae indet.", as listed in Farke (2004), unless a more recent paper has said otherwise.

Hope this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

^ http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/search.php?action=detail&specimen_id=46239
^ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Holotype-skull-of-Anchiceratops-longirostris-CMN-8535-A-right-lateral-view-B-dorsal_fig4_262938879
^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328676803_NEW_EVIDENCE_FOR_PREDATORY_BEHAVIOR_IN_TYRANNOSAURID_DINOSAURS_FROM_THE_KIRTLAND_FORMATION_LATE_CRETACEOUS_CAMPANIAN_NORTHWESTERN_NEW_MEXICO
^ Andrew A. Farke; Ceratopsid dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous Almond Formation of southwestern Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Geology 2004;; 39 (1): 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gsrocky.39.1.1

Thanks SlvrHwk I tried to take all your comments into consideration. I removed my name and added exif data to the image, I added a key for the material (the color would be impossible to change with my software and I've seen professional skeletal artists with the same color scheme). I removed "Scalebar". I decided to keep gen et sp. nov. because It has been found in the "Bistaceratops" paper as well as another phylo I forgot the source of as a new taxon. I talked with Farke and he said that the main reason he assigned the taxon as indet. was due to the lack of Epiparietals. I also wanted to keep it because the wiki article I am using this article on Almond formation states this is also a new taxon. however, to be less biased a question mark is included to gen. et. sp. nov. to convey that isn't agreed upon that it is able to be distinct.

Amargasaurus soft tissue and anatomy

An interesting new study shows that there is no evidence that the neck "spines" of Amargasaurus (and likely Bajadasaurus and Pilmatueia) were covered in keratinous sheathing. Instead, they likely held a "cervical sail" similar to many older illustrations of this taxon. This is course has implications on our current paleoart:.

What would be the best approach here? Should new illustrations be created, or would it be best to modify the existing ones? The size/skeletal diagrams should be easy enough to change. I added the current "sail" restoration above in case there are any comments regarding accuracy, in light of the new research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in switching over all our restorations off of one study. We should just make sure both reconstructions are represented and mention the study adequately in the text. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This study is the most thorough investigation of the issue to date, however, so I'm inclined to think we should give it greater weight. Perhaps we should create modified versions of some of the user-submitted artworks (but not replace the originals) to show the sail hypothesis. I don't think we should outright replace any of the spiny versions with sailed versions, however, except perhaps in the case of the user-submitted skeletal diagrams and scale charts, where we really only need the one image and I think we should favor the sail hypothesis for those. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be some misinterpretation of the paper (or I'm misinterpreting SlvrHwk's statements), from what I'm reading the authors support a cervical sail. They argue that exposed keratinous sheaths are incongruent with the histological data. So they are in favor of something akin to a Dimetrodon, Edaphosaurus, Spinosaurus, or chameleon sail, with the neural spines covered by a thin sheet of ligament-packed tissue. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me, though I'm not sure exactly how it would look with the super modified spines of Bajadasaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I see why you were confused! I adjusted my comment, so hopefully that makes more sense now. It seems that little scientific work has actually been done regarding this until now. Leaving the restorations with only spines would be contrary to current research, making them innacurate, if I understand correctly. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Like any recent paper it's always smart to wait for a consensus and not fall into recency bias, but I personally would strongly support a cervical sail. They have good arguments against the horn-covered neural spines, which were always an unorthodox interpretation relative to soft tissue correlations in other taxa. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that I did consider an update already. Tho much like Fanboyphilosoopher said, I personally chose caution for the time being, electing to wait for researchers to read the paper and at least a tentative consensus to form (i.e. are there any sauropod workers strongly opposing the idea or is it generally thought plausible by other researchers). Of course should this discussion result in favor of change, I'll gladly update the skeletal with a more solid structure (alternatively I could add a "sail" using grey rather than black if people thing this may be more appropriate) Armin Reindl (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how they claim Pilmatueia had elongated spines, but according to our skeletal, no cervical neural spines have been recovered. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Although we don't have the respective spines from the neck itself, both the authors of the type description and even of this new paper favor that the mid-cervical of Pilmatueia would have supported an Amargasaurus-type neck spike. In the same vain, prior to Bajadasaurus, Pilmatueia was thought to be Amargas sister taxon (before things got shaken up a little). Armin Reindl (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's an ongoing debate, so nothing is "the truth". As long as we show both versions, as we do, it should be fine. That of course doesn't mean that new artwork couldn't be produced. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Our current "sailed" Amargasaurus illustration doesn't have enough claws on it's hind feet. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Weird, almost look like it has hands for feet. Anything else about it that needs to be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If I may suggest, perhaps I could submit a piece for the page in order to take the new paper into account. I noticed there is artwork already on the page with a sail reconstruction, but with all due respect for the artist, perhaps it's time for a more detailed illustration. Here Ive got a work in progress with just the line work completed. Color and Lighting will be added after critique. Fred Wierum 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and this looks great! It might just be the angle, but the skull of the left Amargasaurus looks disproportionately shorter than the other. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ive redrawn the faces so they should be fine. I have a question about the sail. Should it be one sail, with soft tissue filling the space between each pair of spines, or should it be two sails with space in between running own the middle? Fred Wierum 02:55 10 April 2022 (UTC

Perhaps Jens Lallensack, who wrote the article, has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Any news from Jens about the subject? This subject is going to be left in the dust if we cant finalize it soon. Fred Wierum 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless anyone directly objects, I think it can be added already. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the sail to a unisail for the time being. If the Double sail is prefered, I made that version too so I can change to it easily. Fred Wierum 01:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Falcatakely

Hi, I made this restoration of Falcatakely, the toucan-like enantiornithean. The colour and general proportions resemble those of a toucan, making them quite similar (perhaps too much? It has become sort of a paleo-meme to depict it this way). The reference paper is included in the description (only the skull is known, the rest is speculative). A version without background is also available if it is preferable. Any thoughts?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks really good artistically, the thing I'm wondering about is the number of teeth, I haven't read the paper, but do we know whether the few teeth preserved would have been the only teeth in life? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There also seems to be some speculation that it's the skull of Rahonavis, in which case it would have had a bony tail?[15] FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The skull only preserves a single tooth in the premaxilla, and the total number in each premaxillae is left uncertain. However, the elongate maxilla is edentulous, so at most it would be a limited to a few additional premaxillary teeth at the very front of the snout (as hypothetically illustrated by the authors here [16]) so I'd say this number is fine. As far as the skull belonging to Rahonavis goes, that remains speculation outwith the published literature*, and I think we should follow the "official" enantiornithean interpretation until demonstrated otherwise. Illustration's good to go, I'd say.

(*And it's not the only one either, Cau has also commented Falcatakely comes up as a noasaurid using his dataset, and Mortimer has speculated on affinities with Sapeornis[17]). DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. As DrawingDinosaurs said, the authors of the description paper state the presence of additional teeth is uncertain, while its classification is discussed in blogs but not yet in papers (the Rahonavis connection seems to be speculative for now). Perhaps one or two teeth can be added to the upper jaw though. The paper contains a restorationa of the skull with 1 tooth and another of the snout with 3 teeth.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would put a few more in the premaxilla. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I added 2 extra pairs of teeth in the premaxilla, reflecting the image shared before.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Cau & Madzia (2021)'s redescription of Borogovia found some support for a Sapeornis+Falcatakely clade, so it's not entirely speculation anymore. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the update. That would imply adding a tail fan, right? I don't know if we can keep this version for now to reflect the original description and update/change it in the future, if another hypothesis gains support.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, since its affinities are still unclear. But I do suggest removing the outer tail feathers, since afaik only Paraprotopteryx has four tail feathers. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, busy week. I have removed the external tail feather, leaving only 2. There are more genera with a higher number of tail feathers (I can think of Shanweiniao), but it is true that more of them have only two. I will add the restoration to the article, let's see how this bird's classification changes through time. Thanks for the review--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Chiappeavis magnapremaxillo

Please let me know if there’s any mistakes with the proportions and grading of the tail. Luxquine (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A little hard to see what's going on. Is that the left wing folded and right wing raised? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Could probably use some dynamic range to make it clearer what's going on, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Kileskus aristotocus

The model of the Middle Jurassic tyrannosauroid Kileskus has finally been completed. It is based primarily on this skeletal. The idea to have only minor plumage on the head and neck is speculative and based on the tropical climate of the habitat as well as possible morphological variability. Yutyrannus and Dilong had prominent feathers on their necks and heads, respectively, so if necessary something like this can be done here too. The Kileskus article already has a pen drawing of this theropod, but the color model is of course on another level. Moreover, the author of the drawing (Ildarotyrannus) acted as a consultant when creating the model. In general, with further expansion of the article, both reconstructions can be used. (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov) HFoxii (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks cool, the anatomy of the fingers seem a bit underdefined though, compared to the toes, where the joints are more apparent. And on the toes, it seems there is some deformation in the mesh on the toes of the lifted foot that gives them a bulge just before the claws, doesn't look like that in birds. Looks like an artifact of bending the 3D toes perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Is everything okay now? HFoxii (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks much better, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Variraptor in vivo reconstruction

I saw that there's a list of dinosaurs that are still missing in vivo reconstructions. I wanted to give my contribution with this Variraptor mechinorum. I used Bambiraptor and Zhenyuanlong as references.

Looks cool, I wonder if all the white space above is necessary? Will make the image take up more space than necessary in an article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I cropped it and fixed some shading. Thanks! Adramelech89 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated Compsognathus

A 2009 image was updated last year. It hasn't been reviewed but is already in use. Kiwi Rex (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The position of the right foot is somewhat strange. I think it needs to be rotated outwards. Perhaps the snout could be longer but I'm unsure of this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by User:YellowPanda2001

Spinophorosaurus (used in Irhazer Shale)
Overoraptor
Trierarchuncus (classified as inaccurate paleoart, used in List of North American dinosaurs)

Moved from paleoart review. Works by @YellowPanda2001:. Are these enough accurate to use? I feel like the outline is a bit ambiguous, and I got opinion that Spinophorosaurus seems to have too skinny limbs by FunkMonk. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The legs on the maniraptorans are similarly a little spindly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We discussed some of these a while ago, the sauropod's legs are also very thin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand about dromaeosaurs, they could not raise their arms above a T-pose stance. Luxquine (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Overoraptor appears to be closely related to Rahonavis, which has been hypothesized to be capable of powered flight, suggesting highly mobile forelimbs. I also dislike how it looks like it has plumulaceous wings. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The long-tailed "Leaellynasaura" problem

All of these images, which are featured on numerous pages, are labelled as "Leaellynasaura". However, they depict the extremely long tail of specimen NMV P185992/P185993, which cannot be referred to Leaellynasaura because it has no overlap with the holotype.[18].This specimen could also belong to Atlascopcosaurus (which it also has no overlap with) or a new genus and species. While these images are suitable depictions of this indeterminate ornithopod, continuing to call them "Leaellynasaura" is highly misleading. Unfortunately, it will be challenging to relabel and remove all of them. Carnoferox (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This one[19] could just be reverted to the earlier, short tailed version. I added the longer tail on the request of someone at a previous review. I'm not sure I agree the images are misleading though, if we don't know exactly how Leaellynasaura looked, these are as good a guess as anything, no? Restorations of fragmentary animals are routinely based on more complete relatives, even if we don't know how many features they really shared. That next to last one looks like a joke, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That one is pretty ridiculous. Tail is twice as long as it should be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that reverting the Nobu Tamura one and keeping it alongside the PaleoEquii one would be the best course of action. Both possibilities accurately represented, and with both a scaly and filamented one as a nice bonus. If the Atlascopcosaurus page was ever sufficiently expanded, the PaleoEquii piece could be put there with a caption acknowledging it as a Leallynasaura but talking about the uncertainty as to which taxon had the long tail. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the original NT version a bit too short-tailed, though? Perhaps it should be a middle ground? I also shrank the eye and made other fixes in the long tail version. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't know Leaellynasaura looked like that, no, but we don't know it didn't look like that either. I don't see any need to change it; perhaps the ambiguity could be acknowledged in the captions where appropriate. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Out of the three different postcranial morphotypes in the eumeralla and coequivalent beds, two of them (diluvicursor and postcranial morph 2) have a short tail, and only one (postcranial morph 1) has the elongate tail. So parsimoniously Leaellyna is more likely to have had a shorter tail, but we cannot be sure. Theres at least three cranial morphs (leaellyna, galleono and atlascopco) with the potential for another (qanta), and at least three postcranial morphs, so matching any two together right now isn't really doable, we are waiting on that undescribed specimen with both crania and postcrania to begin being able to associate them together. However, some of these drawings seem to have a more acceptable tail length already, like NT's and the scale diagram. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't confuse parsimony and probability. It requires equally few assumptions to assign any of the three postcranial morphs to Leaellynasaura, so parsimony doesn't give us a reason to choose any of them over the other. Parsimony tells us that we shouldn't assume that there's an undiscovered cranial morph that corresponds to the long-tailed postcranial morph. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, so the lack of proof that the long-tailed morph corresponds to Leaellynasaura is not in itself evidence that Leaellynasaura had a short tail. All we'd really need to do, if anything, is caption the long-tailed Leaellynasaura with something to the effect of "reconstructed with a long tail based on the specimen NMV P185992/P185993, which may or may not belong to Leallynasaura". Ornithopsis (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

About the "we don't know what it looked like" argument: the point of Wikipedia illustrations is not to be overly speculative. This length of tail is unique among ornithopods and shorter tails are the norm. Restoring Leaellynasaura with a shorter tail is more conservative and more in line with general practice here. Implying that this specimen should be referred to Leaellynasaura, or even used to reconstruct it, is misleading. Because there is no overlap between the two, their exact relationship cannot be established. While they are certainly both ornithopods, that doesn't necessarily mean they were closely related. Carnoferox (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be the first person to complain about excessive speculation, but I don't see this as unreasonably speculative. We know that there was a long-tailed ornithischian in the Eumeralla biota, and it's reasonably likely to correspond to one of the named cranial morphs. There's nothing wrong with at least some of our depictions of Leaellynasaura being long-tailed, and it would arguably be more speculative and misleading to depict all of the taxa based on cranial material with short tails. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The best compromise I can think of is to show both a short-tailed and long-tailed recon side-by-side for Leaellynasaura with an explicit disclaimer, and do the same for Atlascopcosaurus. Carnoferox (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not misleading since there are sources that have made the connection between the long tailed specimen and Leaellynasaura. Whether that is correct or not, we simply don't know yet. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to show both possibilities for both taxa, but it isn't strictly necessary, as long as the articles on each taxon are clear about the uncertainty. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with only mentioning it in the text is that most people don't read the text and only look at the images. The reason why long-tailed Leaellynasaura has become a prominent paleoart meme is precisely because artists copy other images and don't actually read about the specimens. Carnoferox (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall you had no problem with depicting Plectronoceras swimming, despite the fact that it's hypothesized that it was negatively buoyant and could only leave the seafloor for short periods. I think that that depiction of Plectronoceras is more misleading than a long-tailed Leaellynasaura is, so why are you so opposed to depicting Leaellynasaura with the long tail that might've belonged to it but see nothing wrong with art implying a benthic organism was nektonic? Ornithopsis (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how that deflection is relevant to this discussion. Your assessment isn't even correct. The artwork of Plectronoceras you're referring to is on a blank white background and doesn't really imply any behavior.[20] Carnoferox (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that I don't see why you find illustrating both possibilities so necessary here when you've previously dismissed similar concerns. And regardless of the exact behavior being portrayed, the artwork of Plectronoceras is clearly not showing it resting on the seafloor. As I said above, I'm not opposed to illustrating both possibilities here, but I think a long-tailed Leaellynasaura is not nearly as wrong as you're making it out to be. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me how it is "clearly not resting on the seafloor". There is no background! It could be just about to land on the seafloor, hovering slightly above it, or burying its arms in the substrate for all the viewer knows! Besides, showing one behavior doesn't negate another behavior. Showing one morphological feature (long tail) does negate another (short tail), at least in the minds of most viewers who don't read the fine print. Carnoferox (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even ignoring the tail, there are other issues I can see with all but the PaleoEquii and NT restorations. Primarily that the skull is far too short and round, when all elasmarian evidence we have points to a more hypsilophodontid skull or even more elongate, instead of strongly convex and proportionally short. That skull issue isn't present in the DannyC restoration either, but that one has issues with the ankles and feet being too slender. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't need them all anyway, so I think the inaccurate ones can just be tagged and left. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Guaibasaurus

What about this one? It depicts Guaibasaurus as an early sauropodomorph, following the most recent phylogenies --Maurissauro (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The artist JohnnyMingau has added some other images that would need review:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, how are you? I'm a brazilian paleoartist a few years, and in all my arts I consult paleontologists and papers to do them right. I already have some art in Wikipedia, but were put by Maurissauro. Now I created an account to do it by myself. Dinosaurs and others animals clades from South America are subrepresentated, so I'm doing new arts about this animals to enrich the pages. The same way, Maurissauro, who is a paleontologist, is doing skeletal reconstructions of this animals too. Hope you like. JohnnyMingau (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the pieces I have the knowledge to comment on, they look great. The eye of the Sacisaurus may be a bit too large but we don't have sclerotic rings for it or any relatives to really be able to tell how large the visible eye should be. Nothing at all for the other pieces, they look great. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of the sclerotic ring, it looks like the visible eyeball fills up the entire socket, which would never be the case. FunkMonk (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To do the Sacisaurus eyes, I used @Maurissauro skeletal reconstruction as basis, that is in the page of Sacisaurus. Don't have too much of the skull preserved, but in skeletal reconstructions the socket is large enough to do the eyes in this size, even compared to others silesaurids skulls, without ocupy too much the socket. Thank you for the feedback. Hope to contribute adding more paleoart in South America clades with low or none images. JohnnyMingau (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the eyes are too big and I know that @JohnnyMingau didn't represent them taking up all the space in the orbit. The sclerotic ring that I reconstructed in Sacisaurus follows the pattern seen in dinosaurs like Herrerasaurus, Syntarsus and Macrocollum, to name a few. Being a small animal (about 1 meter long), it is reasonable that it possessed large eyes, and this is also hinted by the morphology of the preserved postorbital. Maurissauro (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

But the eye socket or the outer diameter of the sclerotic ring itself is not what determines the size of the visible eye, it is the inner ring of the sclerotic ring that determines it. So you can pretty much never fill up the entire eye socket when restoring a reptile or bird, you need to look at what the probable size of the sclerotic ring would be, and then only restore the eye as the size of its inner diameter. As you mention Herrarasaurus, if you look at this skeletal[22], the visible part of the eyeball would be twice as small as the eye socket, not filled to the very edge as shown here. Even if you look at the skulls of large eyed birds or reptiles, such as owls or chameleons, the visible part of the eyeball never exceeds the size of the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. It is an extremely common palaeoart mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I know how the sclerotic ring works, and it seems to me that @JohnnyMingau knows as well. I hope this settles this matter. If there's anything else, let us know. Maurissauro (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, FunkMonk. I do paleoart for years and I know about this. I studied enough to know that the sclerotic ring determine the size of the eye, and I did this in Sacisaurus. If I used the entire socket, the eye would be too much huge, much more then its in the art. The skeletal of Herrerasaurus that you show us, its from Maurissauro too, and I already used it to to a Herrerasaurus once. JohnnyMingau (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the overlay illustrates the uncertainty I had with the eye being too large. Whether the sclerotic ring is too thin or large is beyond anything we should worry about here, the visible eye fits within it and therefore isn't too large. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

But what was used for that overlay? Still looks a good deal bigger than what would be indicated by Scott Hartman's Silesaurus.[23] May be a matter of no one really knowing what size the sclerotic rings of silesaurs were, but I wonder why it should be so huge in the Sacisaurus skeletal compared to Hartman's Silesaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, Sacisaurus is a small animal (less than half the size of the largest Silesaurus), with a wide orbital region implied by its postorbital morphology, and its sclerotic ring was reconstruted directly based on several small to medium-sized Triassic/early Jurassic dinosaurs which preserved the ring. Here is a comparison between Hartman's Silesaurus and my Sacisaurus. I wouldn't describe mine as 'huge' in comparison to his. Silesaurus does not preserve neither the sclerotic ring nor the postorbital for direct comparison. So in this sense his 'guess' is as good as mine. If you prefer his over mine, fine, but at this point I don't think you can say which is one is more correct. Maurissauro (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals by Ezequiel Vera

I came across the following unreviewed restorations by Ezequielvera on Commons, which could be useful once reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Standard comments on lips for Viavenator.

Eodromaeus' hands at least need a little flesh for IV and V... Teeth also feel like an afterthought.

I think Eodromaeus is pretty good, or at least better than the current NT restoration. It's entirely possible that metacarpals IV and V were covered with skin at this point in their evolution (though I won't say it's conclusive), and the teeth correspond to the anatomy quite well (large, widely-spaced, longest in the anterior maxilla). The visible fenestrae are the largest issues I see. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I can fix that one if it's useful then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was considering that there doesn't seem to be enough space for metacarpals IV/V even if they were covered in flesh. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be enough to me, from what we know of the last metacarpals they were very small and slender. I would bet that the life restoration was based on Maurissauro's skeletal, which is very good. I have noticed that the head (in the art) may be a little too big, but it's hard to tell if it's outside the realm of variation since all we really have on the taxon is a short paper in Science. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree regarding the digits. As for the head, when I drew the skull I relied on information from the 2011 paper describing the taxon, but without a detailed description, it's hard to be sure of anything. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to see Eodromaeus's skull, but it's quite a mess, unfortunately. Maurissauro (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The perspective on Amargastegos is weird. Would that little of the thigh be visible from this perspective? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Pitekunsaurus also seems to be overly emaciated, and the Narambuenatitan has a too visible fenestra. That should be fixable, though, if those are the only issues. Don't think I'll bother fixing those that already have other restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is very off with the head and neck of Narambuenatitan, but I can't place what exactly it is. It looks like a dicraeosaurid. Maybe the head is too large? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

All the titanosaurs have that low-shouldered, short-necked look that titanosaurs were depicted with back when people thought Saltasaurus was a typical titanosaur. They also have numerous randomly-placed small osteoderms, not the rows of only a few osteoderms considered more likely these days. The head seems to be in line with the neck, rather than slightly downturned as is typical of sauropods (this is especially egregious in the Narambuenatitan). The head of the Petrobrasaurus looks almost prosauropod-like. All in all, they have a decidedly retro look that I feel is probably generally inaccurate. The composition of the Pitekunsaurus reconstruction is also confusing; I can't tell if the size differences are meant to be perspective or not. Since these are mostly very general problems, I'm not sure if they're the kinds of things for which revising the images is appropriate. My preference would be to replace them altogether, although obviously we'd need something to replace them with... Ornithopsis (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points. With the effort that is required to fix up these images, we may as well create new ones... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have excised and tagged all three titanosaur images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that leaves the three non-dinosaurs, and I guess I'll just remove the teeth from the abelisaur so it can at least be usable down the line. As for the Amargastegos, the fat belly would overlap the thigh? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be that extreme? Here's a Stegosaurus muscular reconstruction in a similar view: [24] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I made the belly protrude a bit less so we can use this image if ever it gets properly named. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kirchnerala looks ok to me, but as fossil lacks tip of the wing, I don't know the shape of wing is accurate. As seeing other stem-odonatopteran like Argentinala and Erasipteroides, wing of that reconstruction looks a bit sharper but almost acceptable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Discosauriscus has a few problems. In life, the pineal foramen would have held a pineal eye, which was subtly exposed as a flat/convex structure or covered with skin instead of a pit like in the skull. I also don't know if keratinous nails would have been present as far back as seymouriamorphs, trackways seem to be a bit inconclusive on that question. Most Discosauriscus specimens are paedomorphic animals or juveniles with large external gills, but I believe terrestrial adults have also been found, so that's not a major issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it have had webbed toes? And I assume the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit, unlike what's shown here? I can maybe enlarge the little white spot to cover it all? Could be good to save it so we have an image of an adult, there is also one by NT on Commons, not sure how accurate it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just from what we know if its habits and modern amphibians, the toes were probably not webbed in terrestrial adults. And yes, the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit. If we want an image of an adult, DB has a second version of his without external gills. The skull doesn't change too much through ontogeny besides getting a bit less triangular in dorsal view, and the rest of the body is conjectural. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now updated the Viavenator (hid the teeth and cropped the border), the Eodromaeus (smaller head, less visible fenestrae, more apparent vestigial fingers, white background), and the Discosauriscus (larger pineal eye). Feel free to point out if they need further tweaks, or if any of the other images can be saved with edits. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The Viavenator and Eodromaeus look great. I think a more prominent pineal eye is not the best approach for Discosauriscus: the pineal organ is usually barely visible in life even if the foramen is distinct. The tuatara, for example, has one of the most strongly developed pineal eyes, but it's barely noticeable if you compare the skull[25] to the flesh and blood head[26]. I should have clarified that even if the organ fills up the whole space within the foramen, the visible portion would have been small and difficult to distinguish from the rest of the head. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright, so perhaps I can just paint over it with the colour of its skin, but with low opacity, so a vague outline is apparent, or should it just be an overall lighter area without an outline? And the visible part should be smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
That sounds good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Smaller and fainter, how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Paralitherizinosaurus

Paralitherizinosaurus
Desaturated version
New

I know illustrations from scientific literature are generally not reviewed, but I thought this case might warrant an exception. The bright blue, purple, and pink integument on Paralitherizinosaurus from Kobayashi et al. (2022) seems highly unrealistic and unlikely. The neck also seems a bit short, compared with the paper's skeletal diagram and related taxa. Perhaps PaleoNeolitic would be interested in making a more realistic restoration? - SlvrHwk (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The colours are a head-scratcher indeed. It is a shortcoming in many of Hattori's CG artworks. As for the neck, though, therizinosaurids seem bereft of good neck material other than Nanshiungosaurus, Neimongosaurus, and Nothronychus, which are all distant enough that I think some variation seems acceptable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we could make a separate version with those colours sucked out. Perhaps desaturation to grey/white would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried it out, it can be done with "replace colour" in Photoshop, problem is some of the background uses the same colours, so it's a bit more complicated. Maybe someoene else wants to give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I ended up with the one I added below, doesn't look too bad I think. But I wonder, where is the high res version on Commons from, the one in the paper is much smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Hattori's website. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, unless it's also CC licenced there, I think that's a bit iffy... May have to shrink this one down to the size of the one in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah not a big fan of this reconstruction in both personal and objective terms. I can certainly try making a new one. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Time has paid off and a brand-new Paralitherizinosaurus is here. The claws make it look pretty much like a miniature Therizinosaurus 🤨. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Cool! If I have time, I might make a size diagram in case the page is ever expanded. SlvrHwk (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Paralitherizinosaurus size diagram

Here's a size comparison diagram for Paralitherizinosaurus. Any comments would be appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Although I'd personally add a little more of meat to the metatarsal regions, I think it looks very eggcellent. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Works by User:Dotname2469

Triceratops
Tyrannosaurus
Brachiosaurus (really Giraffatitan)
Euoplocephalus (Scolosaurus?)
Euoplocephalus (Scolosaurus?)
Kentrosaurus
Kentrosaurus
Argentinosaurus
Argentinosaurus
Compsognathus
Compsognathus
Monolophosaurus

As far as I've seen, these images are not yet reviewed, other than Euoplocephalus was fixed by FunkMonk and Compsognathus considered as inaccurate. I will post non-dinosaur ones in paleoart review too. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I also fixed the Kentrosaurus, and I think it was after review somewhere, not sure what talk page... I've added the Giraffatitan and Monolophosaurus he did too, someone said the environment in the latter looked inaccurate once. I think he said he had gotten advice from Darren Naish somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

According to other talks, article Dinosaur Zoo is likely to be an advertisement by that user and these images uploaded for that too probably? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but that itself shouldn't technically be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Australian dinosaurs

Not much for the seventh and final round of dinosaurs: the Australian ones.

- Atlascopcosaurus is a model, but it has pronated hands.
- Austrosaurus is, unfortunately, stuck in the WIP stage.
- Diluvicursor is from its paper, but the back individual has pronated hands.

And thus concludes the dinosaurian journey around the world.

What do you think? Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In general for inaccurate models, I guess we just have to accept how they are and for example only using them in history or culture sections, unless we can somehow crop out inaccurate parts without it looking weird... FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

But what if such inaccuracies are so minor that the casual reader won't notice them at first glance, such as pronated hands that you can only see when you click on the image? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the case I guess, same with skeletal mounts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, Kunbarrasaurus obviously lacks a macuahuitl but again it should be kept for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Would Kunbarrasaurus have necessarily had a macuahuitl? It's tail isn't completely known and such a structure is currently only known to exist in Stegouros, so phylogenetic bracketing can't be used to imply its presence. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Either way, I don't think it needs fixing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What we do have from Kunbarrasaurus does not indicate the same degree of extreme shortening of the tail seen in Stegouros, so it stands to reason that's a derived trait to the clade of Antarctopelta and Stegouros. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "pronation" observed in the model and Diluvicursor aren't really a problem. On the model at least, the elbow looks to be facing partly outwards and the hands are flexed to point inward at the wrist, leading to the palms facing posteromedially (but not entirely posteriorly). IMO, this position is achievable without crossing of the radius and ulna, so to my eye it's fine. It's harder to tell exactly what's going on with the background Diluvicursor, but from what I can make out the palm is not facing all the way down and the fingers are flexed, so again I think this is within reason relative to the overall arm posture. Certainly at least the foreground individual definitely has the right position, and given that's the one people are paying most attention to I'm not that worried about the other one either way. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think hand orientation in a background animal you have to look closely to even notice is reason enough to throw out an otherwise perfectly good (and gorgeous) reconstruction from the published literature. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Would the Muttaburrasaurus have had individual or joined fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a very basal animal, so certainly individual. No reason for a biped to have a mitten. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Enantiornithes by User:TinyLongwing

These really beautiful arts are added by @TinyLongwing:, and looks like not reviewed in Wikipedia, other than Lectacis have been reviewed by @Luxquine: in Here but with no reply. I am not sure but probably they reviewed on Twitter or other place such as Discord? I don't know well about anatomy of these animals, but as I see they are accurate enough, but Luxquine commented some points to fix, so maybe there can be some more. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no major issues, though the toe claws of Brevirostruavis look to be much smaller than they appear in the fossil. I think I see a very short tail fan, which is not unheard of in enants, though the fossil's feathering seems to taper off at the tail. Its bright green coloration is not too concerning in my opinion, since green pigments or structural coloration have already evolved multiple times in modern birds. It's hard to say much conclusively about Cuspirostrisornis since its original 1997 description is so vague and full of blatant misinterpretations. Regardless, I think all three images are very reasonable (and artistically brilliant) reconstructions of their given taxa, and the Lectavis and Brevirostruavis reference their plausible ecology as well, which is much appreciated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I hadn't seen the other review at all, so thanks for pointing me in that direction also. I'll respond to the user there. I've primarily been posting these to twitter, where the paleoart community has been wonderfully helpful and receptive, and where I have at least a couple of paleontologists who study the Enantiornithes contributing ideas when they have them (though so far no major critiques on accuracy). I definitely welcome comments because I'd like these to be accurate where possible. Lectavis was the first one I did and since I didn't have a skull to reference, no surprise the nares placement is a bit off but that's an easy tweak. There's definitely going to be some speculation involved every time, of course, but I try to draw heavily on the original fossils as well as the appearance and behavior of modern birds (and I am primarily a bird biologist myself).

Anyway, much appreciated, and I'll hopefully be starting my next illustration soon! TinyLongwing (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

New Tarbosaurus restoration

New
Current

So I ended up uploading this restoration of Tarbosaurus. It may be more useful than the current pic in the article, which shows a subadult and the silhouette of a larger individual with apparently exposed teeth. Besides, why include another size comparison when there's already one in the Description. Not sure if it's a good approach to depict a localized, dorsal arrangement of feathers in tyrannosaurids, also. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, one slightly confusing thing is that the raised leg reaches further below than the leg that's actually planted on the background. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The metatarsal region and toes are slightly extended, giving this impression. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually held a ruler up against the screen to check, the lowest part of the claw and toe definitely go below the "horizon line" (as outlined by the planted foot), but no big deal, it's not exactly meant to be orthographic like a skeletal hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see! I wasn't sure what you meant by that but now it's clear. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any major issues with this restoration, but I should note that the restoration in the Steveoc86 size chart already exists as an independent file:[27], which was removed from the article despite its high quality. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Mmhh, this version makes the localized feathering even more noticeable. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the new version is an improvement. I agree with Funk regarding the legs/feet, if the far side foot is planted with no evidence of perspective then it makes more sense for the near side to be, at minimum, in line with it. I agree with there being no need for multiple scale charts in the article, when I first drew my Tarbosuaurs restoration, I don't think there were any adult skeletal diagrams available and is based on a subadult skeletal. I was worried people would automatically assume that the image represented an adult, so at a later date, I added the silhouette of the adult. A couple of years back, I started working on a possible update showing a growth series showing the well preserved juvenile specimen, this subadult, and the adult all fleshed out, but due to time limitations, I haven't finished that. I'm not sure there is an issue with the feathering considering the controversies around tyrannosaur skin unless my knowledge is outdated? What I might do is remove the adult silhouette and human at some point when I get a few mins. Mine’s also a little shrink-wrapped in a few places. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds cool with a growth series, could also be a way to keep both images. Could also make sense if the smallest juvenile has feathers, which gradually disappear in the older stages, or something... But yeah, I don't think localised feathers is inaccurate, some people just find them unlikely. I think Sumatran rhinos kind of gives some leeway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Steveoc86's restoration was meant to be a subadult, but now I can see it, so it would be better to have a new adult restoration regardless. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Kelumapusaura

Found this image by Leonardo HerSan while reading about Kelumapusaura. It's very dark and difficult to see the subject clearly. Thoughts? SlvrHwk (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more suited to a palaeoecology section than being a primary reconstruction. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

They also have this Rajasaurus image:[28] FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
As per usual, we're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, and I'm not sure that Kelumapusaura illustration is ideal for encyclopedic purposes. However, the Rajasaurus image might be good on the Lameta Formation or Deccan Traps pages. Just to be sure, though, is it currently thought that large lava flows such as that would have been present during the Cretaceous? I know at least some of the volcanism is now thought to be earliest Paleogene. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The deccan volcanism is, last I checked, an intermittent occurrence spanning the end of the Campanian (? poorly dated at the bottom), entire Maastrichtian, and early Paleogene. The Rajasaurus fossils themselves are found between two of the flows, so its certainly not an inaccurate illustration. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Should get the inaccurate tag then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I misread... FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The artist has since uploaded more images and added them to articles, so probably good to have them all reviewed here. 13:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what the Cryolophosaurus skull is based on? It seems a little closer to the traditional "carnosaur" skull than new-look Dilophosaurus (especially in the tall snout). As before the landscape is a good image but not suitable for use.

The lack of lips on the Megapnosaurus is a bit of a weird choice. I think the image of the skull is also a little distracting. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You may see it as a tetanurid skull because of the presvective, and I cannot plasmate the premaxilla so characteristic of this group if I have to put lips on it, however I must admit that making a dilophosaurid skull today is really risky and controversial .

Regarding megapnosaurus, the decision not to put the lips was because I made this sketch shortly after the study on the extraoral tissue came out.

I must also apologize for not reporting in this section but I was unaware of its existence.

Have a nice day Leonardo HerSan (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the artist Leonardo HerSan so they know they have to put images for review here before adding them to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Papiliovenator

I made a life restoration of the troodontid Papiliovenator. Let me know your thoughts about it.BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, I think, I wonder if it would have had more of a propatagium like birds (looks like the fold by the elbow joint is very deep), or what is the current thinking about this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I intended to add a propatagium, but somewhere along the way I made a mistake that I did not catch. I think the current thinking about it now is that most pennaraptorans (yes, apparently oviraptorosaurs too) would have had a propatagium somewhat like that of birds. I made some quick edits to make the propatagium more apparent. I think that is about enough tissue now, but if anyone thinks differently let me know. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool, looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall it looks great. The feet appear to be unusually small, but I don't have access to the paper so I can't confirm the scaling. Based on the figure previews on the journal pahe there do seem to be some foot bones present if anyone else is able to take a look. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I made the feet a bit bigger, though they may still need work. The ankles may be a bit short too, but I'm not sure. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are the "hind wings" only on the lower leg? IIRC all "four-winged" dinosaurs had leg feathers that stretched up to the thigh. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely you wee see that the hindlimb "remiges" stop just before the thigh, it's just that these feathers are much shorter than the more distally located ones so they sort of just blend in. I could make the feathers longer here to give a more wing-like shape if that is wanted, but keep in mind this was probably not a flying or gliding animal. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead, make them longer. Besides, even flightless anchiornithines like Anchiornis and Pedopenna have longer hind wings too. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I lengthened the proximal leg remiges. Overall the leg wings are still shorter than in most anchiornithids, but this is not an anchiornithid and in four-winged dinosaurs the leg wings are pretty variable. What are your thoughts on this now? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I think the leg feathers should be of equal length until the tarsals, instead of abruptly curving at the end. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I made the distal leg remiges longer. What are your thoughts now? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Much better. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think Anchiornis and Pedopenna are the best analogues when Jianianhualong exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What would you suggest doing with the leg feathers? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps lengthen the feathers in the hip region, make them more like the thigh feathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits to the feathers in that spot. I am not sure if that is what you wanted, but I tried to make those feathers look more like they were attached to the thigh. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Carnotaurus Restoration Illustration

Remaking the Carnotaurus illustration due to the 2021 integument paper. This is the initial construction sketch. Just getting across anatomy and placement of the osteoderms before starting the final illustration. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those things are feature scales, not osteoderms. Overall it looks great in my opinion. Maurissauro (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good, and in case you haven't seen it, there's a 3D model accompanying the paper that could be used as reference:[29] FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've completed the Carno reconstruction illustration and it's ready to replace the old one I did years back. Let me know if there's anyting that needs changing. Fred Wierum (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally looks good, although I wonder if the horns should be more pointed? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When I look at the skull, the ends of the horns look more round to me so I thought I'd go more in that direction since it isnt represented as much as the pointed ends. If pointier is prefered then I can tweak that. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else think that the horns need to be sharper? Fred Wierum (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say what the keratin covering would look like, but all we can do is follow the published papers. Perhaps follow the restoration in the new skin paper? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my goal to follow that paper. Was there something I missed? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The horns seem somewhat more pointed[30] in their restoration, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Horns have been sharpened. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, unless someone's got any changes required, I think it's ready to replace my old Carno. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, I don't think anyone would find it improper if you had done it, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely dont feel qualified to do that. I can barely make these edits on this review page as well as cant even get a horizontal gallery on my WikiCommons page haha. I'd rather leave it for you review guys. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Now is maybe also the time to judge whether these other images used in the article are now inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus

This life reconstruction of Cryolophosaurus, reconstructed by Daniel Goitom, looks very strange proportion-wise and not accurate with what is currently known about the animal anatomy. I don't think this piece was ever reviewed here, so might be good to get other opinions on it. Larrayal (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite evidently traced over a mount. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks too robust compared to recent views. Perhaps we should do a review of all Cryo images here? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Is such heavy feathering plausible for a large theropod? I don't think that the Hanson Formation was especially cold... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this image is just speculative or something like that? Patachonica (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Hanson Formation was located during the Early Jurassic approximately on the same latitude than the modern South Georgia (actually, a bit more on the south), so that means quite long nights, in June and July having less than 8 hours of daylight (probably a little bit less, considering the length of the Early Jurassic day), all of this probably causing very strong seasonal differences in temperature. So, at this point, it's pretty much to the artist opinion to give it feathered or scally integuments, at least on paleoecological grounds. The morphological issues stays, however, as well as the fact the artist drew it perhaps a bit too much like a lammergeier. Larrayal (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the rules on editing existing art? Instead of going through the whole process of drawing a Cryo from scratch (which, if preferred, I can do that after Steg above), I can easily just correct and edit this Cryo art to be up to the Wiki's standard. Fred Wierum 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is generally accepted other than historical images or images from papers. However, I am not sure that there is a need for additional Cryolophosaurus illustrations (other than, perhaps, to show a feathered one). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not looking to add more images. Just asking if you guys would prefer me drawing a new one to replace this or editing this one, like a paint over. Fred Wierum 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I must say I think yours art superior to this, so almost a waste to modify existing images that are somewhat redundant anyway if you could do it from scratch? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Doing it from scratch would be longer, in my opinion. This art isnt beyond saving. Fred Wierum 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind. I was under the assumption this piece was already on the the Cryo page. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Where should it go in the article? Perhaps a background would be nice, to replace the Bogdanov image? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Why replace the Bogdanov image? The Bogdanov image looks fine. Patachonica (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus isn't really the article in most need of additional restorations anyway. Plenty of genera with none or only inadequate restorations that need the attention. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the article doesn't need another image is my point. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The background image is already in use in the Hanson Formation article, and fits it more. A part of the art is already in use for the head anatomy in the article. So far, I see no good reasons to remove the Bogdanov illustration, as it is the only other piece who has the merits to show the animal interacting with its ecosystem. And I second Funkmonk on his opinion, Cryolophosaurus has for now more than enough reconstructions and a lot of other taxa needs more attention. Larrayal (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Suchomimus Restoration Illustration

Hello, it's been roughly a year I believe since I first sumbitted my Sucho sketch to the review page and Im here with a finalized piece. I've got the updated image here to see if there's anything that needs correcting. --Fred Wierum 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, there is a recent trend of restoring spinosaurs with lips covering much of the teeth, which we of course don't have to always follow, but looks a bit like the one in the background has the teeth more covered, or perhaps that's just the angle? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that's the angle or just me forgetting about the teeth. I can add more white in that area to make the teeth more visible. Fred Wierum 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a big deal in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the new paper on Spinosaurus’ bone density made a small change to the appearance of the sacral vertebrae in both Suchomimus and Baryonyx, giving them a “dip” of sorts. I don’t see that represented in this image, so it might be a good thing to include that? I have no further notes on it, the art is magnificent! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this chart here, [31] The dip is present in Baryonyx, but there isnt any material it seems to claim a dip in Suchomimus other than its association with Baryonyx? I also dont see the dip in other past skeletals so I opted for not adding it in. Fred Wierum 15:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the red part is supposed to be the known material in that chart, which would seem there is material indicating such a dip in Suchomimus? Doesn't seem to be present in older diagrams[32], but perhaps it's based on different material? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression the orange bits were missing material given the Spinosaurus had the legs orange too. If I remember correctly, we dont have the legs for Spino. Fred Wierum 21:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: From the caption of the figure in question: "Skeletal reconstructions are based on single individuals (holotype of Baryonyx and neotype of Spinosaurus), exception made for Suchomimus (see Supplementary Information for further details); preserved bones are highlighted in orange."
The Supplementary Information further explains, "The skeletal reconstruction of Spinosaurus is based on the neotypic and holotypic skeletons, whereas that of Baryonyx is based only on the holotype. The reconstruction of Suchomimus is based on three previously published individuals (G51, G94, and G70). As in Baryonyx, the caudal series of Suchomimus is highly fragmentary; therefore, the reconstruction of this region is speculative and inspired by Ibrahim et al. and Barker et al."
Hope this helps clear things up. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So, dip or no dip? Fred Wierum 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Wiki's current skeletal diagram and the diagram in the new Spino paper are based on the same material, just arranged/interpreted slightly differently. I would personally go with the dip, since that's the most recent research, but I don't think it really matters. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps PaleoGeekSquared, who wrote most of our spinosaur FAs, has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see an update on this piece. It looks absolutely stunning! As for the sail dip in the new skeletal, I've been very curious about this myself so I'm going to ask one of the authors about it now. The fact there hasn't been any notch/dip depicted in previous skeletals makes me wonder how solid the reasoning is behind it, besides the presence of one in Ichthyovenator, or if it's pure speculation. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the skeletals from that paper also reconstruct baryonychines with deep tails, possibly based on the paddle of Spinosaurus. So there's another question: Deep or shallow tail? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any suggestions? I'm okay with either. Fred Wierum 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any comments on the Sucho hip dip and tail? I'd like to get this part of the illustration decided soon before this section gets lost behind all the newer reviews. Fred Wierum 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's ok for now, but would it be possible to modify it if there comes more definite evidence for this in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Most definitely. I dont check Wiki often at all for notifications, but if you can reach out to me on Twitter, DeviantArt, Artstation, or Discord, please do. Im more than okay with updating completed illustrations. Fred Wierum 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if your Carnotaurus needs an update in light of this[33] paper, Fred Wierum? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought about revisiting the Carnotaurus, if not just completely redoing it. Fred Wierum 18:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The latest Sereno paper[34] does not show the dip in the sail for Suchomimus, or even Spinosaurus, Fred Wierum, and PaleoGeekSquared. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's the verdict? Is it ready for upload or tweaks still need to be made? This piece has been sittin' here for quite a while now. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine, doesn't seem we have any conclusive evidence either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine too, at least for now. No spinosaurid seems safe these days... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless anyone thinks there needs to be any changes, I think its ready for the page then. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No one's had any requests for edits needed so I added it to the Sucho page in the Evolution section. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

Well, while Suchomimus and Carnotaurus are still in review, I thought I'd start working on a Stegosaurus reconstruction. Ive noticed it may need a more polished, detailed image to add to the roster. Let me know if there's anything worth changing while I work on the step. Fred Wierum 05:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Only thing I'm wondering about is the plate arrangement, doesn't the Sophie specimen have them in a single row or something? Certainly not a stegosaur expert, but I think there was some talk[35] about this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The paper describing Sophie's postcrania makes no mention of their arrangement, so I can only presume it was up the discretion of the mounters. For what it's worth, Galton's review of Stegosaurus dermal armour from the end of 2020 [36] discusses the different plate arrangements that have been proposed. Notably he highlights several specimens described as having matrix between overlapping plates, implying they were indeed in alternating rows, so I think that's all good.

I did have the thought that by reversing Hartman's skeletal it's also mirrored the arrangement of the plates (e.g. the big 12th plate is on the right side now), but given that the left-right arrangement of Sophie's plates isn't known and that Galton's paper also reports left-right chirality existing in Stegosaurus regardless, that should be fine. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if it's visible on the thumbnail at the moment but Ive finished the Steg. Let me know if there's anything that needs edits. Fred Wierum 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me! There isn't anything needing changed in my opinion, only thing I can think to ask is if the colour of the claws on the hindfoot are intended to blend that much into skin? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Claws are fixed now. I also tweaked the head to look more like "Sophie". Fred Wierum (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, let me know if I can add another piece to the Stego's page. I noticed it's surprisingly bare and I'd be more than happy to make a drawing or two of behaviors or theories. I'd love to add more behavior/theory illustrations like that to wiki articles (kinda like old side pencil art from John Sibbick in encyclopedias). Fred Wierum (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! I went ahead and added your illustration to the page, I doubt anyone has any more changes to suggest. I do like the idea of some additional sketches in that style, though I admit I'm a bit thin on ideas for subject matter. Maybe one shown rearing, or depicting that one Allosaurus being thagomised in the tail? Other editors might have more ideas. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a drawing of one walking bipedally!? lol -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion I'd have is to make an illustration based off the "Roadkill" specimen. From what I've heard it has vastly different proportions to Sophie, as can be seen in this skeletal reconstruction by RandomDinos. Apparently Sophie is not fully-grown, whereas Roadkill is. I think it would serve as a nice addition to the page to also have a more mature Stegosaurus present. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes Size Comparison

Size comparison

(Kind of) continuing the above topic, here's a size chart for Meraxes. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Albertavenator

Just a simple illustration of the holotype but I'm still putting it through review in case anyone has any comments. P2N2222A (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be fine, considering it doesn't add original interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes gigas and Giganotosaurus skull reconstructions

Skull reconstructions for both Giganotosaurus and Meraxes, as part of a larger series on basically all Carcharodontosaurid skulls. All material used to restore known and unknown regions in descriptions. LMK if there's any issues. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The name should probably be italicized in the Meraxes illustration. Or it could just be removed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

removed name Eotyrannu5 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added the Giga image to its discovery section, where it fit nicely. But it makes me wonder how appropriate the very long skulled reconstructions we otherwise show are. But I noted the skull shown under description may be too long. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say based on Meraxes and other carcharodontosaurids we've found since we can be pretty confident Giganotosaurus did not have such a long skull. Wouldn't really make sense structurally either. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I originally had the image now under classification as the taxobox image, because the foreshortening helped make the skull look shorter, but the hands appear to be pronated. Perhaps it would be best to change back to that again, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurid skull reconstructions

Acrocanthosaurus skull reconstruction
Tyrannotitan skull reconstruction
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus skull reconstruction

Some of the other skull reconstructions I've made - perhaps I can make a big file of all of these (to scale or maybe not) for the Carcharodontosauridae page? LMK... Eotyrannu5 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus and that of your Meraxes have very hindwards inclined front margins of their dentaries (the "chin"), shouldn't they be more vertically straight as in Giganotosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here - but the dentary of Tyrannotitan is preserved as such. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean I would think the angle of the chin's front margin in carcharodontosaurines (Meraexes, Carcharodontosaurus) should be more similar to that of Giganotosaurus than to the one of Tyrannotitan. But now they have the same angle as in Tyrannotitan. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Tyrannotitan is a carcharodontosaurine too. I don't see any particular reason to favor Giganotosaurus over Tyrannotitan as a basis. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, seems I was looking at some old cladogram with only genus labels. So yes, could go either way. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the "chin" preserved in C. iguidensis though ([37])? Would that not be a better basis for C. saharicus than Tyrannotitan? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 12:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it in figure 6, and yes, much closer to the angle in Giganotosaurus it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, in that case then, yes, Carcharodontosaurus saharicus (and probably also Meraxes gigas) should have a chin more like C. iguidensis and Giganotosaurus carolinii, since phylogenetic bracketing would seem to suggest the chin of Tyrannotitan is autapomorphic. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed the anterior dentary on Carcharodontosaurus Eotyrannu5 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hadrosaur fixes

I'm currently looking to fix some hadrosaur restorations that had been marked as inaccurate, so posting them together here to keep it at one place. Feel free to add other hadrosaurs that seem like they could be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Nipponosaurus

This restoration[38] was already fixed once, but still looks a bit wonky, so was tagged again, and I've now tried to address the issues with this edit:[39] Bigger beak, shorter body and tail, as well as other fixes. Any thoughts? Pinging LittleLazyLass, who has worked on the article, and IJReid who I believe tagged one of these. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the image, but still feel free to point out further issues. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Maiasaura

This restoration[40] was tagged as inaccurate, but the description is pretty vague, so might need a more detailed description of what needs to be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the comments here would be the digitigrade(?) feet and the shoulder position. The latter is something thats reflected in the hadrosaur updates Hartman did to his skeletals, I don't know the original source but it may be on his blog for why. As for the feet, they are shapeless right now, and don't show any of the three-splayed-toed morphology, with the heels too high off the ground. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I painted away the too obvious shoulder blade and some other weird features, and made the feet less lumpy, is it ok, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it still needs for the back to be elevated over the shoulders more. One of the changes Hartman realized was the scapulae articulated lower on the body than before, making the backs more horizontal. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be shown arching downwards, no? So the back wouldn't be horizontal here in any case? FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Amurosaurus

I made an update[41] of the old Amurosaurus which had some wonky features and was therefore removed from the article, based on the new paper[42]. Pinging IJReid who tagged it as inaccurate and LittleLazyLass who will likely work on the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Theres still a few things that need correcting. The paper skeletal is alright, but there are still things it lacks, like the repositioning of the shoulders and un-pronation of the hands. This skeletal matches the papers fairly well but includes both those changes per the work and comments of Hartman. The torso should be almost horizontal, the neck could be a bit longer and deeper, and the hands should have all fingers visible in lateral, and the palm visible in medial. The feet could probably also use some more of a pad under the heel. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be easier to work with the Sahaliyania life reconstruction? As they're proposed synonyms it could be placed in both articles. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, probably, but I was thinking of retooling that one as something else if I can get the old Amurosaurus restoration right. But if it's too far from saving, might just as well use the Sahaliyania for Amurosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes gigas life reconstruction

Restoration by LWPaleoart

Hello,

Here's a life reconstruction I've made for Meraxes gigas. I used the skeletal reconstruction present in the official paper as my reference.

Please let me know if it should be changed in any way, thank you!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Meraxes_gigas_for_Wikipedia.png

-LWPaleoart / Leandra Walters

LWPaleoart (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We also have these restorations:

Restoration by Ansh Saxena 7163
"Official" press restoration by Carlosdinos

The fenestrae on the one by Ansh Saxena seem to be too visible, and the feet look off.
I don't immediately see any issues with the "official" restoration, and those often don't need fixes anyway.

-SlvrHwk (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The one on the left also has very blunt teeth, but extremely thin foot claws. Cool that we have the press release artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realized a reconstruction was already available for use.

I agree about the Ansh Saxena reconstruction.

As for the press release, the jugal definitely seems too large compared to the skeletal in the paper. (Overall the back of the head may be too large, also.) The teeth also appear to be splaying out to the side in the upper jaw. These are pretty minor, but still, just my thoughts.

If my illustration can't be used for this, what's your opinion on me changing this up a bit to be a different carcharodontosaurid taxon that is lacking an official reconstruction, such as Taurovenator violantei perhaps? LWPaleoart (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the eye is perhaps twice too large in all these reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for mentioning me here and showing interest in my Meraxes reconstruction. I had noticed that there were some valid criticisms of my reconstruction, namely the following which I'd read: 1) Fenestra looks too visible 2) Teeth are too blunt 3) Foot claws are too thin 4) Feet/legs look off*

I have made the following changes to my reconstruction in response to the above mentioned points: 1) I've made the fenestra less visible and the face now looks flatter. 2) Although hard to see, the teeth are a little sharper now. 3) I have made the claws on the feet broader, especially the one on the second digit accordingly with the skeletal material provided in the paper. 4)* I have not made any modifications based on the fourth point, as nothing was elaborated as to what is wrong with the feet/legs.

I used the following references for this reconstruction: The official outlined skeletal provided in the descriptive paper, the figures of fossil materials provided in the descriptive paper, and material from other Carcharodontosaurids such as teeth specimens among others.

Please consider the following reconstruction and tell me whether or not it is any better than the previous one. Apologies if this is not the right way to go about this, I'm new to Wikipedia and don't exactly know how to use it, so excuse my ignorance. Once again, thank you. ~ Ansh Saxena

The teeth still look extremely wide, compared to the teeth of its relatives, you could base them on the skull diagram posted above. Also seems the eye is still too large. The fingers seem weirdly angled forwards, and the underside of the toes look very straight, need more developed foot pads. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Asian dinosaurs

Here's the second round of images of the lists of dinosaurs by continent: the Asian dinosaurs. Apologies if it's quite long, but Asia really is the hotspot for dinosaur discoveries.

My comments:

- The Aepyornithomimus image is from its description, but it looks kinda... off. Maybe it's the weird wings?

I think the biggest issue is that it looks like it doesn't have a chest. The texture is weird but that's expected for images from this particular artist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Albinykus, Anomalipes, Archaeornithoides, and Bactrosaurus appear to be stuck in the WIP stage, as they lack details. @Levi bernardo:, do you have any plans to go back to them?

I would say the same for Anserimimus, the right leg is a little rough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Amtocephale should have a rim of hornlets around its dome.
- My Bayannurosaurus was posted here before, where I was asked to pose it bipedally. However, because its description found it to be mostly quadrupedal, I changed it back.

What is the basis of the Iguanodon-like hands? Indeed the manus is not complete, but based on what is there and on Ouranosaurus it looks a little large. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The rest of the skeleton, especially the skull, looked so much like Iguanodon so I thought it was possible the hands were just as big as the latter's. But I made them smaller based on your suggestion. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Beibeilong is from its description, but it appears to have pronated hands.

Should be kept even if we create a modified version. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While that's probably how it was drawn, I think it can coneivably be explained away by perspective, if we imagine the lower arm is directed away from the viewer. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- According to its description, Caenagnathasia was found with a toothed beak, so the artist restored it like a wading bird with big feet. I'm not sure the beak thing is true, so the speculative ecology looks quite unlikely.

Sues & Averianov (2015) describe some mild fluting on the occlusal edge of the beak but it's less pronounced than Caenagnathus. The legs are probably relatively easy to fix, and the mouth is closed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The left hand of the Chaoyangsaurus appears to be pronated.

Changed hands. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

- Light green is unlikely for the unfeathered parts of Dilong. It also has exposed teeth.
- I reconstructed Dongbeititan as a non-titanosauriform sauropod following Mannion et al. (2013).
- The Dzharatitanis comes from its original description that found it to be a rebbachisaurid, but it has since been reinterpreted as a titanosaur. I have no idea what to do with the image. Should we tag it as inaccurate or speculative, or make a new one?

This seems like an acceptable image to use for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the Dzharatitanis image is that I've nominated it for deletion. It's a piece by Andrey Atuchin, not Averianov, and its been published in multiple places by Atuchin as not freely-licensed. Discussions of it can continue on the nomination page, but I think its a case of Eurekamag incorrectly attributing the authority and license of a figure from the paper to the press release art of a different license and author. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied at nomination, but my take is that we don't know for sure unless one of us checks with Atuchin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- Gobihadros is also from a paper, but it has a claw on the fourth finger.

Removed the fourth fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

- Graciliraptor should have longer hind wings to better match Microraptor. Also, the bottom-most leg feathers erupt diretly from scaly skin; as evidenced by Microraptor, microraptorians had feathers until their feet.

Improved the leg wings. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved for sure. Though could the metatarsal feathers be a bit longer? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, how much longer would you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The longest metatarsal feathers in Microraptor gui look to be roughly twice as long as the metatarsus [43] but I think maybe a 50% increase would be enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume the arm wings would have to be lengthened as well? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Lythronaxargestes to be sure before I do anything. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I think lengthening the arm wings by the same amount, maybe a little less, would work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

- The left Irisosaurus in the image from its description has a seemingly pronated hand.

I straightened the hand out so that it can now conceivably be explained by perspective, if we imagine the arm was lifted somewhat to the side. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Isanosaurus is a model from a Polish "dino-park". Its front limbs appear to be a failed attempt at eusauropod-like hands (unless it's just funky lighting), and it has a protofeather crest, which is unlikely for sauropodomorphs. There's also a barely-visible text watermark in the bottom right corner.
- The texture of the Itemirus looks too much like skin instead of feathers.

I don't know about that, it feels like a good attempt at emulating shoebill integument (sans the beak). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Jianianhualong is another press release/paper artwork, but the proportions of its wings are strange. (Primaries shorter than secondaries?)

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable. I kept the restoration while I was writing the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Koreaceratops lacks the "sail" on its tail.

I really do not like how it is swimming. The original description makes the same ecological inference for Protoceratops, for which the majority opinion is of a function in display (cf. work of Hone et al.). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The pose of the Liaoceratops seems to imply it was facultatively quadrupedal, but I'm pretty sure basal ceratopsians were obligate bipeds.
- The armor on the Liaoningosaurus appears to be drawn as a carapace and not as plates embedded in the skin.
- I drew the plates of the Mongolostegus based on Wuerhosaurus. I agree that the latter's plates are broken, but I just can't see them as tall pentagons or teardrops like Stegosaurus, so I came up with a compromise.
- I originally drew the Pedopenna with a kakapo-like color scheme, but I changed it to a more burrowing owl-inspired one after I realized primitive feathers probably couldn't be green. Either way, both are fitting as Pedopenna was likely mostly terrestrial.

It seems to have a way too large eye, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I checked and it matches well with the sclerotic ring of Scott Hartman's updated Anchiornis. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

But again, you need to base it on the inner diameter of the ring, not the outer, as it appears to be here, compared to Hartman's diagram. The visible part of the eyeball in the living animal would not exceed the inner diameter. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Philovenator doesn't have primary feathers.
- Pinacosaurus should have claws.
- The Protarchaeopteryx looks too much like a modern turkey, down to the blue skin on its face.
- Qiaowanlong is depicted as a brachiosaurid, but most phylogenetic analyses place it within Euhelopodidae.
- I drew Qinlingosaurus as a titanosaur based on Tracy Ford's identification.
- IIRC, Qiupalong should have no feathers on the legs and in the immediate area surrounding it, based on the excellent specimen of Ornithomimus with integument impressions.

This seems close enough. One would not expect every single species in a clade to have the same integument pattern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Ruyangosaurus was drawn by Nima Sassani, who has an... unusual idea of sauropod phylogeny, so its depiction as a lithostrotian may not be accurate.

The image is from a preprint, so it unusually straddles the line between academic literature and user-generated content. I think caution is warranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Saurolophus comes from a paper about its scalation, so the color pattern is likely accurate, but the pinky is missing. Same goes for its North American counterpart.
- Sinoceratops is missing the distinctive bumps lining the top of the frill.

Added bumps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved for sure, including the feet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

- The Sirindhorna image comes from its description, but its temporal fenestra is quite obvious.

Painted it out and moved the eye up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- The Tangvayosaurus is a model in Savannakhet, Laos. It's also a literal retrosaur.

Beyond saving, could be any sauropod. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- There is apparently an undescribed specimen of Tianyulong that shows it with a long tail with a "fan" of spines at the tip. Our restoration should probably be updated to reflect that.

I don't think so, as this is not in the literature yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Wakinosaurus has visible fenestrae. Also, it seems to have a prominent pubic boot *wink wink*

I have a suspicion that it's a copyvio, as is usual the case at such a small resolution, but can't verify it... FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's actually made by Ezequiel Vera, who used to go by maniraptora on DeviantArt. But I do see how it looks like it was grabbed from a 90's-early 00's dinosaur website. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, why is the Commons version then credited to a Thiago Lourenço Menezes? Seems the image may have just been taken without persmission from the author? FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Wuerhosaurus looks like it has only one row of plates.

This image is beyond saving, the anatomy is bizarre. I don't know what's going on with the lanky forelimbs and oversized beak. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The wing of the Wulatelong is odd. Where do the primaries begin and the secondaries end?
- While amazing, Emily Willoughby's Yi qi is the incorrect color. Analysis of melanosomes suggest it was mostly black but yellowish-brown on the head and wing membranes.
- Zhuchengtyrannus appears to have whiskers?

Seems like just filaments. I don't see this as being clearly wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I updated the proportions of the drawings I made (Arkharavia, Batyrosaurus, Bayannurosaurus, Dongbeititan, Mongolostegus, Pedopenna, Qinlingosaurus, Tsaagan, Yimenosaurus, Zhuchengtitan and Zuoyunlong) before I posted them here.

Aside from that, I think all of them are okay. What do you think? Are there other errors? Should anything else be changed? Miracusaurs (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Beishanlong is probably a little less deinocheirid-like than it should be.

Minotaurasaurus has a jugal horn that looks a little small and not quite right.

Enlarged it somewhat, but I don't think we can say much about the accuracy of the shape as long as the bony core would fit within it, seems kerartin could change it dramatically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Mononykus is missing vestigial manual digits, not covered by a plausible amount of skin or feathers either.

I think it's worth tagging the artists when we know they're active, so tagging PaleoNeolitic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Now added 🤏. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Parvicursor seems like a nice image for palaeoecology but it obscures a lot of anatomy - in fact, pretty much all of the parts that are known...

Saichania has extra claws.

Removed fourth claws and green tint. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Scansoriopteryx works fine as a historical restoration (same with Epidendrosaurus) but I think there should be a reconstruction more like Yi.

Sinocalliopteryx, head seems a little small.

Made the head bigger and the neck shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengceratops doesn't look like a leptoceratopsid, it looks like a derived ceratopsid.

Zuoyunlong has an innovative colour scheme, but it also obscures some detail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, sauropod thoughts:

The Anhuilong looks somewhat shrinkwrapped, but otherwise reasonable at a glance.
Arkharavia is too incomplete and of too poorly-known phylogenetic position to meaningfully reconstruct.
The holotype of Dongbeititan preserves sixteen cervical vertebrae, and is missing some, so it probably had Euhelopus-like proportions. Moore et al. recovered it as closely related to Euhelopus. Basing it off of Euhelopus seems like our best bet to me.
The Dzharatitanis reconstruction should be marked as historical. I would discourage creating an alternate reconstruction of Dzharatitanis at the moment, given the ambiguity of its phylogenetic position.
Based on Tazoudasaurus, vulcanodont-grade sauropods did have somewhat eusauropod-like manus, although I'm not really sure what's going on with the manus in this image, and we can't really rule out tufts of feathers in something like this. I would hesitate to mark this Isanosaurus as inaccurate, and as it's a photo of a model we probably shouldn't alter it, but it's perhaps not ideal if we had an alternative.
The Qiaowanlong reconstruction should be marked as historical.
Qinlingosaurus is probably too enigmatic to meaningfully reconstruct.
That Ruyangosaurus is based on the artist's hypothesis that Ruyangosaurus is a lognkosaur, which is not supported by any peer-reviewed literature. Ruyangosaurus is probably euhelopodid-grade, and so is unlikely to have had osteoderms. Note that the preprint the image comes from recieved fairly substantial criticism, including the fact that the authors overlooked an extensive description of referred material of the taxon (COI disclosure: I was one of the people who made critical comments). Not quite sure what it should be marked as, but it arguably not accurate and not really historical either, and I don't think we should try to alter it.
The Tangvayosaurus looks like a pretty generic retro roadside dinosaur to me.
I don't feel Zhuchengtitan should have osteoderms, as Opisthocoelicaudia doesn't seem to.

Ornithopsis (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dongbeititan updated. As for Zhuchengtitan, I gave it osteoderms based on Alamosaurus, which has been recovered as close to Opisthocoelicaudia. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Dongbeititan looks better now. Seeing as Zhuchengtitan is likely to be closely related to Opisthocoelicaudia in particular, and it's controversial just how closely related Opisthocoelicaudia and Alamosaurus are, I think it's best to specifically base it off of Opisthocoelicaudia, rather than adding in features from Alamosaurus. IIRC, no titanosaur osteoderms have yet been recovered from Asia. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengtitan updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Barrosasaurus vertebrae

I illustrated the figured type vertebrae of Barrosasaurus for Wikipedia. I followed the paper's reconstruction with the dotted lines but I'm not sure that's exactly how the centrum would have been irl. Would appreciate some feedback. Thanks P2N2222A (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Asteriornis

A life restoration of Asteriornis. What are your thoughts? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't say much accuracy wise, looks nice, but there is an aura of smudge around the back and other places you might want to remove. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not checked back here in a few days. I tried to clean up the back and a few other places. I am not sure if I fixed what you wanted. What are you thoughts now? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Works by User:Flamenguista403

I found images uploaded by ptwiki user Flamenguista403, from article of Diegoaelurus, added to the page by Fossiladder without reviewing this accuracy. I think some of their images are weirdly fleshed? (I think it is nonsense to have skeleton of Megapiranha as it is only known from partial jaw) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

While we of course can't be sure, the soft tissue looks very improbable on most of these, someone took the flipside of "shrinkwrapping" to the extreme. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The wattles are probably excessive on Murusraptor, at least. I also note that no cranial material is known of Santanaraptor or Patagonykus, and virtually no cranial material is known of Vespersaurus or Pycnonemosaurus, so we really should avoid illustrations of any of them that exclusively depict the head. Additionally, prominent watermarks are discouraged by Wikimedia Commons, so it would be preferable if the artist removed the watermarks (although note that we shouldn't remove watermarks ourselves). Ornithopsis (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind small indications of who created the work in the corner or something but those watermarks are really obnoxious. And I agree about the soft tissue. Too much, and weirdly placed. P2N2222A (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

not an expert on fish anatomy but I'm pretty sure the bones inside Megapiranha fin don't look like a human forearm. P2N2222A (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's actually a good drawing of a piranha skeleton... because it's traced. [44] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my... It is no doubt that user thought that skeleton is actual specimen of Megapiranha, as this modern piranha skeleton is really confusingly introduced in that blog post as well as other websites. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Raptor" faces

Falcons, accipitriforms and some ornithischians possess bone bars next to their orbits, creating the famous brow-like structure (replica showing it clearly:[45]. In order to reinforce the comparison between dromaeosaurids and 'raptors', it has become common to represent these animals with the "raptor brow". However, we don't see it in any fossils as far as I know. It's perfectly visible on Heterodontosaurus and others such as Dryosaurus but no similar fossilized structure can be seen in dromaeosaurids. Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You're speaking specifically about the palpebral bones of ornithischians, but dromaeosaurs have prominent lacrimal bones that indicate there would have been some kind of "bridge" above the orbits (see image on right). Note these lacrimal protrusions were often depicted as "horns" in the past, which seems improbable considering modern bird skulls, even seagulls have them. So I se no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues either. Paleoartist Mette Aumala has represented how this brow bridge works [46]. The lack of this connective brow would create an abnormally large gap when reconstructing the animal (more noticeable if you apply some perspective), which, well, doesn't seem quite correct. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also for reference, a seagull skull:[47] As you can see, that "gap" over the orbit doesn't exist in life. The "brow" is a continuation of the "spikes" that project backwards from the lacrimals. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Illustrations by Álvaro Ibaceta

Ypupiara
Atrociraptor

A couple of potentially useful size charts/restorations by Álvaro Ibaceta.

The lower jaw of Ypupiara seems to bend at an odd angle. Also, I believe this image (from the description paper) is copyrighted and should be nominated for deletion?
Atrociraptor is kind or repetitive, seeing as we already have a size chart for the taxon.

-SlvrHwk (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Ypupiara fossil image should be deleted from commons, but I also believe that the images of the fossil could be uploaded to locally to Wikipedia via fair use, as the fossil itself was destroyed in the Brazil museum fire, making the creating of any replacement image impossible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There are some weird perspectives in the feet of both, and the head of the Atrociraptor (is the head supposed to be sin emi profile?). Its feat especially seem splayed in odd directions... FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

agreed that the Ypupiara lower jaw looks weird; no reason to believe the anterior portion of the dentary would have been like that. As for the Wikipedia article image, I could make an interpretive diagram based on the paper photos if that would be useful (and license it under CC) P2N2222A (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Huincul Formation

While on the topic of Meraxes, the new giant carcharodontosaurid should be added to this chart by @Slate Weasel:, along with Huinculsaurus and Overoraptor. Also, I think the silhouettes of Gualicho and Aoniraptor should be changed, as they have not been described as elaphrosaurines in the literature (the former has been found to be a megaraptoran- or tyrannosauroid-grade coelurosaur and the latter a megaraptoran in the most recent phylogenies). Miracusaurs (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this chart is really old and outdated (and kind of just bad in general as it cannot be comprehensive by its own nature). Further changes that are needed include:

Argentinosaurus and Mapusaurus need to have their silhouettes updated.
Limaysaurus, Cathartesaura, and Skorpiovenator need to be replaced with their new silhouettes.
Choconsaurus should be removed (no reliable size estimate exists for it); I think that this also precludes Huinculsaurus from being added.

Since this will involve so many new silhouettes and updates, it may be best to slap an inaccurate tag and remove it from the article, at least temporarily. I'll see what I can do to update it, but it will likely take some time. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on the megaraptoran diagnosis for Gualicho, as this usually involves it as a "Neovenatorid", which is not supported in most modern phylogenies as megaraptorans are most likely coelurosaurs - a noasaurid reconstruction is fine as it is usually recovered sister to Deltadromeus (which has been recovered as a noasaurid in many recent analyses). Eotyrannu5 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Gualicho has never been assigned to Noasauridae in the literature, despite DeviantArt and Instagram making it seem like it is. Also, even though noasaurid Gualicho believers consider Deltadromeus as evidence, they have not been recovered as noasaurids together in the literature, and besides, Deltadromeus is usually recovered as closer to Masiakasaurus than to Elaphrosaurus as most depictions (including this chart) show. In short, adding an elaphrosaurine Gualicho and Aoniraptor here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

In recent analyses Gualicho is recovered as a coelurosaur, like in the descriptions of Tratayenia and Maip. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Deltadromeus usually recovered as closer to Masiakasaurus than Elaphrosaurus? It seems that these two genera are typically recovered as closer to each other than Deltadromeus (i.e. per the Berthasaura analysis as well as the one on Deltadromeus' page). Additionally, noasaurid Gualicho is not entirely unsubstantiated by the literature, Ibrahim et al. (2020) state with regards to Deltadromeus and Gualicho: "The similarity of the derived pectoral girdle, slender forelimbs, form of the pubis, and form of the major hind limb bones suggests a close relationship." going on to favor ceratosaurian affinities for the former. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 11:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems I misremembered. What I meant to say is that Deltadromeus is not recovered as closely related to Elaphrosaurus as several paleofans on social media would make you think. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've finished updating all the silhouettes, how does this look? Even restoring after Masiakasaurus Gualicho still comes out rather similarly, though it's surprisingly leggy (and that is based on the actual material). Meraxes was a pretty straightforward addition, Overoraptor used parts of Rahonavis, and Aoniraptor is an attempt at a generic megaraptoran. The theropod-sauropod side distinction was also split up due to the 7:3 ratio and Argentinosaurus impractically dwarfing everything. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Much better now. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

South American dinosaurs

Here's the sixth round of dinosaurs: the South American ones.

- Adeopapposaurus doesn't have the keratinous beak it's hypothesized to have.

I think it's impossible to see at this small resolution anyway, so I don't think we can say it isn't there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

- Aerosteon is depicted as a generic allosauroid rather than a megaraptoran.

Fixed head. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping to create brand new reconstructions for Aerosteon and Murusraptor at some point, as I feel both of these reconstructions are still lacking in proper Megaraptoran anatomy (that we know of so far). The edits are certainly better but I'm very interested in creating new illustrations for these taxa. If that's allowed of course, and when I get the time, ha ha. LWPaleoart (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

- Alnashetri appears to be a cropped version of the Albinykus by the same artist, so my comments for the latter apply here as well.
- Regardless of its phylogenetic position, the big blocky head of Aniksosaurus just seems off to me. It also has no feathers, possibly because it is stuck in the WIP stage.
- Austroposeidon has a small hand claw, but iirc lognkosaur-grade titanosaurs had no hand claw. The lighting needs to be cleaned up.

It might be a good idea to fix this one up considering a certain documentary... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- Although its color was already dampened by FunkMonk, Buitreraptor still looks a little too flashy.

Now completely desaturated. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

- Erythrovenator looks way too fluffy for a basal theropod.
- The skull of Gondwanatitan looks too much like a diplodocid's.
- No objections about the anatomy of the Huinculsaurus, but its tail appears to be incompletely drawn.
- Ilokelesia has many feathers, but Carnotaurus shows that abelisaurids are mostly scaly.
- Murusraptor lacks an elongated thumb claw.

Gave it longer claws. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- Pamparaptor is bright blue, which is unlikely for primitive feathers. It also doesn't have primaries.
- What's up with the posture of that Panphagia?

Clearly copied from the paper: [48] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- If you look closely, Quetecsaurus has a row of filaments, which are unlikely for large sauropods.
- The legs of Saturnalia appear to be directed impossibly forward.

Tilted body forwards. FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

- Talenkauen is extemely shrinkwrapped. I can see its ribs!
- Unenlagia needs primaries. Its feathers might also use some lengthening.

Additionally, Bonapartenykus, Drusilasaura, Ligabuesaurus, and Zapalasaurus were updated by me before I posted this here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I will probably hide the teeth of the Zupaysaurus at some point, though it's not a direct inaccuracy. The Aerosteon should probably have a more megaraptoran skull, might try it. Isn't the Buitreraptor just grey now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Buiteraptor looks faded pink to me, and there's still some flamingo pink that wasn't painted over. Maybe make the whole thing light gray, like a heron? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I desaturated all the pink now, I think. I have a colourblindness that makes pink pretty hard to see... FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I also gave the Aerosteon a more megaraptoran head and claws. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Added lips to Zupaysaurus along with other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The patches of spines along the neck, back and tail of Drusilasaura look a little off. Maybe have one continuous row? Or just the first section of spines on neck? Ligabuesaurus seems to have a very thin neck and chest. The head also looks very short. Figure 4B from Bellardini et al. (2022). would be a good reference. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ligabuesaurus updated. Also, the spines of Drusilasaura were deliberately done like that as a tribute to cisiopurple's old Duriatitan. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that quite hit the mark. I think the chest should be deeper overall. But I think Ornithopsis is the best person to weigh in on what is still off (with this and the other sauropods here). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated again. Is it better now? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant around the pectoral girdle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

African dinosaurs

Hey y'all! Earlier this year I expanded the "list of dinosaurs by continent" pages, adding life restorations for whatever taxa have some on Wikimedia Commons. However, I realized some of them haven't been reviewed. Over a series of seven posts, I will submit here the files that haven't appeared on the review page. First up, the African dinosaurs.

So far, I only have a few comments:

- The legs of the Arcusaurus appear to be too short.
- The Deltadromeus is depicted as an avetheropod, but most recent analyses place it as a noasaurid, which would make it more gracile.
- Ignavusaurus is highly unlikely to have protofeathers.
- The Spinostropheus appears to have a too boxy skull. As a possible elaphrosaurine, it would have a slender beak.

I think like the Deltadromeus, it's position is too unstable for there to be a point in modifying this illustration instead of just using it as an example of one hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- I drew the Tendaguria with proportionally long limbs based on Atlasaurus, which has been recovered as a possible turiasaur.

Other than that, I think they're passable. What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sauropod thoughts: Tendaguria absolutely should not be based on Atlasaurus. Atlasaurus has only rarely been recovered as a turiasaur, and no analysis that has included both taxa has ever found them to be closely related. Tendaguria's proportions should probably be based on Moabosaurus and Janenschia. It has been recovered as the sister taxon of Moabosaurus by phylogenetic analysis, and may be a junior synonym of Janenschia. There's at least one conference abstract indicating that the skull of Malawisaurus was less camarasaur-like than typically portrayed, but that study hasn't been published yet. The front feet of Vulcanodon should probably be less prosauropod-like, given the anatomy of Tazoudasaurus, and the hind legs look a bit overmuscled to me. IJReid's skeletal of Vulcanodon is pretty good, for comparison. No specific comments on any of the other sauropods for now, though I question whether the Australodocus reconstruction is actually at all useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I updated the Tendaguria. How's it look now? Miracusaurs (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Still needs a fair amount of work, I'm afraid. The chin should probably be more expanded, as in Mierasaurus and other turiasaurs (for some reason, Turiasaurus is often depicted with a Jobaria-like unexpanded chin, but this is incorrect). The eye is too big, probably shouldn't have a white sclera, and the ear is missing. There should be more of a connection between the back of the forelimb and the torso. The thumb claw seems a bit too high up on the forefoot. The forelimbs look too slender and the hindlimbs too birdlike; sauropod limbs were more evenly columnar, not so tapering. The hind feet are wrong; they should be plantigrade, not digitigrade, and the arrangement of the claws looks wrong. The general shape of the body in the hips-base of tail region looks kind of formless, and the tail seems to taper a bit too quickly. The shading could use some work as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the limbs of the Vulcanodon, but comments are of course welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Nigersaurus I believe is a model by Tyler Keillor for Paul Sereno, so should be fine, and the Pegomastax is from the Sereno paper that described that species. Unless inaccuracies are obvious, such restorations probably don't need to be posted for review. As for Deltadromeus, I don't think its position will be stable until more fossils are found, and there have been recent papers going in different directions. So like with the skeletal reconstructions, perhaps a restoration showing an alternate take would be a solution. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've said before that for Bahariasaurus, we should have multiple life restorations if we have any at all, and the same probably applies to Deltadromeus. Reconstructions of it as a Limusaurus-like ceratosaur, Masiakasaurus-like ceratosaur, and Gualicho-like tetanuran would be good to have. Unfortunately, this reconstruction doesn't really match any of those, but it also isn't clearly wrong given the...uncertainty...over its relationships. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's clearly based on the old Sereno supervised reconstructed skeleton with the odd horns[49] from when it was considered a "basal coelurosaur", which would probably match a neovenatorid mostly. But note a newer, Sereno supervised reconstruction exists[50], which appears to be noasaur-like maybe? In the newest Sereno-related paper it's similar, but without teeth:[51] FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there are a lot of other questionable restorations in the other lists of dinosaurs by continent, should also be reviewed here. Some of them are really inadequate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll post some in the coming weeks. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Remember to slap the inaccurate palaeoart tag on the images that are found to be wrong but are not fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Makes it much easier to identify and fix them, thanks. I see one restoration I made was also tagged, feel free to ping me if you encounter them so I can fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The upper beak in Lesothosaurus and those heterodontosaurs looks a bit too extensive to me, though it's a bit of a nitpick. Would be more of a little nubbin in such basal taxa. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Tlatolophus again

Here's another illustration of Tlatolophus, this time created by Reptileano. It seems to be the best one we have so far. Kind of repetitive to have two illustrations with a person for scale, but not a huge issue. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be directly traced from this, as well as lifting the scale and human silhouette directly from the reference. As we've seen before, the Mexicans can get really angry when someone traces an image of their lambeosaurine (although, in retrospect, I believe the drama was only used by the accuser to promote their favored artwork). Miracusaurs (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't directly tracing over a skeletal diagram copyvio? Copying the human silhouette is even more egregious (unless, of course the artist of this piece and the skeletal are the same, but given that their names are completely different this doesn't seem to be the case). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

another boring fossil illustration

Another quick illustration of a fossil for an obscure dinosaur with no illustrations. I don't expect any problems but putting it through review just in case. P2N2222A (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought there would would be actual boring, I am dissapointed. Otherwise looks good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

boring the adjective, unfortunately. Though speaking of borings, the Succinodon page has no images. P2N2222A (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs

Archaeodontosaurus
Pradhania

Not really much from this fourth round of dinosaurs: the Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs.

- Ornithomimoides is the exact image from the Jurassic Park Institute.
- Pradhania was updated by me before I posted it here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Second one certainly needs to be nominated for deletion on Commons. The eye of the third one seems many times too big, should be more like:[52] FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ornithomimoides nominated for deletion. Also, the proportions of Pradhania's skull match almost exactly to Scott Hartman's Massospondylus. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the visible part of the eyeball should only correspond to the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, like in the Massospondylus I linked, which also seems based on the same skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Weird. I checked earlier and I was sure the eye size matched the sclerotic ring. But I still made it smaller. Miracusaurs (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Only that there are many more Indian and Madagascan dinosaur images, or are these only the ones that might need improvement? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

These are just the images from List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs that haven't appeared on the image review page yet. Feel free to check that page for any other images you think have to be improved. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Alwalkeria could be given lips.
Lamplughsaura has pronated forelimbs?

They don't look so much pronated as spread out somewhat to the side in a somewhat crouched posture. It's a weird pose, but doesn't seem too far out of the range of a pose it could plausibly adopt. Given that we don't know whether Lamplughsaura was bipedal or quadrupedal, I'm not sure if it's worth the effort of trying to change the pose to something more comfortable. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Masiakasaurus needs to be tweaked to be more like other noasaurids: [53]

But we don't really have complete skulls of very close relatives? So how can we say it is wrong? Limusaurus isn't exactly similar. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Rapetosaurus still seems quite wonky. The taxon has osteoderms, does it not? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Rapetosaurus does indeed have osteoderms; although apparently it seems that juveniles did not have them ([54]). Even taking foreshortening into account though, the neck seems too short, too shallow, and undermuscled at its base. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it does have something similar to osteoderms spread around? FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Could still use a touch-up IMO, especially to make it more like the standard two-row osteoderm arrangement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Saturnalia (dinosaur) neck

After adjusting the pose of NT's Saturnalia, I noticed that the article now has a new, unreviewed restoration instead, with feathers, and a short neck. I wondered why NT's has a longer neck, and found this figure in a Scientific Reports paper (it's free[55]). Then I noticed that all short-necked restorations seem to be based on our article's skeletal by Maurissauro. That skeletal shows the neck as preserved as if it was complete (with the skull seemingly articulating with the first vertebra), but earlier versions[56] seem to show a longer neck, with some vertebrae indicated as missing. IJReid also pointed out some other issues when the image was first under review[57], but never got a reply. So are these short-necked restorations inaccurate, and should we use NT's and Scientific Reports versions instead? If so, we have unfortunately misled other artists, judging on Google results.[58][59] FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maurissauro's skeletal
Restoration seemingly based on the above by CaetaMS
NT's long-necked restoration
Scientific Reports skeletal
Short-necked diagram by Slate Weasel

Unfortunately, the vertebral column of Saturnalia has never been properly described. However, the skeletal in the original description appears to indicate that the atlas and axis are not preserved. Maurussaurio's skeletal shows only eight cervical vertebrae (including the atlas), which is one fewer than in Eoraptor and Buriolestes. Furthermore, by comparison with the skeletal in the original description, the cervical vertebrae appear to be too short. Langer et al. (2022) state that the neck is roughly 60% the length of the trunk. Also, Maurussaurio's skeletal appears to show legs that are too long. Measuring the femur and tibia off of the image, I get 167 and 178 cm, but the measurements in Langer 2003 are: holotype femora 157 R 152 L, holotype tibia 158, paratype femur 156, paratype tibia 155. Though I am cognizant of the fact that skeletals do not necessarily show bones in the right view to replicate measurements exactly, I'm not sure how the tibia could be made 15% bigger. The size of the sacrum and skull are both more congruent with the measurements of the actual specimens, whereas the forelimb actually seems a bit small. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the size comparison; unfortunately the SciRep skeletal isn't proportionally accurate either, the legs are too small (which made the animal comparatively huge when I first tried to scale it...) and the arms seem too large. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the solution here? Is it to fix Maurissauro's or the SciRep skeletal? Which is easier? Is one of the previous revisions of Maurissauro's skeletal accurate? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the different shades in Maurissauro's mean, if anything... So probably SciRep's? FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Knowing Maurissauro, if we ask him for information on the neck, he probably has it. My suggestion would be to add the axis to his skeletal, since he's worked with the actual material and probably has a better handle on it, as well as having multiple skeletals published in papers by the Muller ea team. If he isn't responsive rn for whatever reason, the axis of the second revision of the skeletal could probably be pasted into the neck of the current to fix the problem? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if another vertebra is added, the neck would still seem a bit too short, based on the skeletal in the original description and Langer et al. (2022) saying the neck is 0.6 times the trunk length (adding another vertebra would get it up to 0.54 or so). Based on the information available to me, the cervical vertebrae themselves seem too short and the legs seem too long. If Maurissauro has information to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It also seems weird to me that the bone shapes and proportions are extremely different across the different revisions of the skeletal, I think that would call into question how accurate the current version really is? It doesn't even look like the same animal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to you all here.

@Ornithopsis Yes, the axial skeleton of Saturnalia has never been described in detail (which is a shame considering that the taxon is 23 years old), so what is published is too poor to make an accurate reconstruction. My previous attempts took into account the published reconstructions, measurements and the few pictures that appeared in the literature here and there. I recently had the opportunity to see first-hand ALL type specimens of Saturnalia, so I believe I have better data now to produce a more accurate reconstruction (although the most recent version that was uploaded here isn't too far off the mark). The image being discussed here is a composite of the three type specimens, hence the "problems" in their measurements and proportions, but all were made taking into account measurements in Langer (2003) and the ones I was able to perform personally. Anyway, I'm working on an updated reconstruction, so I believe that it will set things right (if not, I'll be happy to fix it). You can see a preview of the new reconstruction here. This new version has proportions mostly based on MCP 3845 and uses the upper estimate for the skull length. Now that I had access to the vertebrae I realized that most of the dorsal ones were too short. This is a WIP, don't forget.

@Slate Weasel The SciRep skeletal is not accurate at all, unfortunately it appears to have been made in a more loose way, and therefore doesn't correctly demonstrate the preserved material, it's quite a mess honestly.

@Hemiauchenia I'll fix any problems with my reconstruction. I've been wanting to do this for a while and I've already started the process.

@FunkMonk I think it's pretty clear in the image description what the shades mean. Also, the shape of the bones changes from one version to the next because in the first versions I was still learning how to do all this, so the skeletons ended up being less accurate than the ones I made more recently. It makes no sense to judge the latest version based on something that was done 4 years ago.

@IJReid By my counts there are no vertebrae missing from this skeleton (but I could be wrong of course). Saturnalia is supposed to have 24 presacral vertebrae (including axis+atlas, which are the first and second vertebra, and a possible dorsosacral, the last presacral vertebra), being 9-10 cervical and 14-15 dorsal. As far as I've seen, my skeleton matches that. The atlas is extremely reduced to an intercentrum and other small pieces that can be seen right before the axis. So I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but let's keep discussing.

@everyone. As I said, Saturnalia does not preserve a single complete specimen, but at least three incomplete ones, with different proportions between them (some specimens have a tibia longer than the femur and vice versa, for example). So it is normal for you to find differences regarding this matter, but as I mentioned before, I'll try to minimize this in the next version of the skeletal. I also acknowledge that the vertebrae are VERY poorly drawn in the current version and I intend to correct this in the new version (not done yet). Again, don't take into account published skeletons such as SciRep's as hard truths, it's not meant to be 100% accurate (as are most skeletons that appear in published papers sadly).

If you'd like to know anything else, I'll be happy to answer. Maurissauro (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

For the current version I count 23 presacrals, though the 24th may be the dorsosacral (or first sacral depending on how you count), with only 8 cervicals judging by where the ribs transition. However, the WIP new version has 9 by my count, so this issue will be fixed when it is done. I have no other problems with the reconstruction. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, all good then. Thanks for the feedback. Maurissauro (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The problem is, you are making claims based on unpublished data, which puts us in a tricky position. Without your skeletal being published in a reliable source, any aspect of your skeletal that is at odds with what's indicated by reliable sources is original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia.

I am well aware that the known individuals of Saturnalia vary somewhat in size and proportions. However, the proportions of your current skeletal seem to be outside that range of variation, even taking into account the margin of error caused by perspective effects. I am not taking the Bronzati et al. (2017) skeletal as a hard truth. However, when it's consistent with what is implied by other sources, I consider it as corroborating evidence.

I am skeptical of the presacral formula you show. As far as I am aware, all non-sauropod sauropodomorphs show 25 vertebrae anterior to the primordial sacrals. Eoraptor and Buriolestes show 9 cervicals, 16 dorsals, and 0 dorsosacrals (or maybe 15 dorsals, 1 dorsosacral in Eoraptor). Plateosaurus has a formula of 10 cervicals, 15 dorsals, and no dorsosacral. Most others show a formula of 10 cervicals, 14 dorsals, and 1 dorsosacral. Your current skeletal depicts it with 8 cervicals and 16 dorsals, and your new skeletal depicts it with 10 cervicals and 14 dorsals. Langer et al. indicate that the presacral series of Saturnalia is incomplete, so what is your evidence for depicting it with a different formula from any other known sauropodomorph? And, for that matter, for changing the formula with every revision to a different implausible option? I would expect a formula of 9 cervicals and 16 dorsals like other Carnian sauropodomorphs. Langer et al. (1999) appears to show 16 dorsals and 6 preserved cervicals, and Bronzati et al. (2017) appears to show 15 dorsals and 7 preserved cervicals.

There are also some proportional concerns I still have. Langer et al. (1999)'s skeletal appears to indicate the longest cervicals exceed the length of the longest dorsals, which is not the case in your skeletal. The sacrum seems too small. The sum of lengths of the holotype sacral centra (including the putative caudosacral) is 74 mm according to Langer (2003), but based on the length of the hindlimb, you have depicted the sacrum as closer to 60 mm long. The manus also appear too small, based on Eoraptor. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not my fault that Langer hasn't published the axial skeleton (and other pieces of the skeleton) of Saturnalia yet. I can't ignore the fact that the material exists and is mentioned in the literature. This skeletal already appears in one of my papers (not focused on Saturnalia though) if it accounts for something.

I'll keep updating the image because it's something I like to do for myself. If you prefer to remove it from its respective article or something, go ahead, I won't be the one to insist for them to be put back. Maybe use the skeletal of Langer et al. (1999) or Bronzati et al. (2017), at least these were published in articles focused on Saturnalia, or maybe see if anyone is willing to edit these same skeletals, I believe that is an option too.

I won't waste time answering further about the current version, because as I said, I'm aware that it contains errors and I'm working on fixing them, but I appreciate the feedback.

As for the number of vertebrae, there seems to be variation in Carnian sauropodomorphs, since Buriolestes was described by Müller et al. (2018) as having 9 cervical, 16 dorsal and 2 sacrals, and Eoraptor is described by Sereno et al. (2013) with 9 cervical, 15 dorsal and 3 sacrals. The problem seems to me to be the counting and interpretation of the sacral vertebrae (if there is a dorsosacral or not and so on). Saturnalia's holotype (MCP 3844) is described by Langer (2003) as having a caudosacral, but Marsola et al. (2019) has shown that one of the paratypes (MCP 3845) has a dorsosacral instead. I believe this variation is causing the confusion (news soon on this). MCP 3845 preserves 8 cervicals (including the axis, but lacking only the atlas), with an almost complete presacral series, totalizing 22 vertebrae according to Bronzati et al. (2017, supp material), which I was able to personally confirm. I'll quote Bronzati et al. (2017) here: The presacral column of S. tupiniquim is thus reconstructed as having 24 or 25 vertebrae. Moreover, Macrocollum (Müller et al. 2018) an early sauropodomorph known from three almost complete specimens also has 24 presacral vertebrae. So I guess we can work with 24 presacrals until further notice.

As for the length of the sacrum (in relation to the new version of the skeletal, which is a WIP), I still haven't changed the length of the sacral and caudal vertebrae, so that's probably the problem, until the end of the process this will be done (I just quickly assembled it to show to you in the previous response), as well as redrawing all the vertebrae individually. If you're talking about the current version, I have nothing to comment on, as I said before, I'm fixing it.

The size of the manus is based on a single metacarpal present in McP 3844 and another one in Buriolestes' holotype.

If you have further inquiries, just let me know. Maurissauro (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I was not aware (or had forgotten) that Bronzati et al. described the cervical series of Saturnalia in the supplementary material. That changes things, because it means that the proportions of Saturnalia's neck can now be verified from a reliable source. In my defense, that's a weird place to put the only description of an important part of a taxon's anatomy. As I said, it would put us in a tricky position if your skeletal's proportions could not be corroborated by published data—thankfully, it turns out it can be!

It appears that you are correct about the relative lengths of the cervicals to the dorsals, and the 60% value reported for neck length was based on interpreting presacral 10 as the last cervical. From Bronzati et al.'s description, it seems to me that they consider 9 cervicals more likely than 10 cervicals, which accounts for much of the neck length difference.

Do the 24 presacrals of Macrocollum include the dorsosacral? Müller et al. don't say, but their skeletal suggests that it's 9 cervicals, 15 dorsals, and a dorsosacral. As far as I've been able to figure out, all non-sauropod sauropodomorphs had 25 vertebrae anterior to the primordial sacrum, with the 25th presacral either being free, as the last dorsal, or incorporated into the sacrum, as a dorsosacral (thereby accounting for the difference between Buriolestes and Eoraptor). So if the first sacral of Saturnalia is a dorsosacral, I would be inclined to believe that Saturnalia had 9 cervicals, 15 dorsals, and a dorsosacral, like Eoraptor and apparently Macrocollum. If there is not a dorsosacral, I would favor 9 cervicals and 16 dorsals, like Buriolestes.

My apologies for jumping the gun on critiquing details of your newest skeletal that you hadn't revised yet. I look forward to seeing the completed version. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's totally understandable. As I said, it's a shame that Saturnalia hasn't had its entire skeleton described in detail yet (and to be honest, there are some parts that still haven't been fully prepared after all these years...). I hope that with the discovery of new Saturnalia specimens (one of which I'm even having the opportunity to work with), it will motivate people to finally describe what is missing from the type specimens.

As for the sacrals, it's really quite difficult to assess. I'm willing to follow any of the options you raised in your comment. I can assure you that we are trying to resolve this issue, but it will not be something for the short term, unfortunately. I suspect that the Buriolestes dorsal 16 is a dorsosacral, but unfortunately I haven't been able to assess the holotype yet to verify this, most of it is on borrowed to another institution right now. In Macrocollum, it is still not possible to be sure because this region is not fully prepared in all three specimens. As I see, we have a condition similar to Eoraptor, with 24 presacrals, one dorsosacral and two sacrals.

As soon as I finish the new version of skeletal I comment here and you guys give me feedback. Maurissauro (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttp://research.amnh.org/paleontology/search.php?action=detail&specimen_id=46239

[2] ttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Holotype-skull-of-Anchiceratops-longirostris-CMN-8535-A-right-lateral-view-B-dorsal_fig4_262938879

[3] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/328676803_NEW_EVIDENCE_FOR_PREDATORY_BEHAVIOR_IN_TYRANNOSAURID_DINOSAURS_FROM_THE_KIRTLAND_FORMATION_LATE_CRETACEOUS_CAMPANIAN_NORTHWESTERN_NEW_MEXICO

[4] Andrew A. Farke; Ceratopsid dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous Almond Formation of southwestern Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Geology 2004;; 39 (1): 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gsrocky.39.1.1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]