Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Isasicursor

Added by @Raingerr: without review. The proportions seem to be accurate to the skeletal. I assume that the feathered body but scaly tail is based on Kulindadromeus, which is within the bounds of plausibility. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The eye seems to be placed way too far back, almost in the temporal fenestra. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I've moved the eye a bit, hopefully it's more correct. Raingerr (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This user also added these images without review. Any opinions for these? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Auroraceratops immediately jumps out as a poor fit to Scott Hartman's (published) skeletal, in e.g. the small head. I'm also not a fan of the near-plantigrade foot posture. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't know this review page was here before, whoops. I updated the Auroraceratops image, does it look better? I didn't realize how far I had strayed off the skeletal proportions when I was done. Raingerr (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems better but the top of the skull shouldn't be that convex. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sanxiasaurus differs considerably from the only published reconstruction [1] and also its close relative Agilisaurus in the blocky skull and excessively tall pelvic region. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The top of the skull should be more convex and the legs considerably longer for Changchunsaurus, and the eye is too far back: [2] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the forelimb of Yandusaurus, it looks rotated at an awkward angle. The lower arm is probably too long; the radius is 59% the length of the humerus: [3] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Yueosaurus is also too robust for the known material: [4] Its skull should also be patterned after Jeholosaurus: [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yandusaurus, Yueosaurus, and Nevadadromeus have strangely rectangular backs. They should be more curved like the Changchunsaurus. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That struck me as a stylistic choice involving the protofeathers but it is confusing indeed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Kurupi skeletal overwrite

This is an old image uploaded by a person I know. When it was controversial when it was first posted for review but still ended up on the article. Around a year ago, I updated it and overwrote the original around a year ago. I have another file revision with the bad labels (such as Homo ergaster for scale, easily fixable) removed and the signature shrunk but I can't upload the new version. Unless the file is fit for inclusion this time, I won't upload the new file. Clumsystiggy (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to address all of the major issues from last time - but those further tweaks would probably be preferred. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'll upload the new revision when Wikipedia doesn't think I'm a robot... Clumsystiggy (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Minimocursor phunoiensis

Stegotyranno (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a nice image but I don't think we need this many of the same taxon... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

there is not a main image on the page yet Stegotyranno (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Oblitosaurus

Newly described Ankylopollexian.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't access that paper but I don't see anything obviously wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hanssuesia

Stegotyranno (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that the most recent study found Hanssuesia to be a synonym of Stegoceras validum. Either way, it probably shouldn't look that different from Stegoceras, as it can be barely distinguished from it. What is that spike at the front of the dome? FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I think you mean a "ridge"/bump? of keratin Stegotyranno (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what is that based on? I assume its dome-shape would have been more or less like Stegoceras. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Minimocursor

Newly described neornithischian known from a postcranial specimen that is more than 50% complete.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to see it reposed from the paper's skeletal. :) Note that it was very phylogenetically close to Kulindadromeus, so I might err on the side of some kind of fuzzy integument for Minimocursor. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice, although original description is Creative Commons licence so we can use that as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the paper already has a free restoration, and we should probably prefer to use what has been published. But strangely, it also shows it as scaly, though as pointed out above, Kulindadromeus is just basal to it. So I'm tempted to say that if you make your restoration fuzzy, we should use it instead, or at least show both. But if you keep it scaly, I think the one from the paper should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Updated fuzzy version:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

looks good to me, nice to have both versions. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Would it make sense to tweak the scalation in both versions? To follow the pattern in Kulindadromeus, of course. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, i put bigger scales along the back, how does it look? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems to work well enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now that it seems we keep getting restorations of this genus, even though the paper has a free restoration[6], I think we need to decide whether we use the published one, or one of the user-made one. I'd say if we go with scaly, the most reliable is to stick to the one in the paper, but if we go with usermade, it should be the fuzzy one, which is more in line with the integument of its closest relative. Or the scaly from the paper and the fuzzy one both, if the article grows enough to contain both. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added the fuzzy restoration here to the article, and the paleoenvironment restoration from the paper, which shows it scaly, for balance. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous diagrams and other things

Profile of Charonosaurus jiayensis.
Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis reconstruction.
Placement of TKM007 within a titanosaur.
Skeletal of Rhomaleopakhus.

Several diagrams and other things I uploaded from my Deviant Art. Clumsystiggy (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the Carcharodontosaurus has sort of keratinous "lips", but I'm not sure if this would be considered likely? The eye also seems very oval? FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Image was added to the article, but no reply to the possible issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The resolution is fairly low in these images. That's not necessarily a problem unless it negatively impacts readability. In this case, the scale bars on the skeletal diagrams are very difficult to decipher. There is clearly text beneath them, but it is essentially impossible to read. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the TKM007 skeletal, I think more information in the description would be useful. It took me a bit of searching to be able to figure out that it's a fragmentary humerus probably pertaining to Alamosaurus from the McRae Formation described by Lozinsky et al. (1984) "Late Cretaceous (Lancian) dinosaurs from the McRae Formation, Sierra County, New Mexico." It probably should be depicted with more Alamosaurus-like proportions (in particular, the tail seems too long), but most importantly, you've illustrated the humerus in posterior view but the body outline in lateral view. On the Rhomaleopakhus skeletal, the way you have the radius and ulna articulated seems off (you've got the anteromedial process of the ulna overlapping the radius laterally rather than medially). On both skeletals, you also don't need to put so much detail onto the bones--it kind of just makes them look like they're made of crumpled tinfoil. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. These are very old (bad...) images of mine and the feedback going forward is appreciated. As for the images being added, it had been around 7 days (+posted to the Discord) and I added the images that hadn't yet acquired feedback (all except for iguidensis). It won't happen again. As for the iguidensis feedback, I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I was waiting for more feedback before replying, but it probably came off as rude and I didn't mean to come off as that way. Because these are so old I'm thinking of retiring them and possibly returning later, and this feedback is very valuable. Clumsystiggy (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nipple Butte centrosaur (Diabloceratops)

I was requested to trace this specimen from Loewen et al. "Ceratopsid Dinosaurs from the Grand Staircase of Southern Utah" for the Diabloceratops article.

If it's for article use, it may be useful to label the parietal and squamosal directly on the diagram. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Lythronaxargestes you have right with label the parietal and squamosal on this diagram. This diagram is anatomical correctly. Aventadoros (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Can do, will reupload with the new version tomorrow. Clumsystiggy (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus

Hello, while I am aware that there already is a plethora of Spinosaurus reconstructions I wanted to check if this also qualifies. Thank you. -StegoTyranno —-[[User: Stegotyranno]Stegotyranno]] (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Leg musculature looks better, but the leg posture still has the same issue where it looks like it would tip forwards because both feet are shifted pretty far back, when one should robably be more forwards for balance. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that you can demonstrate with a sketch of where the leg(s) should be. Alternatively is a picture showing only the right limbs(closer to the viewer) accepable? Stegotyranno (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example[7] in a similar pose. You can se the frontmost leg is much farther towards the front, so that it looks like it could carry the weight in front of the pelvis. If you want to show only a single leg, that leg should looks balanced as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how much I was supposed to move the leg, so here are some rough versions

https://i.postimg.cc/fknw7fd6/7-EE87-C15-FB03-4-CF8-AB4-C-07-ED21871-DD3.png

https://i.postimg.cc/yYGZ3MWG/02-C0-AC80-84-F1-42-FF-BA2-F-B5-D4-D7-D3-D5-CD.png Stegotyranno (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In your second link, I would mainly rotate the front lower leg more forwards. FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Does that imply the first link is fine?

Anyways here is the second version(both pairs of legs), modified, rough version

https://i.postimg.cc/gkYV1NwG/8648232-D-D21-C-4-D8-E-A6-AE-9-C650-DF46-AF7.png Stegotyranno (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks better, yeah, but note there's a hairlike line poking down from the hindmost knee now. I also think the foot on the hindmost leg should probably have a more concave upper profile when it that stepping pose, like in the silhouette I posted before.[8] As for the single leg version, it seems a little top heavy, but that's also because of the animal's proportions. Probably good if some more people chimed in. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

https://i.postimg.cc/mrWv7PZX/47-D189-A1-18-AF-497-C-A353-82-B53-F87315-F.png

modifed leg

dont worry about the fine hairs, they are process of the rough edit Stegotyranno (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the two-legged version. The foot doesn't look flat in the other one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay so here’s a low-quality preview of the final

https://i.postimg.cc/v8rJXsq2/21-BD8179-6329-4842-9-C8-B-028-C16-DA5-F96.png Stegotyranno (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will upload that iteration to commons when I get a chance later . Stegotyranno (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Igai semkhu

Here's the life restoration of the new Saltasaurid Titanosaur I finished earlier today. Is there any chance this reconstruction could be on its official page? Please let me know your thoughts. I may have to fix the feet on the forelimbs.

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice. Maybe the perspective of the forelimbs' posture is a little wonky? Ornithopsis can probably provide more detailed comments. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the posture of the forelimbs is kind of wonky. Other than that, there isn't much to say; it seems OK to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this by any chance better? I noticed that the forelimbs were flat and faced sideways like the arms of a Theropod. I altered the placement of the toes and made more room for the foot to look cylindrical if that makes sense. Hopefully it looks better than it did before, but if not I'll edit them more when I have spare time. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A tale of two Daspletosaurus(daspletosauri?)

I made two reconstructions. Both were reviewed by other people and said to be okay. One is lipless, the other is lipped

Stegotyranno (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a shame they're torosus, we have none of the other species... As for lips or not, while not the final nail in the coffin, the latest paper[9] seems to be pretty compellingly in favour of lips. FunkMonk (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I also have a D.wilsoni if that is wanted. Stegotyranno (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Would probably be useful, we already have loads of torosus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Stegotyranno (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I believe the style of signature in the lipped image is discouraged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

necessity of Life restorations

from my experiences with skeletals and such, its rather clear that life restorations are, simply put, easier to create as an artist, but for genera without in technical illustrations on their page (eg. skeletal reconstructions, diagrams, actual photos of the fossil) should there really be a life restoration on there? Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the rationale? That we should not show something speculative if we can't show the actual evidence? That is currently the rationale for not using life restorations in the taxobox as the first, main image if we have fossil images. But the reason why we sometimes only have life restorations is simply that we can only us what we have under a free licence, and sometimes nothing else is available. But that is true for any kind of image, sometimes we only have photos of fossils (like Dysalotosaurus), sometimes only skeletal diagrams (like Macelognathus), etc. This discussion probably belongs on the talk page, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

got that. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Fauna of the Ibero-Armorican island

An unreviewed fauna diagram by NSeaurio of animals (including many dinosaurs) of the Ibero-Armorican island. I haven't been able to review the content much, but it seems there are several silhouettes derived from non-CC licensed sources (e.g. Atsinganosaurus, Tamarro). -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, Mistralazhdarcho is from this non-CC skeletal: [10] I think the background is also just all sorts of noisy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Gargantuavis is from Nix's illustration[11] which is CC BY NC. Where is Dinocarcinus btw? (just kidding, it is only known from claw it is problematic to reconstruct) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

General Contributions

Hopefully I'm doing this right, but I'm just looking to throw some of my own artwork to the wind and see if any of it is up to snuff to be included on a Wiki page. Below are some of the images I've uploaded to the commons:

These are all fairly old artworks, so I'm not really looking to make revisions on them - but I'm hopeful at least a couple are decent enough to make their way onto their respective pages. Ddinodan (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've turned you list into a gallery so we can all see the artworks. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If any pachycephalosaurids, lambeosaurines, or stegosaurids are missing pictures, it might be nice to have them extracted from the compilation - also for cladograms, etc. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See below the animals I am able to separate out currently: Ddinodan (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking quite competent for the ones I looked at so far, and I second that it could be nice if all of them could be split off as their own images. We've been looking after an accurate restoration of Stegosaurus ungulatus lately, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
These should be very useful in this format, yeah. Looks good! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the limbs of some of the hadrosaurs are too close together. The ones of Amurosaurus, Nipponosaurus, and Parasaurolophus are alright though. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this should be relevant to whether or not the reconstructions should be used. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that there's very little space between the front and hindlimbs in some of them (like these[12][13][14]), which makes it look like the torsos are very short. I wonder whether this is caused by excessive tissue in front of the thighs, but hard to say. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Lambeosaurine torsos generally seem to be reconstructed as being quite short, as can be seen here here and here, so I don't think that's inaccurate. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, and if that's what Miracusaurs meant, seems fine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, but even looking at those skeletals I think the torso of Magnapaulia for example is way too short. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just finished my chart for Saurolophinae, so I'll stick those here as well:

Also, when these have been okayed, who goes about implementing them on pages? Am I supposed to do that, or do you guys over time? First time contributing to Wikipedia, so just curious. Ddinodan (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I already did it for some of the earlier ones, where articles didn't already have adequate restorations, but anyone can do it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good - not really sure on the etiquette for putting new images into articles, so perhaps it'd be best if I left it to those more experienced. Ddinodan (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Added the latest batch too. Any chance of separating the pachycephalosaurs and stegosaurs? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, no - they're on an external drive at home, and I'm currently studying abroad, so I can't access them until I get home. Once I am able to, I'll be able to grab the original files and split them into individuals, but I can't do that right now without making it real messy. Ddinodan (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, cool, yeah, wouldn't really be possible to separate the pachycephalosaurs out from this file since they overlap each other anyway. I might try to extract the Stegosaurus ungulatus, though, as we need a good restoration of that. Should be easier since they don't overlap. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've got an old chart on my computer, actually, of the 2/3 species of Stegosaurus. Isn't coloured yet, but I can get it finished up, and that'd probably work. Ddinodan (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly would be appreciated! FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here we are:

Ddinodan (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

As you can see in a section above, Ddinodan, we also have an iffy Dacentrurus that could need replacement. Any chance you have an isolated one? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You'll find it here with the others:

137.154.29.205 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice as usual, but I think the tail spines of Paranthodon, Chialingosaurus, amd Adratiklit are too exaggerated. Same goes for the curved shoulder spine of Jiangjunosaurus. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why the spines of those taxa would be exaggerated when compared to the others present. Besides, keratin extensions are a likely possibility so I think they should be fine. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the extensions are still way too speculatively long, though. It could make readers believe that Adratiklit really had meter-long sacral spines or that Jiangjunosaurus had curved shoulder spines, when both features are just speculation on part of the artist. Miracusaurs (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned elements are not preserved for either species, so this is just a case of inferance. Especially the size of the spines is not a good argument against the use of the image here. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Miracusaurs, particularly in the case of Adratiklit, as the relative spine length seems rather excessive, at close to 1.5 times the length of the thigh. For comparison, the proportionally longest known spines I am aware of in any stegosaur (the thagomizer spines of Miragaia longispinus) were roughly 90% the length of the femur. Based on the shoulder spines of Borealopelta, a keratin extension of 130% might be considered reasonable, which falls noticeably short of what would be needed to achieve the spine lengths depicted here. I would recommend shortening the spines somewhat on at least Adratiklit. It looks like a porcupine. As always, this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, so speculation that would be perfectly acceptable in most paleoart is not necessarily appropriate for our purposes. That's my only significant concern with any of these, though! Ornithopsis (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are a couple new pieces (I'm guessing whenever I've got something new I can just reply to the thread with it? If there's a less messy way let me know) - Platytholus and Isaberrysaura (reconstructed closer to Huayangosaurus)

137.154.29.74 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you can just add images to this section, and you can also make a new section if you for example make restorations of an entirely different group. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Finished up a recon of Mymoorapelta as per Tim's request:

Ddinodan (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Solid overall, but I'm wondering if those forelimbs might be too upright for an ankylosaur. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Another new one, Gonkoken nanoi.

Ddinodan (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Few new ones, Petrodactyle, Igai and Perucetus. If the discussion had about Perucetus on the Discord needs to be reiterated here it can, however I'm not planning on changing it at the moment, until further discourse on the animal occurs. The former two are based on the skeletals included in their respective publications.

Ddinodan (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add or accentuate webbing between the pedal digits of Petrodactyle, extending to the base of the claws, like other ctenochasmatoids. Also, as pointed out in the paper, the bony crest likely anchored a soft tissue extension like in wukongopterids. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the profile nature of the recon, I don't know how much more accentuated that feature can be without displacing the foot from perspective.

As for the crest, I did add an extension from the bone, slightly larger than the one provided in the papers' skeletal to remain conservative. Ddinodan (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To recap my comments on Discord, your reconstruction of Perucetus looks good to me, but I am concerned that, because the authors explicitly chose to reconstruct it with a rounded fluke (albeit tentatively), based on their interpretation of manatee-like swimming dynamics in the taxon (Extended Data Fig. 10: the tail fluke and forelimb use (bottom-walking) are based on the manatee (Trichechus), the extant marine mammal with the closest degree of pachyosteosclerosis in the postcranial skeleton), it is inappropriate for us as Wikipedia editors to depict Perucetus with a more conventionally whale-like fluke, as doing so is arguably original research. I don't see anything objectionable in your Igai, so I think it's good to go. I don't have anything in particular to say about Petrodactyle; someone more familiar with pterosaurs should take a look at it. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Some edits to the proportions of Perucetus as per some external discussions I've had (mostly to the head, torso and tail). On the matter of their comparison to Trichechus - I'd wonder what interpretation would have been made if they included extinct marine mammal pachyosteosclerosis. Perhaps a tail closer to Hydrodamalis would have been elucidated. Not trying to drag out the discourse on the matter, just a thought I had. Below are the updated files if they are ever of use.

Ddinodan (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The point is, the authors of the only currently-available reliable source on the taxon deliberately chose to depict it with a manatee-like tail (see the caption of extended data figure 10) and note that its inferred mode of swimming was similar to manatees and contrasts with the swimming style used by dugongs and modern whales, which is associated with a lunate tail (see p. 4 of the paper). Until such a time as a reliable source suggesting otherwise is published, it is best for us, as Wikipedia editors, to agree with what the available source says. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it has been noted, but the authors also briefly suggested the biomechanical similarity between Perucetus and Hydrodamalis (Such a large and heavy animal may also have been able to counteract waves in high-energy waters^30,32, as also hypothesized for the giant, recently extinct Steller’s sea cow, Hydrodamalis gigas²⁹. A coastal habitat has already been proposed for basilosaurids on the basis of stable isotopes and skeletal anatomy). Consulting the authors about this tail morphology could be an option as well. Tiouraren (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bolong life restoration

kind of a follow up to the above, i have tried and failed at making a skeletal reconstruction of the genus (it got embarrassing) and, as said above, life restorations are simply easier to create as an artist, so i have produced an image of the head of bolong and wanted to know if it was good enough for the page Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Are those filaments around the eyes? And is that the ear at the back of the head, or the contour of the skull? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

they're speculative display structures (inspired by some birds) and the ear around the contour of the skull. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pentaceratops fenestratus

Scale=10cm as per image description.

Clumsystiggy (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to this diagram. Aventadoros (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Two Rugops chart

Looks like a blocked user replaced first image to second poorly collaged image. IP users, probably sockpuppet of that blocker user, continuing to replace size chart to second one. As I see edit history, it is claimed that original image have too large skull. But anyway probably needs better size diagram for article? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As as I see, it was due to user WelcometoJurassicPark. I currently reverted chart to original one in page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Tharosaurus

There is an edit war over an image in the article. I feel a review here would be helpful to help solve the edit war and aslo help explain to the editor trying to get it in as to whether it is acceptable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

additional info, image was uploaded by @DNB XD: as their own work and was being edit war added by @DaDinoNerdBoi:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As I see user name these are same person? Also IP user that is probably sock as well (Special:Contributions/42.111.160.182). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They probably are the same person with two different accounts for the different wiki with DNB XD being the users commons account and DaDinoNerdBoi being the en wikipedia account. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I know a DeviantArt account with DaDinoNerdBoi’s name that posts DNB XD’s images. Atlantis536 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why it has a cervical sail when the preserved material clearly does not support it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

According to DaDinoNerdBoi "most of the restoration represent it inaccurately without the sail-like structure evidenced by the deep bifurcations present" see his post on Wikipedia:Teahouse#I don't know if I made a mistake in editing, please help me.. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes:. was gonna ping when I responded. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the neural spine was deeply bifid but it still looks awfully flimsy compared to the dicraeosaurids with very long cervical neural spines [15]. I would much rather go with the UDL image as a conservative interpretation, or maybe a little taller than that. But there may be some credibility if it was advised by a co-describer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Tharosaurus indicus

3 different speculations based on material and phylogenetic relations, from most to least conservative . Image might be warped on other devices.

https://i.postimg.cc/qqFrLrhj/Tharosaurus.png Stegotyranno (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with using this diagram on-wiki. It implies that all three of these configurations are hypotheses from the literature, whereas the paper does not discuss this issue in very much depth. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Well if you are familiar with the paper, which would you say is most plausible and acceptable to continue a full body? Stegotyranno (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There are already multiple images above that adhere to the official press release reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs (part 3)

Next pile of random dinosaurs. Please review for accuracy:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the dromaeosaurs have the roots of their sickle claws too exposed, I believe the rim of the toe's skin would cover more of it. I wonder if the primary feathers of the Dromaeosaurus should attach further along the second fingers too, not a lot of it is bare. FunkMonk (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I can add more skin covering at the base the sickle claw. For the primary feathers, I was using this as a guide, and attaching the foremost primary feather on the "knuckle" of the finger. Thoughts? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh, what did he base that limit on? You can clearly see the patagium in that diagram too, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The third dentary tooth for Kuru should be much larger. One of Kuru's distinctive features is this "fang". --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Do you have a visual guide I could reference? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You can see it pretty clearly here: [16] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The parietal and squamosal scale rows on the ceratopsians could be larger, and their skull shapes seem a little off (see snout and first episquamosal/tooth row, respectively) [17]. I believe Jakapil should still have five digits on the hands, and the legs of Malefica are looking very skinny. The species of Mamenchisaurus should be specified, as the genus is a mess of species that isn't necessarily even monophyletic. If Ozraptor is being reconstructed as an abelisauroid, I see no reason to give it only three digits when the members of the lineage with the most reduced forelimbs still retain four. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

-Ok, I can adjust the ceratopsians, I'll definitely give the Furcatoceratops some extra-oral tissue to cover the back teeth.

-Jakapil's hands are tucked up in a way that you can't really see all his fingers. Should I posture them differently to highlight the five fingers, or is it ok how it is? And with five fingers, should his claws have the three fingers of a thyreophoran (on digits I, II, and III only)?

Yes and yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

-I'll beef up Malefica's legs

-Good point about Ozraptor, I was going for a more basal abelisauroid - so yes it should have four fingers. How many claws should it have (I realize Ozraptor has to be pretty speculative) I believe some abelisaurs eventually lost their hand claws completely... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with recent developments in theropod phylogeny, but perhaps Eoabelisaurus would be a good reference for what an early abelisaur would look like? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Malefica has really to skinny legs. In my opinion the epiparietals and episquamosals in ceratopsids look good, I would not change them. The open snouts in Furcatoceratops and Diabloceratops are based on the cheekless version proposed by the Nabavizadeh, 2020. The only thing I would do is to gently shorten the predentary bone that forms the lower beak Furcatoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, look at the skeletal of Furcatoceratops I underlaid - there's literally empty space where the anterior end of the tooth row is supposed to be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to add soft tissues in those places what you've shown, during the life of Furcatoceratops the teeth were probably obscured. Aventadoros (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the dromaeosaurs should be illustrated with propatagia, as has been supported in recent studies (e.g. [18], [19]). -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Should those be covered in feathers, or bare skin? If feathers, would that look any different than simply changing the outline of the arm? I'm kind of picturing thinner/more downy dino-fuzz... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It would still be feathered, and I don’t think it would need to look different from the rest of the feathering. You could look at Fred Wierum’s dromaeosaurs for example. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, should also be added to UnexpectedDinoLesson's previous paravians, then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Can do. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I was about to add them to articles, but seems they still need to be fixed, UnexpectedDinoLesson? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added propatagia to my Achillobator, Austroraptor, and Dromaeosaurus. Do those three look good? If not, how should I improve them?

Let me know which of the rest of my paraves you're wanting updated, and I'll prioritize them. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, ideally, all of them. I’m not sure about oviraptorosaurs, but I’d imagine this would also apply for them, too. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to get to all of them, I was just asking which to prioritize, since he said he was updating some articles. Do the ones I have done look good? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You could start with those that are already used in articles, but in the end, all of them should get the treatment, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Arts by User:Sino-Pteryx

Camarasaurus
Tyrannomimus

Both are added in Japanese Wikipedia and Tyrannomimus one is added here as well. I'll try to contact them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it a little odd that a deinocheirid is restored as being so gracile. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Camara looks pretty skinny? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This picture was drawn nearly a year ago, but the shadows and contrast are strong, and the boundaries between the muscles are clearly visible. Sino-Pteryx (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean it looks like it's lacking fat and muscles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs (part 4)

More random dinosaurs. Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The front leg of Megapnosaurus looks undermuscled.
Just based on the rugosity of the underlying bone, I don't think it's plausible for the face of Lythronax to be covered entirely in epidermal scales.
The shading on the left foot of Caudipteryx is cut off.

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been mentioned to you earlier, if you illustrate a polytypic genus (Caudipteryx in this case), the file description should clarify which species it is intended to represent. The tail feather patterns and general body plumage coloration have actually been predicted for C. zoui. ~~Also, based on the feathers preserved in fossils, Caudipteryx did not have secondary feathers on its forearms like you have reconstructed it with.~~ -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just passing through until I saw the comment about the non-secondary feathers. There are two papers discussing the wing functionality of Caudipteryx ([20] [21]) and both make explicit the existence of secondary feathers. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh, good to know. Thanks for pointing that out. Should probably be made more clear on the page, in that case (and corrected in the other restorations, ideally). -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we think the Caudipteryxis good to go? It doesn't seem to have any restoration now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your Lingwulong and Tharosaurus have their tails set too high, they should look like they have these reconstructions [22] [23] Aventadoros (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way I rechecked your Furcatoceratops and it you add too many oral tissues. Would be great If you improve the snout in the others your ceratopsids along the lines of Menefeeceratops, as the rostal best overlaps the predentary and there is the best soft tissue rearrangement considering the cheekless reconstruction. See also this reconstruction of the open mouth in Triceratops [24] Aventadoros (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Works by User:UnexpectedDinoLesson

I noticed about these uploads after seeing image in Imperobator. These images have extremely simple image names (like "Megalosaurus.png"), so possibly other users may choose these images preferentially, are there any issues on images? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of overlap with Prehistoric Planet ;) The one thing that jumps out to me right now is that the lack of separation between the primaries and secondaries in the paravians seems problematic. Also the fairly rampant presence of digit IV/V claws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

They probably shouldn't be square like that for easy use, a lot of wasted space, and they have some smudge. The Tarchia seems to have some issues that were pointed out on the Discord server. Other than that, I think we could do an effort to fix those we don't have restorations of already if they have issues (Tarchia, Hylaeosaurus, Tethyshadros, Nanuqsaurus, Pectinodon, Imperobator, Protathlitis). The rest are mostly "duplicates" of genera we have usable restorations for already. If the artist doesn't come around to fix them, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I admit the PNGs are square as a result of my workflow, for my ease. I didn't realize how these would be used, so I didn't think about changing them. I will upload images in a more reasonable aspect ratio from now on.

What do you mean by smudge?

I didn't know there was a Discord server! Please let me know how I can join, and I will be able to be much more communicative.

I'll gladly update all the dinos you mentioned, as it would be an honor for my art to be the "go-to" for various genera. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You caught me! I was doing PhP dinos to hopefully have some content of what would soon become popular dinosaurs. :)

I assume you're talking about the feathers, how should the primaries and secondaries be separated?

Should digit IV/V be embedded under the dinosaurs' flesh, or are you saying there should be digits present, simply without claws? I doubt this is universal among species, as I have sauropods, theropods, hadrosaurs, etc. flagged with the same problem and those groups are only distantly related.

Accuracy in the dinosaurs is my priority, but as an artist it is easier to copy+paste. I understand the problem, and don't expect you to explain each dinosaur to me one by one. How would I know what to do for each dinosaur (I don't have ALL their fingers memorized!)

(unless getting my images flagged and having these discussions IS how you let me know, in which case, I will happily correct them each time I get called out).

Be nice, I'm new UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your maniraptorans' wing feathers form a continuous fan right now. They should be closer to this: [25]

There should not be claws on the fourth and fifth fingers. The phalanges at the tips of those digits do not form claws in archosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful, thank you! I will be referencing this from now on. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be exact or substantial traces of skeletal restorations (mostly from Scott Hartman’s). Compare the Iguanodon to this diagram by Slate Weasel, for example. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute, comparing the two, looks like they put the eye into the temporal fenestra?! Looks like some of the others also have weird eye issues. By itself, I don't think them being close in pose to the skeletals is enough of a problem, as they also have some substantial differences. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged a lot of them as inaccurate, but there's probably stuff I've overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The iguanodon is one of the first ones I made, so I admit it's probably pretty bad. I was still figuring out my techniques. Will update eye placement.

What are the other eye issues? They should be in the right place - maybe wrong size? Eyes are hard...

As far as tracing existing skeletals, I do use those to start with a basic shape, but often change things around for artistic purposes. Is this a copyright issue or something? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Original artist here. I admit I'm new to Wikimedia Commons and contributing to Wikipedia. I didn't realize my art was actually being used on Wikipedia, and I'm honored! I assure you, any faux pas or breach of protocol on my part stems from ignorance, rather than malice.

That being said, Dinosaur accuracy is my priority, so thanks for putting me through the review process. I'll go through and update based on the below comments. As far as the naming, is there a standard format I should be using, or something different I should be doing? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Taxon_UnexpectedDinoLesson.png or File:TaxonUDL.png (as you have for a few) would usually work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, UnexpectedDinoLesson, nice to see some animals we otherwise don't have restorations of. What I meant by smudge appears to be shadow which only appears around the inner mouth areas for some reason. Since this shadow is nowhere else (as wouldn't make sense anyway), it looks like an error at first glance. As for claws, as was said above, archosaurs appear to have no claws on the fourth and fifth fingers. As for eyes, some of them seem too large, base them on skeletals of related genera that show the sclerotic ring, and the eyeballs should then be able to fit only within the inner diameter of the rings. And as for the maniraptorans, as was pointed out, the primary feathers should attach to the second finger instead of to the wrist. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The link to Discord is here:[26] The issues with Tarchia pointed out by Ankylosaur Enthusiast there are as follows: "For Tarchia, the tail seems to be too short, the should be osteoderms on the forelimbs like MPC-D 100/1305, many of the caputegulae aren’t defined, the musculature of the hind limbs look wrong and the manus looks a bit iffy". I'd like to know what can be done to make the Hylaeosaurus ready for use, as we don't have other restorations of it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I put a drop shadow on the rictus and teeth of some of the old ones to try to make the inside of the mouth look darker. I agree it doesn't look great, so I stopped doing it. I'll go back and remove it on the old ones, and won't be doing it anymore. You guys are very observant!

Would the entirety of they eyeball fit inside the sclerotic ring? I was under the impression that the sclerotic ring was inside the soft tissue of the eyeball, therefore made the eyes big enough to encompass it. I guess I need to double-check my research.

I'm going to spend the whole day going back and updating all these. It'll take some time, but I'm working on it.

Thanks! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the sclerotic ring is inside the eyeball, but the only part of the eyeball that would be visible externally is the part within that inner diameter. As an extreme example, look at modern chameleons. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I see the Tarchia has been modified now, does it look ok, Ankylosaur Enthusiast? Also, what needs to be done to the Hylaeosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I've updated most of the concerns mentioned, but I didn't change the tail because I think it is the right length. If I really need to change it, can you be more specific? Otherwise, hopefully it is good. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
UnexpectedDinoLesson, the Archaeopteryx also needs propatagia, and the Hylaeosaurus definitely needs to have its hands modified so that it has the proper three clawed and two unclawed fingers. The eye also seems too large and in an odd position, and there's no earhole. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been planning on giving the early ones complete overhauls. Those were among the first handful that I've made, and my techniques have advanced substantially. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Fujianvenator, Tyrannomimus, and others

Fujianvenator:

Newly discovered anchiornithid from China.

~

Tyrannomimus:

Newly discovered ornithomimosaur from Japan.

~

And more dinosaurs.

Please review for accuracy:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pelecanimimus should have teeth.--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I know Pelecanimimus has hundreds of teeth, but they're so tiny I wasn't sure they'd be visible. If you think I should add them, I will. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Shuvuuiahas two little fingers on both of its hands and lacks the facial disc as suggested by that 2021 paper. Besides, shouldn't its tongue be visible and its tail be feathered? 73.186.196.43 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You can find skeletal reconstruction of Koshisaurus by Genya Masukawa here (2nd one),[27] hope that is useful. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, Huayangosaurus looks correct. Aventadoros (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson, remember that the frontmost wing-feathers of ornithomimosaurs should probably also attach to the second finger, here in all three it seems they stop by the wrists. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'll update that. Besides Tyrannomimus and Pelicanimimus here, what's the third ornithomimosaur you're referencing? While I'm at it, should they have primary and secondary feathers like more derived Maniraptoriformes, or more of the "shaggy" ostrich-like feathers?UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I was commenting on three of your sections at almost the same time, so may have mixed some of it up. But yeah, sounds good that you'll have a look at them, as some are already used in the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended wing feathers down second fingers on Tyrannomimus and Pelecanimimus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Garumbatitan

Newly discovered somphospondylan from Spain.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should have slightly thicker legs. Aventadoros (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs (part 2)

Here's some more various dinosaurs. Please review for accuracy:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the cervical kink in Hypsilophodon. I also think the hands of Saurolophus look pronated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A few things:

Dacentrurus appears to follow Headden's somewhat outdated skeletal, rather than the more likely long-necked "dacentrurine" form seen in Miragaia (see here or here for more recent interpretations).
I haven't checked any measurements, but based on most skeletal reconstructions, Concavenator's skull might be a little too big.

Approximately scaling various diagrams from the osteologies of Concavenator, I think the skull size is not too far off, but the hands seem to be on the small side and the arms too far forward: [28] (But note that there seems to be a scaling issue with the pelvis I can't resolve.) Also, the proportions of the skull are very far off: it needs to be taller with a deep jaw. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The skull is now better but I would smooth the top (that's not a crest, that's the braincase) and the hands still need to be enlarged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The left arm of Alxasaurus looks quite awkward. Is there any particular reason that it is pronated and outstretched like that? There also appear to be some unintentional black spots near the fingers.

That would be because it seems to be drawn over the Paleofile skeletal. It should definitely be reposed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The vibrant green and yellow Lanzhousaurus might be a little unrealistic. Maybe desaturate the colors a little?
Similar issue with Citipati—the color scheme looks unnatural. The skull looks quite unlike that of Citipati, with a "Ronaldoraptor"-style crest and insufficiently deep lower jaw. The left foot also has a strange black patch on it that I assume isn't supposed to be there.

While the issues above seem to have been fixed, it also needs propatagia, UnexpectedDinoLesson. Also, please reply in the comments once an issue has been dealt with, it can be hard to keep track of. The hallux of the Alxasaurus also needs to be closer to the ground and point forward, as in other therizinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Added to the list. Thanks! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Propatagia added on Citipati, and hallux adjusted on Alxasaurus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Citipati, UnexpectedDinoLesson, the purple colouration is probably unlikely a ground-dwelling animal like that, it isn't exactly common in modern birds either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume the Saurolophus is S. osborni? It would be good to be more clear in the image description.

-SlvrHwk (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, when using copyrighted skeletals as basis, try to change the poses a bit so it doesn't end up with the exact same silhouette, which might be problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Vectidromeus

Vectidromeus skeletal and size diagrams

Vectidromeus skeletal
Vectidromeus size

Skeletal reconstruction of the new Wessex Fm. hypsilophodont Vectidromeus. Dr. Longrich's size chart of both it and Hypsilophodon can be seen here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Decided to upload my size chart as well, in case someone ever significantly expands the page and makes room for it. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Vectidromeus life restoration

It might seem a bit warped due to the perspective. If you have any questions or suggestions let me know. Stegotyranno (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice restoration, but yeah, the odd perspective/pose make it difficult to tell if the proportions are accurate. Based on Hypsilophodon (and my interpretation of the perspective), the tail looks a little too long, and the head/neck too large. The hand doesn't really match what is known from Hypsilophodon (which should probably be used to fill in any fossil gaps), as seen in fig. 41 here. Also, why does the left foot look so ostrich-like? Finally, as I discovered while making the Vectidromeus skeletal diagram seen above, the general proportions between it and Hypsilophodon are fairly similar, but it seems the tibia/fibula were proportionately longer in Vectidromeus. It doesn't look like this is the case in your illustration, but I'm not certain. Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The perspective also makes it hard to determine if the feet are different lengths or not, and the tail tip seems to go down too far compared to the plane where the feet are placed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

feel free to make any edits of wanted in the meantime, I will tweak it soon (1 or 2 weeks Stegotyranno (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably best if you do it, you have the layered files. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hylaeosaurus and Archaeopteryx

Finally got around to redoing my Hylaeosaurus and Archaeopteryx, as my artistic techniques have improved. These are the same image files as above, it just seemed worthy of creating a new post here.

Hylaeosaurus
Archaeopteryx

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Seem much better. But could be nice with come ankylosaur expert comments. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Vectidromeus, Jiangxititan, and others

Vectidromeus:

Newly discovered hypsilophodontid from England.

~

Jiangxititan:

Newly discovered lognkosaur from China.

~

And more dinosaurs.

Please review for accuracy:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The feathers on the neck and back of Murusraptor look very strange, they should be removed.

I see that the reconstruction of Utahceratops is based on the skeleton from the work of Sampson et al. (2010), but it is incorrect, the tail too high. The overall body silhouette should be similar to the ceratopsids you did earlier, see also GetAwaytrike's Triceratops silhouette, as it is correct [29].

Epiparietales and episquamosales look too rounded, they should be sharper. The contact between squamosal and parietal is too faint, I also don't see the squamosal and parietal scale rows you gave in centrosaurines. The postorbital horn looks like it is keratinless, it should be longer. I really like the look of the closed mouth, it looks great, you should close it also in Diabloceratops and Furcatoceratops, as it will greatly improve the appearance of your reconstructions. By the way Furcatoceratops add four ridges on the squamosal, as this is an important anatomical element, and it was left out, it looks great in Andrea Atuchin. [30] Aventadoros (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I still noticed that Utahceratops has too skinny hind limbs, while Jiangxititan has all of them. Also Vectidromeous Has skinny legs and Barapasaurus's fore limbs.Aventadoros (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Murus neck-feathers look like a transparent gel, yeah, maybe a layer issue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Vectidromeus seems to follow the proportions of Hypsilophodon, even where (as far as I can tell) they should differ. This is most noticeable in the length of the lower leg, as mentioned above. I don't think the presence of feathery integument on Murusraptor is a problem, but I agree that the way it is presented now is quite unnatural. I also don't think that it's needed to close the mouths of your other ceratopsians. This seems like an unnecessary waste of time for something fairly inconsequential. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The current appearance of the open snout of Furcatoceratops is not as proposed by Nabavizadeh (2020) and should be corrected, the best looking open snout in UDL Menefeeceratops also in Diabloceratops I would gently correct. In the case of Furcatoceratops, I would still add ridges on the squamosal of (fig. 8A in Ishikawa et al. ,2023).

As for the feathery cover in Murus, I don't think it is present at all. How much in basal Tyrannosauroidea or Maniraptor there is evidence of feathers so in representatives of Megaraptora we have nothing. Aventadoros (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nabavizadeh has stated on Twitter or somewhere like that that limited mouth musculature doesn't preclude other skin tissue (also see California condor). FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nabavizadeh even writes about this in the abstract of his paper, but see still Matt Dempsey's reconstructions. I also don't rule out that some soft tissues may have been there, but the open snout should look like that of a Triceratops on the left side. [31] Aventadoros (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That diagram also makes me wonder, why did that slit-nostril trend for ceratopsians begin? FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This diagram was just created after Nabavizadeh's publication. See also what the open mouths look like in Tricertops from the Eofauna or PNSO cerstopsids (Machairoceratops, Torosaurus and Triceratops - the last two have movable jaws). Therefore, I think Furcatoceratops should have an open-mouthed appearance closer to the triceratops from Dempsey's diagram or to the Menefeeceratops made earlier by UDL. In addition, I would also add to Furcatoceratops the squamosal ridges I mentioned earlier. Aventadoros (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Updated vectidromeus' leg proportions. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Update of the illustration for the abelisaurid Niebla antiqua.

I've been thinking about updating a further Niebla image for a long time.

https://ibb.co/sVj2Jnr Путаниум (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the original image, for context. I wonder if the perspective of the right foot is a little off? -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm maybe yes, I just want some continuity in the new drawing and thanks. Путаниум (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not sure yet, but. still Путаниум (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope the drawing meets the criteria. Путаниум (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The toes on the last one look very skinny. No footpads? FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I plan to upload an updated version of the drawing. Путаниум (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Shidaisaurus

This is simply a bust illustration. The anterior half of the skull of Shidaisaurus is not known. However, its closest known relative is Sinraptor - and Wu et al. 2009 did say that it resembles Sinraptor in some proportions of the posterior half of the skull. Considering their slightly distant relative, Asfaltovenator, being a potential basal allosauroid and its skull that looks not-too-different from those of Sinraptor and Allosaurus, I think this is the best that one can do. It just ended up looking like a slightly stockier Sinraptor skull.

Luigi Gaskell (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm wondering whether there should be a visible ear opening? And while I'm unsure how it would have looked like from the front, the front upper lip seems to be inclined upwards like a "cleft" lip? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Will add an ear hole when I get back to it. I'll also look into what you mentioned about the upper lip. Luigi Gaskell (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice, another thing, square images like this are probably not great for Wikipedia use if they leave a lot of empty space as here at the top of the image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yatenavis

II did not include a scalebar here because the authors did not disclose measurements that I am aware of. Clumsystiggy (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

From the paper: "The total length of the preserved portion is 15.8 mm." -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

New version uploaded. Clumsystiggy (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Parahesperornis restoration

I see that there is a reconstruction of Parahesperornis, but it has not been evaluated. In my opinion, it should have a membrane between the toes just like today's diving birds.

Aventadoros (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hesperornithines also had a predentary bone in the lower jaw, in front of the teeth. It seems to be missing here. The predentary would have given the lower jaw a more pointed tip than what is shown in this picture. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This will probably be too difficult for anyone but the original artist to fix, considering it's a 3D model. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Inawentu

Life recon of Inawentu. Reconstructed in a neutral posture with postcranial elements not known referenced from Bonitasaura.

Ddinodan (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks correct. Aventadoros (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Jaculinykus

Life recon for the new alvarezsaurid.

Ddinodan (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the second finger missing or encased in skin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's there. Ddinodan (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent dinosaurs, and more

Recently named dinosaurs

More dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

They look good overall, but it seems there's a general trend for the lower legs of bipedal dinosaurs to be a bit too skinny. Also, remember to always add species names in the description, especially for multispecific genera, otherwise it's hard to find proper use for the images when a genus is split etc. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall all the dinosaurs look good, but it seems to me that Ampelognathus should have slightly thicker hind limbs Aventadoros (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Inawentu appears to have digitigrade hind legs, which is incorrect. It also probably should not have a thumb claw. The two apatosaurs look fine to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Tawa, Diplodocus, Anchiornis

A few dinosaurs for review:

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What species of diplodocus is this? D. carnegii or D. halli? I think that with multi-species taxa you should just call them species, e.g. D. carnegii or D. halli, it is not clear which species the reconstruction represents. Also, it should have a higher set neck, see the publications of Taylor et al. (2009) reconstructions by Gunnar Bivens

[32]

Aventadoros (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's adapted from this[33], so it's D. carnegii. The image is actually by Mike Taylor himself, I think it should link to the blog post where it was taken from. FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's D. carnegii. I put it in the short description on Wikimedia Commons, but I guess that doesn't show up here. Where exactly should I put the species name? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In the description on Commons. Seems I was completely confused by the above comment, thought the skeletal was up for review too haha... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As for higher set neck, I don't think anyone doubts they could lower it, so not sure why it needs to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, note that there continues to be dispute over sauropod neck posture, so it's not a sure thing that the neck would have been raised. As long as it remains a reasonably disputed topic, we shouldn't be editing images to favor one particular hypothesis over others. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Tawa should probably have feathers.A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with you on that in general, there's still dispute over whether feathers were ancestral to Ornithodira or evolved convergently in multiple lineages, so it's still acceptable to depict early dinosaurs as scaly. The bigger issue, IMO, is that the hands seem rather oddly posed; I don't think a posture like that would be considered biomechanically plausible? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The pterosaur Tupandactylus had vaned feathers... Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Gremlin

Life recon for the new leptoceratopsid.

Ddinodan (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall the body proportions look good, but based on the posture of other leptoceratopsids the tail should have higher neural spines to the end of the tail, I would also add a protofeathers at the very end of the tail. The dorsum should be smooth, I don't know why there are these appendages on it. There is also no epijugal on the jugal. The ear opening should be right at the junction of the jugal and squamosal. Aventadoros (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the tail is really an issue—it looks generally similar to this Leptoceratops skeletal by Jaime Headden, and there is no reason that all leptoceratopsid tails need to look identical (plus, the rather uninformative phylogenetic results don't point in any particular direction as far as references go). As for the integument, while the tail "fringe" seen in a Psittacosaurus specimen would not be unreasonable for leptoceratopsids, I don't believe its exclusion here is problematic. Similarly, the small spikes along the back do not seem to be overly speculative or particularly contradictory to any fossilized integument. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree those aren't issues but I would accentuate the frontal ridge the genus is diagnosed by, if possible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the material and how it'd interact with the rest of a hypothetical skull, I doubt much more of it would be visible past the raised parietal and orbit. Ddinodan (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I was envisioning what you have now, but a bit more pointed where the ridge is located. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Adjusted the file. The ridge in question, again, probably wouldn't be visible much beyond the raised orbit leptoceratopsids, but I've added a bit more of a connection between what would be the centre of the skull and the orbit to imply it is raised in the middle. Ddinodan (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The jugal should be smaller and more triangular and there is no epijugal on it either. The overall shape of the head near the forehead seems to me to be an improvement, but the frill itself should be higher, and I also do not see a distinct boundary between the parietal and the squamosal. As I wrote earlier the tip of the tail should be gently higher, following the pattern from the skeletal reconstructions I have posted below. Aventadoros (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Still coming back to the tail tip it looks like Jamie's skeletal has the wrong proportions. Hartman [34], GAT [35] in Leptoceratops made gently higher tips and Batavotyrannus in Montanoceratops [36], so I am of the opinion that Gremlin should also have a similar one. As for the diagnostic ridge, I don't know if it would be visible from this perspective. Aventadoros (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Migmanychion and Fukuivenator

Migmanychion skeletal diagram
Migmanychion holotype illustration
Fukuivenator size comparison

Here are a couple of illustrations for some (possibly related?) maniraptorans. Migmanychion, which was named this year, is basically a modified version of Fukuivenator since the two were recovered as sister taxa in the paper's main analysis. I also have a version of the Migmanychion skeletal with the holotype on a more Caudipteryx-like body, since similarities were also drawn with oviraptorosaurs (though this is probably not needed for Wiki purposes and I don't plan on uploading it unless otherwise suggested). -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If Migmanychion is closely related to Fukuivenator then the use of Fukuivenator silhouette is correct. In my opinion the skeletal looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the feathers from the skeletal. There's already a feathered restoration and the use of a different colour for the feathers creates undue confusion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Feathers are gone now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sidersaura by UDL

Sidersaura

I know UnexpectedDinoLesson tends to review images in batches (nothing necessarily wrong with that), but this image is currently used on two pages, so it would be good to review now rather than later. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it has the same minor issue I mentioned earlier for Bustingorrytitan, where the limbs are not all planted on the "ground". See here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

In all my images, the legs that are farther from the "camera" are a few pixels higher to make a slight illusion of perspective. Sidersaura here, and Bustingorrytitan might seem more exaggerated because the front leg is elevated in stepping. But they are all like that, it's not tilted. See here. -UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually have a lot of backlogged dinosaurs, and I post whatever I have when a new one is named. I felt like I've been spamming this page lately, so I've been holding off a little bit. Thanks for posting this. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sidersaurus has good body proportions, but indeed the legs do not touch the ground evenly. In my opinion you are not spamming new restorations on this site, but developing it by increasing the number of new dinosaur graphics available. Aventadoros (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, they're all like that to show a little bit of perspective. If this is a problem, I'd have to adjust all of them... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for clarifying. I don't think it needs to be corrected, in that case. It is just somewhat more jarring in these particular pieces than others. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

tyrannosaurus mcraeensis life restoration

Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The nostril appears to be transparent? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

it lacks a septum, similar to turkey vultures, hinted by the size of tyrannosaur olfactory bulbs. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Has this interpretation been published in a reliable source? If not, it seems like original research that should not be implemented on Wikipedia. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

the part about the olfactory bulbs has been heavily studied, the buzzard-nose is a bit of informed speculation, not contradicted by any osteological evidence Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of publications that indicate transparent nostrils. Most tyrannosaurid reconstructions on Wikimedia do not have a transparent nose. Aventadoros (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a recent palaeoart meme that can't necessarily be ruled out, but how widespread is it in modern relatives? Also, it lacks lips, but that still has proponents, so... FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

i restored him with partial lips, covering the top half of the teeth, sort of a compromise between restorations with full on jowls, which i generally default to, and more crocodile like reconstruction, also the showing of teeth when the mouth is open increases the visual impact of the reconstruction. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratopsini by ABelov2014

I have recently added a reconstruction by ABelova2014 showing representatives of Nasutoceratopsini. I think this graphic could be used for an article on Nasutoceratops and add there the cladogram from the publication of Dalman et al. (2018). I personally have no objections to the reconstructions below, they are very well done.

Aventadoros (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably fine, yeah, but I think it makes more sense to use it in Nasutoceratopsini, there are tonnes of important images that need to fit into Nasutoceratops already. I see it's currently a redirect, but Pachyrhinosaurini has an article, so... FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Proceratosaurids by SirBlameson

Yutyrannus size(s)
Sinotyrannus size
Sinotyrannus skeletal
Proceratosaurus skull

A new editor recently added these images to their respective pages without review.

Even if it seems obvious, the images should clearly list the size increments of the scale bar/background grid (if not directly on the image, at least in the file description [like the Sinotyrannus size chart]).
Note that the editor removed another artist's size chart and skeletal diagram of Sinotyrannus in favor of their own without much explanation, so it might be good to assess which are preferable (and why).

-SlvrHwk (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the skull of Proceratosaurus should more clearly state what the hypothetical crest restoration is based on. Is it based on Guanlong? Kileskus? Just vibes? It's unclear, especially since they restored it with so many sinus fenestrations. Everything else looks fine I think.--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The user should be notified about this page if they haven't already, otherwise they continue adding images without review. I'll say at least the Proceratosaurus skull is an improvement over what we had already. But I'm unsure why they replaced the previous Sinotyrannus skeletal[37], it seemed fine? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The one he replaced it with is definitely better at showing which parts of the animal are known from skeletal material. With highly incomplete taxa, I'm always partial to showing the incomplete specimen vs a hypothetical "complete" skeleton. That's just a personal preference though. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The skull reconstruction is clearly based on that of Guanlong, and looks pretty reasonable to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Guanlong doesn't have a skull diagram on wikipedia as far as I can tell, so its not clear to a reader what the basis for the diagram is. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, skeletals looks very good. Aventadoros (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @SirBlameson here. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am sorry I am new to how Wikipedia editing and discussion forums work, but I will respond to the previous things:

Size Graphs/Skeletal Restorations: I can absolutely add the size increments, I was originally going to add it in subtitle area of the respective images (Subtitle I think it is? When you expand an image, there's usually a caption and then a caption in further detail under it; that's what I'm referring to), but I can also put it in the image if its more favorable.

The Sinotyrannus reconstruction is based off unpublished (but photographed) images of the rest of the cranial material of the same specimen, which both looks a lot more like Yutyrannus (than other Proceratosaurs) but further assesses it as a more derived Proceratosaur in general. Compared to the previous reconstructed which lacked both the recessed nasal crest and body type, it is a significant upgrade.

The Proceratosaurus skull reconstruction is based off Guanlong's head restoration (which is provided in Xu et al. 2006 about Guanlong, and also reconstructed by Scott Hartman). The fenesta and foramina shown on the crest are both colored in from artistic choice, which a lot of skeletal artists are known to do.

I have been reading up on all the Proceratosaur literature accessable, and working with others knowledgable in Tyrannosauroids in general to revise the visual graphs we have with better reconstructions and better estimates. These dinosaurs are super interesting, especially considering Yutyrannus and Sinotyrannus likely need to be grouped outside of Proceratosauridae, which is a project I am currently under studying.

If there are any questions about my uploads and my work I will be happy to explain or elaborate on unclear details, but overall I am trying my best to update the publics visuals of these animals. SirBlameson (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I apologize if this is a stupid question, but how do reviewing images work? Would I have to go through a process before uploading the images? Who reviews the images, do selective people such as you folks review them in an open discussion forum?

I wouldn't consider my work to be misinformation or unworthy material, but I would like to help it go through review correctly if my publishing seems to be an issue SirBlameson (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the only process needed is to post images here after upload and see if anyone spots inaccuracies, then they can be added. It seems most are fine, but it is problematic to use unpublished photos in a skeletal, because we strictly have to follow what has been published on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You've done nothing wrong, your images are great. This place exists to spot check inaccuracies, not to conduct an exhaustive review. I don't see anything wrong with your images, as for the use of "unpublished photos in a skeletal", that's been done before with Ichthyovenator which is now a FA, so I don't see a serious issue with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think at the very least it would be good to cite these photographs in the description of the skeletal. That was done for the Ichthyovenator skeletal and would be helpful to ensure reproducibility. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Eoneophron

Recon of the new guy

Ddinodan (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally see no issues Sauriazoicillus (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it looks correct, but did it definitely have a crest on head? Aventadoros (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reasonable extrapolation from Elmisaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. No issues with anatomy either from what I can tell, solid reconstruction! The Morrison Man (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Kurupi itaata

Found this on Wikimedia Commons. Any thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It could stand to be cropped, there's a lot of empty space. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably fine to use, and note images can easily be cropped on Commons with the "croptool" button at the left. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Eoneophron infernalis Skeletal

Just putting this thing here for review. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it should have a more "conservative" crest? This looks more like that of Corythoraptor, which is an oviraptorid. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The only known caenagnathid skull is the (incomplete) skull of Anzu, so that would be a more appropriate shape, if there's going to be a crest at all. The plesiomorphic condition for caenagnathids is presumably crestless. -A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with others that the crest is a bit much. Overall, the whole diagram is a little visually jarring. All of the extra details (classification, "aided using", etc.) should probably be kept in the image description, as it adds clutter here, much of which can be easily found on the Wikipedia page itself. Finally, did you take into account the taphonomic distortion/flattening of the holotype bones? Some of them look unrealistically thin in the skeletal. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I forgot to account for taphonomic distortion. Also I did all of the text stuff for online posting since I've always found the skeletals with extra information about the taxon more engaging and completely forgot that it makes no sense for the Wikipedia upload. I've updated the bone width, changed the crest to match the front of Anzu and where the crest starts at the back of Elmisaurus, removed all extra text, and changed the posture because the original one was unbalanced. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, and yeah, I agree with your comments on online posting outside of Wikipedia. I think the updates look good. -SlvrHwk (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this follow the new skull reconstruction? The mandible looks a bit shallow in particular. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In doing the reconstructions, did you use the skeletal? [38]? It is anatomically correct. Aventadoros (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the shape of the crest of Dilophosaurus is largely unknown, this is all we have:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. I was tempted to go big and crazy with it, but decided to stay conservative with a basic shape and size. Of course coloration is speculative as well. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Camarasaurus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the feet (same issue in your other sauropod reconstructions): While there were only three claws in the pes, at least digit IV (without a claw), and probably digit V, was present and visible as well, as we see this in the tracks. In your reconstruction, no digit IV is visible, and all the claws appear to be somehow on the lateral side on the pes. Also, the claws are laterally deflected; they are usually not vertical, but typically inclined so that their medial surface lies on the ground. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Updated. I will do my sauropods feet like this from now on. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of Paraxenisaurus

I stumbled upon this image in the commons, and I'm currently working on the page for this genus. Has this been reviewed? If not, does anyone think it wouldn't be appropriate to use in the body of the article? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This should definitely not be used and have some tag added (speculative paleoart?); it is one of those odd cases where a restoration focuses entirely on unknown parts. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Big copyright symbol and text in the corner kinda distracting. I don't mind signatures or illustrator's name (I do it myself) but this one is obnoxiously large and distracting. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yanbeilong

Putting this here to be reviewed for accuracy, new stegosaur named yesterday. Olmagon (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Although I haven't read the paper yet, so I'm not sure about the specific anatomy. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

One thing I find funny about this recon is that the plate shape here seems to be mostly based on the recon I did for Wuerhosaurus' page - a shape that I just came up with on the spot since the full shape isn't known. Ddinodan (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I had based it off what was quite much the only existing online reconstruction at the time, looks like a paleomeme is starting... Olmagon (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm not saying you're incorrect (you're no more incorrect than I was if you actually referenced mine), it's just my first case I've found of someone referencing my wiki stuff lol Ddinodan (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this were the first time someone did it considering how yours are the only recons of various less-popular taxa's wiki pages. It's generally good stuff though so that's not a bad thing. Olmagon (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reconstruction looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yanbeilong

Recon of the new stegosaur - figured I'd try to keep up with having one for each stegosaur, at least for usage in the trees. Body plan and plate orientation is based mostly on Stegosaurus. Plate shape is unknown for this animal, but I went more basic stegosaurine with it because why not.

Ddinodan (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! The only stegosaur that is not illustrated is Bashanosaurus. Could you please make one? Aventadoros (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be able to within the week! Ddinodan (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and Alcovasaurus is missing too. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Works by User:GabrielRiehl

ones in review

newly uploaded ones

Some of this user's arts are in review at paleoart review, but I think we should see including some of newly uploaded ones. I am bit curious that background quality of two asteroid works are much realistic than other art qualities, I wonder if this user used... something. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Thalassodromeus looks quite off overall, and way too large (looks like I had already tagged it as inaccurate). FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a pretty obvious compositing artefact on the Citipati... unsure how suggestive that is of the creation method. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Dilophosaurus is really rough even for the new skull reconstruction. The crest is way too far forward, the lacrimal horns are missing, and the eye is in the antorbital fenestra. Also the hand lacks digit IV. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the weird head is an attempt at perspective (note the angle of the hindmost crest), but it looks wonky overall either way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That just strikes me as a bad idea given that the rest of the image is clearly schematic and the execution is poor. I'd say the same for the Carcharodontosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Shantungosaurus has pronated hands! Not a fan of the elephantine skin either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Carcharodontosaurus head is unusable, you can barely even tell what it is. The ones with the backdrop look fine as art, but they're completely inappropriate for the purposes of an encyclopedia (they convey no information). The Patagotitan is too big, and even besides that, the color scheme on the size chart makes it difficult to decipher. The Shonisaurus should have a dorsal fin. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Thalassodromeus doesn't have any fingers??? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Human silhouette for scale looks like it's at a weird angle, as if it were in anterodorsal view instead of strict anterior. Anterior view would be clearer. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Went ahead and tagged a few of these. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Paranthodon, Adratiklit, and Jiangjunosaurus

These images have already been reviewed here, but I’m putting them back because I think the spines are way too long. In Paranthodon and Adratiklit, the keratin extensions on the spines are longer than the longest known stegosaur spines (the tail spines of Alcovasaurus) and the shoulder spine of the Jiangjunosaurus is speculatively curved in a way not suggested in the literature. These speculative features may confuse readers into thinking that the spines indeed had these shapes when iirc they are not known in these animals. I believe it is best to shorten the spines on all of them to more conservative lengths. 49.144.201.64 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging artist Ddinodan and stegosaur writer IJReid. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a point about the curvature of the jiangjuno shoulder spike. No reason to assume anything non-linear. As far as other spines go, I don't really have much stake either way maybe the tallest Paranthodon and Adratiklit should be shortened by ~25%. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Logistically for me these images are far too old for me to edit (I no longer have the original file), so either use them or don't, doesn't effect me either way

I'd posit having half decent recon on the page is better than none at all, but I'm not an editor so

Alternatively if it the spike length or the curvature of an unknown element are really that troubling, I'll allow for them to be edited by someone else - I understand that's something commonly done with some other pages reconstructions. Ddinodan (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be pretty easy to fix is there's consensus on that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there are no objections I’ve gone ahead and modified them, but I can’t overwrite the files for some reason. How do I got about this? Miracusaurs (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Are they the same filetype? And has it worked before for you to update other files? FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they’re still PNG files. I’ve succesfully updated my own files before, but it says I don’t have sufficient permissions to update others’ uploads. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you need to be autoconfirmed or something like that. Maybe need to have more edits? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparently as of September 2023 Commons now requires you to be an autopatroller to update others’ uploads. I’ve gone ahead and requested autopatrol rights; will update you soon. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol rights granted and images updated. It might take a while for them to update on your device, but I believe they’re accurate enough to be usable. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Good initiative. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sauroposeidon, Acrocanthosaurus

These two are known for their footprints in Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas, USA. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the ear of the Acro is within the skull outline, whereas it should be just behind? By the way, could you please respond to issues brought up about earlier images before moving on to new ones so rapidly? There are a good deal of unresolved points in your earlier entries (including some that have already been archived), and they risk being swamped by new entries. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk is right that you should focus on improving the existing reconstructions so that the advice posts don't get archived. It seems to me that the ear of Acrocanthosaurus should be outside the skull. Other than that, I have no objections. Aventadoros (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, ear hole moved.

And yes, you guys are right, I do have a list of edits that need to be made. I will focus on those for a while. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The claws on the hindlimb of the Sauroposeidon seem to go down at a weird angle. What did you use as a reference for this recontruction? The Morrison Man (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sauropod pedal unguals are strange in that regard. Based on footprints we can tell that they were deflected to the side, as mentioned earlier by Jens here. It’s hard to accurately capture that appearance in a lateral full body reconstruction. I assume that’s what UDL is trying to do here? -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly right. I'm trying to show how they flatten laterally on the ground. It's hard to show with a direct profile view. This is more an issue of artistic style than accuracy. If it's too distracting, I'll try to come up with something else... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Images by Cryptid223

Gremlin
Minqaria

Some new images that were just added by this user... Note that we already have one or more images in review for both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Minqiria was the first one I did when the article came out, and the wiki Cryptid223 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hadrosaurid skulls by SuspiciousHadrosaur

This user has uploaded several hadrosaurid skull reconstructions this year that are not yet in use on their respective pages. They look good as far as I can tell. The double-interpretation for Magnapaulia is interesting, but I don't really see the practical use for this speculation on Wikipedia. Also, the name "Minqaria bata" in quotation marks implies that it is a dubious taxon—also not appropriate for Wikipedia unless this is suggested in the literature. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I have the same question about the frontoparietal dome for these other arenysaurins. Less so for Minqaria, but it seems like the crest extends upward from the dome for the others. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The skulls look very good, but the reconstruction of the Angulomastacator as a representative of the Parasaurolophini seems to me not entirely certain. Aventadoros (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they're all great. The quotes can be removed and the Magnapaula can be redone without the speculative crest if those are issues. Has anyone tried to contact the artist? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll alert them of this discussion. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've got a reply from the artist:

"What exactly is the request for Magnapaulia? We don't know what the crest looks like. That's why I made two different options. One looks like Velafrons, and the other looks more like Hypacrosaurus and Corythosaurus. These options are based on the two most common places where Magnapaulia is recovered within the family, and show that we don't know what the crest looks like. It is difficult to reconstruct in such a way that the crest is partially hidden. This does work with Angulomastacator. But is there any suggestion on how I should do that with Magnapaulia? And if the two options for Magnapaulia are not desired, then only 1 option should be chosen, right? But that seems more dubious to me than showing that we don't know for sure and including both interpretations.

I'm not totally convinced of the validity of Minqaria, but I understand the reasoning why it wouldn't be suitable. I could possibly remove the name so that it is more neutral. The composite image with the outline in the paper isn't entirely correct. The tooth batteries of the maxilla and dentary don't align as the dentary is moved too far back.

As far as I know, Angulomastacator is almost always classified as parasaurolophin. So I don't know what's wrong with that. Of course, it's partly speculative because we only have a maxilla. You have to do some informed speculation if you want to depict it as a whole skull. The current Angulomastacator reconstruction on Wikipedia also assumes that it's within Parasaurolophini, but it does make a specific choice for what kind of crest it would have, which is not really well based on known fossils (both the skull and life reconstruction). So then I think that my reconstruction makes fewer assumptions and is therefore more conservative."

As for my own thoughts, maybe we could take a look at which Magnapaulia crest is more 'plausible' by looking at where it gets recovered most often in phylogenetic analyses? The Morrison Man (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that the position of Angulomastacator is variable — Longrich et al. (2021) finds it to be a parasaurolophin, Ramírez-Velasco (2022) finds it to be a lambeosaurin, and it’s conspicuously absent from Longrich et al. (2024). Maybe unilaterally depicting it as a parasaurolophin isn’t a good idea. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, artist of the skull reconstructions here. The Morrison Man summarized our chat pretty well.

Of course for all lambeosaurines where no crest is known a choice has to be made. In the end it will require some speculation. And that includes many existing reconstructions already on wikipedia pages right now. For most of the reconstructions here I opted for generalized crests based on the closest relatives. Only for Angulomastacator I opted to hide part of the crest. The anatomy of the maxilla and downwards snout seems to be most consistent with Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus. So the reconstruction reflects this. Even so, I felt it wasn't warranted to completely include the crest since Parasaurolophin crests are so distinct. The skull reconstruction for Angulomastacator up on the page now does show a complete crest and is also based on Parasaurolophins. But for some reason they opted for a short stumpy crest that I don't think has any basis beyond being known in juveniles. Charonosaurus is also sometimes with a short crest. But this seems to be a paleomeme. To my knowledge no known adult Parasaurolopins have such short crests.

To comment on the crests of the Arenysaurins; Their crests are mostly have a generalized lambeosaurine crest shape. The position of the crest Arenysaurus is known. This is because we have the braincase, which preserves the part that where the crest bones attach. I've reconstructed the others with similar crests as their braincases are not known.

The angle of the premaxillary process on the maxilla as well as the length and shape of the dentary can inform the angle and shape of the rostrum. For Minqaria we do have a partial braincase, but it does not include the base of the crest like Arenysaurus does. The dome on the braincase seems a little more defined on Minqaria, so we only have a possible most posterior position of the crest. But it's not impossible it would have been situated further forward. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd be OK with the arenysaurin crests if you can confirm that we are interpreting the Arenysaurus material the same way: does the frontoparietal dome extend anteriorly and form a lip around the frontal platform, like so: [40]? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the platform where the frontal attaches. It's also labeled as such in the original figure. We don't know the exact shape of the crest.

Much can be inferred based on the general shape of the base. The right side of the braincase of Arenysaurus preserves part of the ridge where the crest starts. In most lambeosaurines, the crest grows diagonally up and backwards. The main exception seems to be Tsintaosaurus. Arenysaurus shows a similar crest base to that of other lambeosaurs such as Amurosaurus and more derived Lambeosaurins. I will also point out that the face of Blasisaurus is very similar in proportions to Parasaurolophus. It is sometimes recovered as a Parasaurolopin. Here I've reconstructed it as a relative of Arenysaurus but still keeping in mind the general similarities with Parasaurolophus.

Given the uncertain position of many Arenysaurins I found it best to give them a generalized crest shape that sort of median between many crest shapes and reminiscent of a crest that could be plausible for a relatively basal lambeosaurine. The crests in Parasaurolophini and Lambeosaurini are more extreme in how they point backwards. While the more basal Tsintaosaurus points more forward. But the base of the crest of Arenysaurus clearly ends further back than that of Tsintaosaurus. My Arenysaurin reconstructions roughly sit in the between position. Basically not committing to any extreme crest form. Just a generalized crest form that fits with the phylogeny and available fossil material. Potentially the crests could be swept back more like Amurosaurus and derived Lambeosaurins and Pararasaurolopins. But the base of the crest and angle of the front of the base should be correct. It seems unlikely that they'd have a forward pointing crest like Tsintaosaurus.

And in the end all the known and missing material is clearly marked, so that there's no confusion or pretense.

Also, several of Ddinodan's life reconstructions on the Wikipedia pages used my skull reconstructions as a base. It seems logical to be consistent. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, this reasoning seems sensible to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the name on the Minqaria skull, so that it's neutral on lumping/splitting. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bustingorrytitan, and various

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Bustingorrytitan probably didn't have a thumb claw, given that it's the sister taxon of saltasaurids. And Aardonyx should be lower to the ground and have longer arms. Aardonyx is believed to have been facultatively quadrupedal I believe. I would reference Julius Csotonyi's reconstruction, cause I believe he was commissioned to reconstruct it to accompany their publication of the description. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Aardonyx posture adjusted to appear more facultatively quadrupedal. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Bustingorrytitan: There are too many osteoderms, and their arrangement is questionable. There probably should not be multiple rows of osteoderms, the leading hypothesis is for there to be a single pair of parasagittal rows. The osteoderms on Igai also look kind of weird, although their arrangement is much more in line with how they're thought to be arranged. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated the shape of Igai osteoderms. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would correct open snouts in all your pachycephalosaurid as have your Gremlin or Pachycephalosaurus from Prehistoric Planet and remove protofeathers from back Pachycephalosaurus. Also Platytholus should have thicker hind limbs and ear opening. Aventadoros (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've given my Pachycephalosaurus the artistic overhaul treatment as my techniques have improved. Please review. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks much better, but I would make the open snout without cheeks similar to yours Gremlin. Aventadoros (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The sawblade-like arm osteoderms on Zuul look incorrect. How they're restored here looks closer to the mount and other ankylosaurines. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Bustingorrytitan's feet aren't properly planted on the ground. Only the right hind foot is. Should be easy to fix by rotating the image clockwise a couple degrees. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Arm osteoderms updated on zuul. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Much better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tail of the Iani is too high, it should look like in the reconstruction from the paper of Zanno et al. (2023) Aventadoros (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems there are still unaddressed issues in this section, UnexpectedDinoLesson. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it isn't stated which species of Stegoceras that's depicted, but we do need one of S. novomexicanum, while we already have two of S. validum... FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oksoko

New recon for Oksoko following its osteology.

Ddinodan (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! The Morrison Man (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks fantastic! Aventadoros (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Stegosaurs

Life recons for Alcovasaurus and Bashanosaurus.

Ddinodan (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Are parascapular spines known from the holotype of Beshanosaurus? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's speculation. We have no hard evidence of their occurrence, but other taxa living at a similar time had shoulder spines Aventadoros (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the better answer here is "we don't know." One spine is known from the Bashanosaurus fossil assemblage, but it is unknown where on the body/tail it was placed. I will add that we do have a couple of dorsal plates from Bashanosaurus, and they all appear to share an "indent" around a flared base (an autapomorphy of the taxon), and I'm not sure this is reflected in the illustration, or if it would even be noticeable/visible in life. -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That entirely depends on the keratinous sheath of the plates, and the point of attachment with the skin, both of which are generally unknown across stegosaurs. Ddinodan (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus is not nomen nudum as it was described and illustrated in Zhu's 1994 publication. Maidment and Wei (2006) considered it an invalid taxon because they probably did not have access to it or did not even know of its existence.

It is Gigantspinosaurus according to the strict rules of the ICZN that should be considered nomen nudum. It was described by Ouyang (1992) in a short abstract, but he did not provide any diagnostic features. In terms of ICZN Article 9.9, it is invalid because names derived from abstracts, unpublished journals cannot be considered formal. In addition, Ouyang 1992's failure to provide a diagnosis (ICZN Article 13.1.1) confirms its invalidity. Maidment and Wei (2006) in their publication confirm this in this sentence "Although Gigantspinosaurus sichuanensis has never been formally diagnosed, it has been described briefly". However, by a strange coincidence Maidment and Wei (2008) suddenly give a diagnosis for Gigantspinosaurus from Maidment and Wei's (2006) publication that is not there at all-"possessing a parascapular spine that is at least twice the length of the scapula". Interestingly, Galton (2016) noted that the diagnosis of Gigantspinosaurus also occurs in Loricatosaurus.

References:

Galton, P. M. (2016). "Notes on plated dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Stegosauria), mostly on dermal armor from Middle and Upper Jurassic of England (also France, Iberia), with a revised diagnosis for Loricatosaurus priscus (Callovian, England)". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie-Abhandlungen, 1-25.

Maidment, S.C.R. & Wei, G.. (2006) "A review of the Late Jurassic stegosaurs (Dinosauria, Stegosauria) from the People's Republic of China" Geological Magazine 143 (05): 621–634.

Maidment, S.C.R., Norman, D.B., Barrett, P.M., & Upchurch, P. (2008) "Systematics and phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia)" Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 6(4), 367-407. Aventadoros (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a common misunderstanding that names in abstracts would be invalid. The new text under 9.10. makes this more clear: materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters. So, if the abstract text is later published in a printed edition, the name in principle is valid.--MWAK (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, the requirements of 13.1.1 are quite minimal: be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon. So any description intended to differentiate suffices. That intent might be implicit: no formal diagnosis needs to be given. This is why Recommendation 13A adhorts the author to make his intent explicit by giving a formal diagnosis anyway. Very commendable but not mandatory.--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Riojavenatrix

Riojavenatrix - new baryonichine spinosaurid.

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Posed with the foot so far back, I don't think the sole would be flat on the ground like that, but the heel would be slightly lifted. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A few ornithischians

I submitted these several months ago and wasn't able to get around to fixing their issues until now, so are these four accurate?

Brighstoneus
Notohypsilodon
Bayannurosaurus
Talenkauen

Raingerr (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

These seem to address the issues I had previously. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear! Raingerr (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Minqaria

Minquaria - new lambeosaurine from Africa. Reconstruction based mainly on Ajnabia.

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an overlaid diagram showing how the fossil skull matches up to your reconstruction? I'm wondering if the back of the skull could potentially be taller to account for the frontoparietal dome (if I'm reading the description of Arenysaurus right, this seems to be a separate structure posterior to the crest), and the dentary deeper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be a useful reference? The Morrison Man (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Also see section below). -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I used the Ajnabia skull as a reference, you can see here. Let me know if it needs to be adjusted.

Also, whatever @The Morrison Man linked, I can't see. Looks like it goes to a blocked Twitter account. Screenshot? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would change it to follow the dedicated Minqaria skull reconstruction further down on the page. Shouldn't be too far off but doesn't hurt to verify. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What I linked is the Minqaria skull reconstruction by User SuspiciousHadrosaur. Luckily, it can also be found slightly further down on this page now. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Here it is with the Minqaria skull projected over it. I think it looks fine, but let me know if anything needs to be changed. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, works for me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

T. rex, Sinotyrannus, Gigantoraptor, Brachiosaurus

Please review for accuracy. Specifically, fuzz on back of T. rex neck? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

T. rex fuzz is plausible and I don't see any issue there. We don't have any skin impressions from the neck or back of Tyrannosaurus. Both fuzzy and scaly are equally likely imo. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The fuzz on Tyrannosaurus for me is acceptable, most importantly it is not completely feathered. Aventadoros (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Gigantoraptor, the head crest is a little speculative in my opinion, because its a stem-caenagnathid and the plesiomorphic condition for oviraptorosaurs is to be crestless, but we don't have the skull so it could go either way. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

the neck and tail musculature on the brachiosaurus look a little strange. it also looks almost overstretched horizontally. the gigantoraptor having a full feather coat seems unlikely based on size, i feel display feathers on the arms and tail and thin fuzz over the rest of the body is a more plausible integument. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would change the Sinotyrannus, based off what we know from Yutyrannus we can likely say that Sinotyrannus was fully covered in feathers. Also the face would have less of a nasal crest and more pointed lacrimal crests like how Yutyrannus does SirBlameson (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sinotyrannus updated. I hope the shaggy look is ok! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems there are still unaddressed issues in this section, UnexpectedDinoLesson. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of, what skeletal is the Brachiosaurus based on? The Morrison Man (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
My Brachiosaurus is based on Hartman's Brachiosaurus, Hartman's Giraffatitan, Bivens' Brachiosaurus, and Bivens' Lusotitan. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Why not just base it off the Brachiosaurus skeletals? Just curious The Morrison Man (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
In order to avoid copyright issues, I always try to take parts from as many different samples as possible, to come up with my own original shape. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That's great, but just make sure it isn't done at the cost of less accurate anatomy. Lusotitan may very well not even be a brachiosaurid. There isn't anything known from it that would really be informative when reconstructing Brachiosaurus. Keep in mind that a skeletal reconstruction (especially for a fragmentary taxon like Lusotitan) is one artist's interpretation of an animal's skeletal anatomy—you have to look at what we actually know. Since there are gaps in our knowledge of the skeletal structure of Brachiosaurus, it makes sense to go to a close relative to fill those in (in which case Giraffatitan would probably be the best option, being relatively complete). But don't skip to a distant relative to "come up with your own original shape". Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx zoui new restoration

In article

New

Hello everyone, slowly making a comeback. I'm here to discuss a new restoration that I made for Caudipteryx zoui in order to replace the one present in the article. Several aspects of this reconstruction have issues, including the strange depiction of the feathers banding pattern, a countershading body coloration that is not reported in specimens, and the lack of feathers in both first and second hand digits. Comments? I also intend to expand the article a little bit. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson is usually very responsive to proposed fixes, so I'm sure it could be improved. But I can't help but think that since there are two species of Caudipteryx, wouldn't it be nice to label them as different species, so that they can both be used potentially? That could also explain away differences in colouration. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a good explanation for coloration differences. The holotype of C. dongi preserves dark feathers [41] right at the lower area of the shoulder region that presumably extends to the neck and belly. Needless to say that the "wing" feathers are virtually the same as those for many specimens of C. zoui, such as PMOL AD00020 [42]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, any inaccuracies should of course be fixed, but my main point is that we could certainly just retool UDL's into the other species. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything on this, UnexpectedDinoLesson? FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've thickened the body feathers so it's not as skinny-looking as it was. Eliminated the countershading, and updated the banding on the secondary and tail feathers. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx zoui really did not have any secondary feathers. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Multiple specimens of Caudipteryx [43] [44] preserve impressions. There could be multiple reasons regarding why the holotype of C. zoui does not have them, one thing does not negate the other. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Albert Chen (personal communication), multiple specimens do not preserve secondaries. He also says it’s possible that the secondaries were present but simply unpigmented (see here) Atlantis536 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I wasn't aware of such comprehensive analysis! That was a good read, and the presented evidence is quite compelling. The only point in which I differ from Smithwick and the reconstructions by Bob Nicholls is the depiction of feathery feet, as feather impressions are reported as far as the lower-middle tibia. Other than that, these are great news that went unnoticed; I'll be soon making changes to my reconstruction. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes made. The color scheme follows the analysis by Smithwick [45]. As it turns out, the best information regarding the color pattern of Caudipteryx is restricted to C. sp. (IVPP V12430) and C. dongi (IVPP V12344), however, the study considers the latter species to be a synonym of C. zoui. Regardless, there seems to be two color morphs, one with depigmented secondaries and uniform primaries (e.g. C. zoui holotype or paratype) and a second with banded secondaries and tip-banded primaries. I choose to depict the second morph because of the variety of features. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Jingia

New Mamenchisaurid sauropod. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the bluish-purple is a little too unrealistic? Try making it more grayish. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the "bluish-purple" is actually just an illusion due to the contrast with the greens and browns. It's already a gray color. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked the color in Procreate and it came out as #766F79, which colorhexa.com describes as “dark grayish violet”. I suggest it should be made a more brownish gray or something, so the contrast isn’t too off-putting. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It was actually 888899 before texturing and shading. I was going for gray with a very slight blue tint. Anyway, updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Jingia" skeletal

Here is a skeletal for "Jingia". Quite fragmentary, and not much to speak of. Comments appreciated as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll assume you've based the silhouette off other Mamenchisaurs? Looks good! The Morrison Man (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and the references I mostly used are in the file description. Chuanjiesaurus was a pretty good match proportionally. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A couple of minor details regarding the vertebrae: First, the posterior margin of the neural arch of the more anterior dorsal is complete, not broken, so you should remove the gray indicating reconstruction there (the neural spine being placed posterior to the pedicels is a genuine feature of some mamenchisaurids, e.g. Klamelisaurus). The more posterior dorsal's prezygapophyses are broken off, so you should put restored prezygapophyses in. It also looks kind of like you have the preserved parts of the caudal vertebrae backwards. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. It's always the vertebrae, lol... Somehow I missed that the caudal photographs were in right lateral view. That might explain why they were so confusing to reconstruct. I'll make those updates as soon as I can. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Corrections made. Let me know if anything else should be fixed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Ornithopsis (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Bashanosaurus

Skeletal
Size
Armor

(Continuing well from previous topics), after several months of intermittent progress, I am happy to present my illustrations of Bashanosaurus. As those on the Discord server might remember, scaling the fossil material for the skeletal proved to be quite tricky, but I was eventually able to map them all onto a single silhouette. The ribs and dorsal vertebrae are not well-figured or labeled (beside the quarry illustrations), so their placements are largely conjectural. Osteoderm arrangement is similarly speculative. As for the size chart, it ended up a little over the describers' estimate of ~2.8 metres (9.2 ft). As usual, I appreciate any comments and critiques! Thanks, -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If most early stegosaurids from China had shoulder spikes then maybe Bashanosaurus should have them too. Aventadoros (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a fair assumption, but I don’t think it would be appropriate to depict an unpreserved bone in the skeletal where it could significantly obscure known material. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your decision, this being a rigorous skeletal and all. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The only stegosaur from China that is known to have parascapular spines is Gigantspinosaurus. No shoulder spikes are known from any other stegosaurs besides Kentrosaurus and (maybe) Alcovasaurus. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not only did "Gigantspinosaurus" (I wrote this name in inverted commas because it should rigorous be considered nomen nudum) have shoulder spines, but also Yingshanosaurus and Huayangosaurus. Aventadoros (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would Gigantspinosaurus be nomen nudum? I can only imagine you mean Yingshanosaurus, and even then both of them have descriptions. Ddinodan (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus is a nomen nudum, has not been figured, and the specimen's whereabouts are unknown according to Maidment and Wei (2006). Huyangosaurus definitely did not have parascapular spines. No shoulder spines are mentioned in its original description in 1982 or in the re-description in 2006. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus isn't missing though - it's currently on display at the Chongqing Natural History Museum. The material is also figured in its original description - from my understanding, it was listed as not figured and lost in Maidment and Wei (2006) because they didn't have access to the description.

The rediscription of Huayangosaurus also does indeed note parascapular spines from the same horizon as the Huayangosaurus holotype. Ddinodan (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From the 2006 re-description (p. 949-950), "Several parascapular spines have been recovered from the Dashanpu Quarry, but they have not been found in association with either the type specimen or ZDM T7001. Since there is evidence to suggest that there was more than one stegosaur present in the Dashanpu fauna, there are reasonable grounds to doubt the assumption that the parascapular spines are associated with Huayangosaurus." --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. "Huayangosaurus definitely did not have parascapular spines" is not descriptive of that - there are parascapular spines from the horizon (and stegosaur osteoderms are famous for dissociating from well-preserved skeletal remains), it'd be more fair to say 'Huayangosaurus may or may not have parascapular spines'.

Regardless, parascapular spines are known across many stegosaur genera. At the end of this discussion, the speculation on their presence in Bashanosaurus remains unchanged. Ddinodan (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of reconstruction, adding new bones that we have no direct evidence for is inappropriate was my point. I'll concede that "definetely" was hyperbole on my part. Parascapular spines are known from three stegosaur genera. Giving all stegosaurs parascapular spines should not be the default treatment. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Shoulder spikes certainly had Yingshanosaurus, Gigantspinosaurus, Kentrosaurus and Loricatosaurus, so four genera Aventadoros (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Four out of 24, so my point still stands. A comparable number of ceratopsian genera have elongated epiparietals, but we understand that even in taxa where the full skull is not known, it's inappropriate to add extra bones to the reconstruction for the purposes of an encyclopedia. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It would probably also be wise to consider where Bashanosaurus falls phylogenetically in comparison to these other four genera. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For my expansion of the Bashanosaurus page I also made an illustration of the preserved dermal armor. Since it's more or less taken from the description's figures, there's not much else to say, but I'll leave it here anyway. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Chakisaurus

Newly described elasmarian ornithopod.

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd buff up the underside of the tail. It's said to have significant hypaxial caudal musculature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hesperonyx

New dryomorphan ornithopod from Portugal.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hesperonyx have less "muscular" cheeks? It seems to me that the "muscular" cheeks have very many of the ornithopods you have made. FunkMonk recently updated Tanius in terms of the open snout. [46] Aventadoros (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The margin of the "cheek" could probably be moved back, as you have already done on your ceratopsians. Personally I wouldn't follow the muscular margin inferred in the relevant papers slavishly, as there are examples of skin not having to follow the muscles in the California condor and Panoplosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there will be future publications on the presence of soft tissues in the mouth area in dinosaurs. If ceratopsids already have a posteriorly displaced 'cheek' margin then this can also be done in pachycephalosaurs and ornithopods. Cheeks in ankylosaurs are the most acceptable to me, I don't know how it looks in stegosaurs and early thyreophors. Other than that I think Hesperonyx looks correct. Aventadoros (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops, Gremlin

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As with the Gremlin immediately above, if the frontal ridge is present I don't see it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion Nasutoceratops looks correct, but I can't imagine how this ridge can be presented on a reconstruction. Aventadoros (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Just checking, UnexpectedDinoLesson, did you take into account the known skin-impressions from the forelimb of Nasutoceratops? Can be seen here (f, g, and h):[47] Also, would be good to add citations to the description, as I will submit the article to FAC soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I was aware of the known skin impressions, but didn't go into that level of detail on this full-body reconstruction. I use a pattern layered over each main body part (head, torso, legs, etc.), which do vary in size between each other, but since I'm not specifically focusing on minor variations in individual scales, it doesn't seem worth the amount of work that would take with my style/technique. I realize the resolution allows for individual scales to be visible, but I don't think people generally look that closely at it in a full-body reconstruction.

If you think it's necessary that I add that level of detail to this particular piece, let me know. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would just check that the size and shape of the scales in your pattern are consistent with the known impressions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the level of the detail is already there, it just has to conform with the fossils, at least in the parts where the exact pattern is known. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Another thing, UnexpectedDinoLesson, why is the tail of the Nasutoceratops so short? It is pretty long in the official skeletal[48], and I assume this is because the tails of centrosaurines were generally longer than those of chasmosaurines, but the tail here looks more like those of the latter. Maybe Slate Weasel who made the scale diagram has input. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with ceratopsians, but the tail on the Nasutoceratops skeletal might be a bit on the long side, compared to Centrosaurus. Granted, even following Centrosaurus, I think it still probably should be somewhat longer here, roughly approximating from this skeleton suggests that caudal length is about equal to dorsosacral length. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tail of Nasutoceratops has a good length. In fact, centrosaurines have longer tails than chasmosaurines and this may have been due to the size of the skulls. Centrosaurines had shorter and weaker frills than chasmosaurines, which must have had better developed muscles at the front of the body. Aventadoros (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops integument matches scale size shown here [49], and I've added citation to the description. It seems we mostly agree the tail is ok, so I've left it as is. If I need to make it longer, let me know. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson, as far as I could see, both SW and Aventadoros indicate it should be longer, but just not as long as in the skeletal. But I'm not sure if Aventadoros was referring to the skeletal or the life restoration in their comment? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The length of the tail of the Centrosaurus specimen of YMP 2015 on the Randomdinos [50] reconstruction is 200 cm, which is about 40% of the total body length. I also calculated the tail length for AMNH 5351 and also came up with a value of 40% of the whole body. So let's assume that the tail in centrosaurines is 40% of the whole body length. While this is easier to show on a skeletal reconstruction, it will be more difficult to show on a life reconstruction. Yes, the tail may be gently longer, but by exaggeration as shown in the publication by Sampson et al. (2013). Aventadoros (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened tail to match proportions [51] UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I will soon nominate its article for GAN and FAC, so its accuracy is important. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson, also see Jens Lallensack's comment at the Nasutoceratops GAN: "Midline epiparietals are otherwise only known in chasmosaurines – The life reconstruction also seems to show epiossifications along the suture between squamosal and parietal, which would result in five rows of epiossifications. Is there any evidence for that? I don't see them in the reconstructions from the paper." FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In adittion to this, I think the restoration should more clearly indicate the squamosal ridge which is a defining feature of Nasutoceratopsini, which is clearly shown in these diagrams:[52][53] I'm also not sure about the way the small nasal horn seems to be depicted as merging into a ridge over the premaxilla; the sources only show the nasal horn being restricted to the short bump, and the pachyrhinosaurin-like interpretation here seems to be unpublished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The nasal horn is small and repositioned as it should be, but it merges with a structure called the rostral nasal scale and thus appears so large. If this makes the nasal horn appear too large then maybe separate it? Rostal nasal scales are also seen in other centrosaurines.

[54] Aventadoros (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Rostral scales are fine, there is just no reason to show them blending with the nasal horn. FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So the best option would be to separate the nasal horn from the scales. Aventadoros (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression was that those were not meant to be epiossifications, but the supraorbital/squamosal scale row seen in centrosaurines: [55] But perhaps it could be recoloured? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a different colour would avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed squamosal epiossifications, and emphasized squamosal ridge; separated nasal horn from rostral nasal scales. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

These structures that were previously between the squamosal and the parietal bone were scales, not epiossifications. In my opinion, they can be placed on the squamosal similar to this reconstruction [56]. It also includes the characteristic ridge on the squamosal and the scales themselves. After all, there was a 2009 study that showed the presence of these structures in centrosaurines. Aventadoros (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The confusion was mainly due to the colour being the same as in the epiossifications, yeah, so try to give them a different colour if they are returned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffrent colour for squamosal and parietal scales is a good idea. I think they should come back, but similar as reconstruction I posted above. Rostal nasal scales should also return, but should not contact the nasal corner. As you also pointed out earlier the claws should be blunted.

By the way here I will also touch on the tail of Menefeeceratops. Dalman et al. (2021) based their creation of the Menefeeceratops skeleton on the Nasutoceratops skeleton from the publication by Sampson et al. (2013), making the tail of Menefeeceratops have strange proportions. It should be erect like that of Nasutoceratops, in addition, the claws should also be blunted in Nasutoceratops, and the scales should be given a different colour so that they are no longer confused with the epiossifications.

Aventadoros (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops - toe claws blunted, squamosal and parietal scales returned with color change.

Menefeeceratops - toe claws blunted, made tail erect, squamosal and parietal scales color changed UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In Menefeeceratops I would else change the appearance of the jugal along with the epijual to a more triangular appearance similar to that of Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to keep harping on this, UnexpectedDinoLesson, but the midline bar of the Nasutoceratops frill only had five undulations, whereas you show a lot more, so they should have the same distribution and size as in the skull diagram:[57] Other changes look nice. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
FunkMonk, these are not undulations but scales 🙂. See also the region already above the rostral, small undulations are visible there. It's good visible im figure 1D in Lund et. al 2016. My impression is that during life there may have been rostal nasal scales similar to those in the 2009 study, but they did not contact the nasal horn in Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

But the "official" artwork doesn't depict these as scales but as individual bumps, see:[58] FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have seen the "official" graphic and it is, in my opinion, the best in terms of reproducing the details. Compare still the same areas near the rostral in Nasutoceratops and Centrosaurus. If you don't see the similarities, let it stay as it is currently. [59][60]

By the way, I will bring up Menefeeceratops again, this time its squamosal. Don't you think it should have the ridge that was previously added in Nasutoceratops? It is under C [61] Aventadoros (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That diagram confirms what I said, though; it shows five such scales, corresponding to the five undulations on the skull. Problem is our restoration shows about ten of such scales, with completely different sizes than what's indicated by the undulations on the actual skull. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that scales in midline parietal line should be corrected. Check also rostal region Centrosaurus and Nasutoceratops whether they are similar, because Centrosaurus had rostral nasal scale. Some reconstructions of the related Furcatoceratops are depicted with these scales.

In my opinion Menefeeceratops shoud have this ridge in squamosal [62]. Also I would correct epijugal, it should be more triangular, similar to that of Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Midline bar of frill updated to have five undulations, reflecting Zimmerman reconstruction [63]. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks better! If you can correct also Menefeeceratops jugal with epijugal such has your Nasutoceratops and add squamosal ridge shown in the graphic below, marked C [64]. These will be the last corrections for Menefeeceratops and I apologise for constantly reminding you of them. The ridge is marked with red lines.Aventadoros (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Menefeeceratops squamosal ridge added, jugal adjusted to resemble Nasutoceratops. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Qiliania

Clumsystiggy (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that, it's a well made. Aventadoros (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The portion of the ilium anterior to the acetabulum is missing in the fossil, but this illustration represents it as if it were complete rather than broken at approximately the midpoint. Also, the linework is very shaky: consider using a digital stabilization tool. I don't think this is suitable as is, and I think a rearticulated illustration of the holotype hindlimb would be preferable to this layout. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fukuiraptor hunting Tyrannomimus

I drew a reconstruction of Fukuiraptor hunting Tyrannomimus. Please review for accuracy.

Sino-Pteryx (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the Tyrannomimus could have a bit more of a tail fan of feathers, as has been proposed for at least Deinocheirus, same for your single restoration:[65] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been updated as a version with more feathers on its tail. Sino-Pteryx (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice, could that be done here[66] too? FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Fukuiraptor should not have feathers on its body, we have no evidence for this. Aventadoros (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have evidence against, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when we don't even know what megaraptorans are. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If 'we have no evidence', we follow the null hypothesis and the null hypothesis for a theropod is that they did have feathers. Especially if Megaraptorans are coelurosaurs then they would almost certainly have some kind of feathers. 'no feathers on the groups of theropods where we haven't found direct evidence of feathers' is quite problematic for groups which haven't been found in the few rare places where feathers are preserved. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, megaraptors are probably coelurosaurians and this was magnified by the recent analysis by Aranciaga Rolando et al. (2022) and Naish and Cau (2022). Early forms may have had some sort of feathery cover on the body similar to basal tyrannosaurids. Does the null hypothesis also assume that non-celurosaurian theropods like Ceratosauria, Spinosauridae or Carnosauria had feathers? This seems very strange to me, especially if mainly coelurosaurs had feathers. Aventadoros (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what a null hypothesis means, feathers until there's evidence otherwise because that's what phylogenetics tells you. You can't discard results because they seem "strange" to you, this isn't how it works. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Tyrannosaurs are Coelurosaurs. Second, we have feathers (or structures homologous to feathers) on Ornithischians and Pterosaurs, so it is extremely likely that the common ancestor of all dinosaurs had some sort of feathers. I would expect that at least the smaller and/or earlier members of non-coelurosaurian theropod clades were feathered, with the larger ones possibly having reduced feathers as an adaptation to gigantism. In other words, Fukuiraptor having some sort of feathers is very likely, and the level of feathering depicted on this illustration is plausible. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the ancestors of dinosaurs and pterosaurs must have had some kind of plumage, since they were present in theropods and in ornithischians like Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong. Large theropods like Tyrannosaurus were not required to have feather coverings, but with a high probability they may have had some residual ones. So you are right that Fukuiraptor may have had them, since the larger Yutyrannus, which lived at a similar time, had them. Aventadoros (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Udelartitan

New saltasauroid titanosaurian sauropod from Uruguay.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but shouldn't the ostedoems be bigger and similar in size to those at Igai? Aventadoros (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus

Skeletal diagram
Size comparison

So...Thyreosaurus is weird. It might be better (as suggested on the WP:PALEO Discord) to exclude the "traditional" stegosaur plates and spikes, seeing as none are known from the holotype (um, here's how that looks...). Comments on that? Besides the weird osteoderms, the rest is generally straightforward stegosaur verts/ribs. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Thyreosaurus is a very weird stegosaur. If no plates or spines have been discovered with it then I wouldn't add them to the silhouette, but I will admit that it looks very strange. Cisiopurple has done a reconstruction without the traditional plates and spines and it really looks like an unusual stegosaur. [67] Aventadoros (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sad naked stegosaur... (dorsal osteoderms removed). -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, Wikiproject Paleo have a Discord server, do they have a link? Levi bernardo (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's on the project page. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus

New dacentrurine stegosaur. I know the osteoderms are a big mystery, so I just kinda used my imagination here. Let me know if something is way off.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean this politely, but I'm not sure how usable this is for Wikipedia in its current form, where a life restoration for such an enigmatic animal should include the fewest speculative elements. This seems to largely ignore much of what we actually do know about the osteoderms. Where are the characteristic "shield" osteoderms (refer to the skeletal above, they should be significantly larger than the bottom row of flattish osteoderms illustrated here). Also note that the osteoderms would have been concave in relation to the rest of the body. And what is the reasoning for the multiple rows of giant broad-based spikes? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a cool design, but its definitely too speculative for use on Wikipedia. If you are going to restore it, it should basically just be Dacentrurus with a few extra osteoderms to keep the speculation to a minimum (i.e. only include unique elements that are specifically mentioned in the paper). --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus is a really strange and difficult dinosaur to reconstruct, but in my opinion it should have a back covered with distinctive osteoderms and without any spines. Joschua Knüppe had an interesting idea for its reconstruction [68] Aventadoros (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's ok to depict badly known taxa if they can be made as generic as possible and still work for multiple interpretations, but in this case, the unknown features are restored in such a novel way that it's basically WP:OR, which is problematic for Wikipedia. In this case, I think we'd have to wait until there's some more "official" restoration published we can follow. An example of this is Jakapil, that while the published restoration is very speculative, that is what we should follow, simply because it's published, and not make our own interpretations. If other interpretations of it are published, we can make versions following that as well, of course, but not until then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that even fragmentary and poorly known dinosaurs should have their reconstructions on Wikipedia. By the way, I would like to bring up the appearance of Dacentrurus. It should not have a parascapular spine, since there is no evidence of its occurrence. Miragaia also does not have them, so in my opinion it should be removed. This is a skeletal recontrucion of Miragaia [69]. Also, I don't see the elongated neck in Yanbeilong that I mentioned earlier.

Aventadoros (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree all valid taxa should have restorations (as indicated in an earlier section), but in cases like this, it's probably best to wait until there is something published we can follow, instead of something without any precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can this reconstruction of Thyreosaurus be considered "official"? [70] Aventadoros (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those images are reconstructions of Thyreosaurus... -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like an old restoration of Stegosaurus. I think Bakker had an idea about flexible plates way back, for example. Also, that arrangement is what "roof lizard" refers to anyway... But if a restoration is published in tandem with something more scientific, it could be used as a precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated stegosaur recons

Going to use this thread to post my updated stegosaur reconstructions as I update them. If it doesn't get archived I'll just continually post them through this thread. First up, Yingshanosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus.

Ddinodan (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you reconstruct Yingshanosaurus plates on the basis of this mount skeleton?

[71] Aventadoros (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially - mostly though I referenced the figured plates in its description. Ddinodan (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Three more -

Ddinodan (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion all your stegosaurs look good. Aventadoros (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Couple more -

Ddinodan (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Miragaia looks fine to me. Why did you change the appearance of the Hesperosaurus plates when the previous one was correct? [72] Aventadoros (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The plates here still follow the general shape of the bony core and only differ in the length/shape of the keratin, so I see nothing wrong with them. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like the old one had too many plates. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed the "old" had too many plates. Aventadoros (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Perijasaurus lapaz

I have a drawing of Perijasaurus drawn at the beginning of this year, and I want to present it for discussion. Путаниум (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was rescued from this awkward situation.. Путаниум (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an excellent drawing, very well done! However, the area of the atlas and the first cervical vertebrae look a bit strange, perhaps too high, and the hip portion a bit high and swollen for the angle. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And for noting some details. I based it on reconstructions of some more or less complete eusauropods. Путаниум (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There's something off about the limbs that I can't put my finger on. Is it the gauge of the hindlimbs? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

maybe too tucked in, only a small percentage in the femur portion, the lower area looks good. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Images by User:Alexandra.bratkowska

I found those uploads after seeing Random IP user adds reconstructions to taxobox, any opinions or inaccuracies for these? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

They all have some oddities that would preclude their use for now. Chungkingosaurus even has dewclaws! FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Qiliania v.2

(Big thanks to Skye for her advice.) Clumsystiggy (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think if you've done as Skye suggests it should be fine, but it's best if she reviews for herself how correct the diagram is. Aventadoros (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in contact with and got her input while I was updating the image and we agreed on this finished product, but it would be beneficial to get approval again on the record. Clumsystiggy (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Gandititan, Yanbeilong, Yutyrannus

Catching up on my 2024 dinos: Gandititan & Yanbeilong

Also, Yutyrannus.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For me Yanbeilong looks good, but neck could be slighty longer such as has this Stegosaurus [73]

Aventadoros (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The teeth of Yutyrannus, or any other theropods, would probably not have been this free of soft tissue, but their bases at least partially hidden by the sides of the mouth/lips. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended "lip" tissue. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened Yanbeilong neck. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus, Stegosaurus, Maraapunisaurus

A few dinos I had not yet uploaded. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of reconstructions of Parasaurolophus walkeri, so I think it should be replaced with another species. I propose Parasaurolophus tubecin, as it will receive the best chance of being used in the article. The beak looks rather strange, see what it looks like in Adelolophus by Levi B. Martinez-Reza, this issue was addressed there see selection.

Stegosaurus looks like it has too short a neck, look at the skeletal reconstruction by randomdinos [74]. This issue is still unresolved in Yanbeilong.

The tail in Maarapunisaurus seems to me to be too high, it should be positioned more or less like in Sidersaura.

Aventadoros (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus beak adjusted, and renamed to P. tubecin.

Stegosaurus neck lengthened.

Maarapunisaurus tail lowered. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus tubecin has a slighty different look crest on the head than P. walkeri, see this skeletal [75]

The layer of keratin from the upper part of the beak should overlap the lower part and obscure it, look closely at Adelolophus, which is above, or the lambeosaurines from here [76] I think your earlier hadrosaurids will need beak enhancement to look like the examples I gave.

Aventadoros (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Various

-New dinosaurs: Eoneophron & Datai
-various other dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

Datai

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe ceratopsid hind claws would have been blunt, and not sharp claws, which seems to be a general issue for your ornithichians. So could probably be looked at in older uploads too. Also, be sure to state what species is depicted when illustrating genera with multiple species, like this Pachyrhinosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In the description of the reconstruction you should write that it is Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis, besides that the nostrils should be slightly lower in a similar place as your Styracosaurus has. Aventadoros (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Made Pachyrhinosaurus hind claws more blunt, repositioned nostril, named it Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've only just noticed it now! Ear hole should be gently closer to the head, see your Nasutoceratops or Styracosaurus how it looks. Aventadoros (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The dip in the curvature of the plumage of the neck on Eoneophron is throwing me off but I don't see major anatomical issues otherwise. Datai has gular osteoderms (don't know if you'd want to differentiate the throat region), and the forelimb has associated scales but no associated osteoderms. I'm not sure what the latest is on this but I don't think the way in which the cheeks extend past the cheek plate on Edmontonia looks right. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Repositioned Edmontonia cheek plate, and added rougher texture on face to hopefully make it look more natural. Made rear claws more blunt. Also named it E. longiceps in description. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The long bright plumage over the hip on Eoneophron might be a little too speculative and distracting for Wikipedia purposes. Also, the fossil skulls of Datai are noted as being taphonomically flattened, but I wonder if you have 'un-flattened' it too much here? (compare to the commissioned life restoration). Finally, since Edmontonia rugosidens already has two usable illustrations, would it be possible to have this one be the type species, E. longiceps? -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Elongated/"flattend" Datai head, removed arm osteoderms, made hind claws more blunt. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Titanomachya

New saltasauroid titanosaur from Argentina. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tail is slightly too thick. Aventadoros (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you base the skull on Rapetosaurus? It noticeably differs from the one in the paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tail made thinner.

I used the skull from the paper, see here. I rounded out the snout with "soft tissue" so that may be why it looks different. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Tietasaura

Skeletal diagram

Simple skeletal diagram of the new ornithopod, Tietasarua, from Brazil. Only known from a distal femur, and it seems pretty averaged-sized for an elasmarian. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The arms seem a little small but I suppose it varies within the group. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, some like Talenkauen have proportionately longer arms, but I tried to go off of Notohypsilophodon and secondarily Gasparinisaura since they seem to be more similar and more closely related. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis & Titanomachya

Hello! Here's my life restorations for the fairly new Tyrannosaurus species and the new Saltasauroid Titanomachya. Please let me know your thoughts on them!

Ceratopsid present with T. mcraeensis are Sierraceratops.

Other animals present with Titanomachya are generic sea birds, a beached Sulcusuchus, and a young Carnotaurus.

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The downward slope over the hips of Sierraceratops seems to be too sharp, giving the impression of a relatively small torso compared to the head. The left forelimb on the Titanomachya also looks dislocated to me. I can see that it's a step backwards from the pectoral girdle but it's displaced too far laterally. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Brachiosaurid and the Morokweng impact

Made this paleoartistic reconstruction of a brachiosaurid witnessing the Morokweng impact, dated to about 146 million years ago, in the Tithonian stage. This is supposed to accompany the Tithonian page or the Morokweng impact structure page, but I hope it is still worth putting it here for review to evaluate its relevance. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The brachiosaurid looks fine but should the meteroite not be burning? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as the interpretation does not show that the asteroid is not entering the stratosphere, it is not necessary to show meteorite friction. Obviously for dramatic, graphic and artistic effects it is something more convenient to show it. Levi bernardo (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is whether it's the asteroid is the right size? If it has yet to enter the stratosphere, then it is 15 or so km above earth's surface at an absolute minimum, and that's if it's coming down immediately vertically. If we assume the Morokweng impactor is around 5 km wide or so (half the size of the Chicxulub impactor), would it really appear so large in the sky at that distance? It absolutely looms over the the mountain in the background, even though the mountain is both larger and closer to the sauropod. NGPezz (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an excellent illustration of an excellent idea for the event, however it has certain details that require attention, the most logical being the absence of the claw on the front leg. The hind leg has 4 claws when it should only have three and should have them thicker and taller by a little. The ulna portion should be more prominent, but that of the hind legs just a little thinner. The nostril should be a little further forward and in a way that denotes a passage. If your artistic style allows you to illuminate the scapula and hip area with a little difference in textures and luminosity, it would be excellent.

Now with the asteroid, well, it would be something that we would leave to the astronomers and geologists. But it would be necessary to specify an estimate of where it is represented. If it is in the exosphere or in the thermosphere, since it is noted that it is not in the atmospheric entry zone, since it is so enormous, it is not possible that something 5-10 kilometers in diameter is simultaneously on the Karman line and in the exosphere. For the exact dimensions for the representation of the asteroid, there are calculations of the apparent size of an object in our sky and its luminosity with the apparent magnitude. But it would be going into a lot of detail, apart from specifying the location of the asteroid in the atmosphere, the calculation would have to be done to make a faithful representation. Perhaps something quick and simple would be to review the appearance of the brightest and most enormous comets that have passed close to Earth in the last century, and see photographs of what they look like in panoramas to get an idea of the appearance and apparent dimensions in the panorama. Obviously, an asteroid right in our exosphere would apparently be larger in the sky than a simple comet. But we have to take into account so many factors to be cautious. Again, very good illustration, excellent idea and great performance! Levi bernardo (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the illustration to go in accordance with the observations. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. Hopefully now it works. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Antarctopelta

Now that the redescription of the genus was done, I improved and colored the illustration I had of the fossil remains based on a photograph, adjusted the sizes of the dentary and teeth so that they were the real size equivalent to the rest of the material, added size scales and this is the result, I am also updating my Antarctopelta life restoration from 4 years ago so that it is now up to date with what we have already known since the description of Stegouros. Any comments? Levi bernardo (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

For me fossils looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The rhamphotheca seems a little too extensive on the life restoration? Also the hindlimbs maybe need to be demarcated more. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The rhamphotheca is based on that of Kunbarrasaurus and obviously looks thick due to the necessary extension of keratin, which makes it appear to be taller. The length is explained in the Kunbarrasaurus skull itself. Perhaps the best thing to do with the illustration is that when I will add color, I will give it better transitions to make it appear less and make it look correct. Levi bernardo (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent a rhamphotheca would have been present in Stegouros, but it would probably be better to use its skull as a reference, considering its anatomical, geographic, and temporal similarities with Antarctopelta. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and in fact yes, for the drawing I did base it on Stegouros skull when making the first strokes and during the texturing of the skull, but for other lines such as the front part and other areas I base it on the skull of Kunbarrasaurus (nasal, maxillary, premaxillary, and quadratojugal bones) The bones look quite similar to each other, and in fact the premaxilla of Stegouros turned out to be very similar to the hypothetical one of Kunbarrasaurus, since the most front part of it is not known. The nasal area of Kunbarrasaurus appears to have been higher than it appears in skeletal reconstructions of Stegouros. Thanks for the recommendation and caution. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Patagopelta skeletal/size chart and the Parankylosauria

Patagopelta skeletal(s)
Patagopelta size
Parankylosaur party

Following the recent Antarctopelta redescription that found Patagopelta to be a parankylosaur, here is a skeletal diagram and size chart using that idea (which is also supported by additional currently unpublished research). The skeletal is split into two: one for the osteoderms and one for the rest of the skeleton. I made another version that has them merged together, but some comments on the WP:PALEO Discord server suggested to upload just this one, at least until the aforementioned paper describing additional material is published.

Along with the Patagopelta images, I also overhauled all of my parankylosaur silouhettes and the combined size chart (including the newly added Patagopelta). As always, comments are welcome and appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I know this is purely aesthetic, but can you make Patagopelta a shade of red to match with the other parankylosaurs? Miracusaurs (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The blue color was chosen specifically because of the contrast, the intent being to convey the current uncertainty regarding its placement in this clade. Perhaps a vibrant red like this would be better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be better. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, but why is the texture of the dorsal osteoderms on Kunbarrasaurus so different from the other three? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, Kunbarrasaurus is different from the other three in a lot of ways. Its osteoderms do seem to be smaller and more abundant than Stegouros (although this is difficult to interpret since Stegouros is not as beautifully preserved). It's also difficult to tell if any osteoderms would have been visible in a lateral-view silhouette in the first place. I have illustrated them as prominently as I have on the "other three" to maintain some consistency with each other and the published reconstructions. Hope this makes sense. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Dornraptor

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how useful this is for a taxon known from three bones, although it's definitely much better than the one in the paper (yeesh). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is good that Dornraptor has been given reconstructions, even as it is known from a small number of fossils. I think it will be useful to have an illustration to be used for the article and it is much better than the one in the publication. I don't know exactly about early theropods, but it looks quite good. Aventadoros (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering its position in the cladogram, I'm not sure those long nasal crests are really supported, should probably be smaller lacrimal horns, if anything. With fragmentary stuff like this, we need to be as conservative and generic as possible. Certainly better than the official reconstruction, so I'd support its use just for that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

With something known from so little, from the Early Jurassic, I was basically going for a theropod somewhere between Coelophysis and Dilophosaurus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But that's not where it is on the cladogram, it's either sister to or more derived than ceratosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna comment, better to have this, that looks very in line with other Averostrans, than...well the description paper ilustration. For me is welcome Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Dornraptor skeletal

Here's a skeletal diagram for Dornraptor, with the holotype (white) and referred (green) specimens scaled to a single generic silhouette. -SlvrHwk (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good for me. Aventadoros (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Tiamat valdecii skeletals

Skeletal by PaleoNooby

Here's my skeletal diagram of the titanosaur Tiamat valdecii, from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil, described yesterday. Body is mainly based on other basal titanosaurs like Wintonotitan and Andesaurus. Tell me if there's anything needing correction. PaleoNooby (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm noticing a few potential issues here:

The skull appears to be based on existing skeletals of Andesaurus. However, these are fairly dated, and seem to use the (potentially?) unusual boxy skull of Malawisaurus as a basis for the head, which might not be the best, given its phylogenetic position deeper within Titanosauria (although, to be fair, titanosaur systematics are a bit of a mess). Since diamantinasaurians may be just outside of titanosauria (or basal members of the clade? again, uncertain position), and since most titanosaurs seem to have consistently longer snouts, perhaps a skull more similar to Sarmientosaurus or Diamantinasaurus may be more appropriate.
Next, the preserved caudals are all from the "anterior to middle" region of the tail, whereas they seem to be reaching into the posterior tail here.
It seems like you have depicted their placement and spatial relationship to each other strictly as depicted in figure 3 of the desciption paper. However, these have not been articulated, and in life the vertebrae would have been much closer together.
Given the authors' tentative assignment of the posterior-most caudal as the 25th, and given other sauropods with more complete caudal series, it is likely that there would have still been a decent amount of tail that is unpreserved (but this is difficult to quantify).
Vertebra UFRJ-DG 704-R preserves the posterior edge of the articulated anterior vertebra, which is not shown here.
Finally, a few non-skeletal comments: including a person in the diagram may not be appropriate for Wikipedia purposes since an explicit body size (besides "medium to small") has not been given. Thus it may run into WP:OR territory here. There is also a lot of unnecessary white space at the top of the image that could easily be cropped out.

I hope this is helpful (and not too overwhelming). -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to access these issues one I have the time to do so. PaleoNooby (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal by SlvrHwk

I also had a skeletal for Tiamat; I didn't notice one had already been uploaded to Commons. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have two. Comments appreciated.

Brachytrachelopan

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

On the basis of which skeletal reconstruction did you make your reconstruction? The skull seems to look a bit like it to me, but I don't know which skeleton you used, although we don't know of any fairly well-preserved dicresaurid skull (Bajadasaurus has the best-preserved one). Based on the 2023 study of the skull of Bajadasaurus, which indicated that it had soft tissues around the teeth then Brachytrachelopan should also have them. An erect tail along the lines of your Tharosaurus or Lingwulong is also welcome. Aventadoros (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Kiyacursor

Newly named basal noasaurid from Russia. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Even though it wasn't recovered specifically as an elaphrosaurine, I would try and go more in that direction. Many comparisons are made between Kiyacursor and Elaphrosaurus/Limusaurus, and those taxa were clearly the basis for the paper's original skeletal. As such, including teeth might be controversial since some noasaurids (Limusaurus, Berthasaura) had edentulous beaks. I believe it should also have four fingers (and. depending on what it's based on, only two claws?) Finally, the proportions of the feet don't seem to match the skeletal; the third toe should probably be longer and the outer claws maybe smaller. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Suchomimus

Added by @Sauroarchive: without review. Any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they look good. Maybe the tail is a bit too short, but the rest of the design is otherwise unobjectionable. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The tail is indeed short in the second image (I didin't play very well with perspective there lol) but I don't think the first one has a short tail taking the perspective the model is in. Sauroarchive (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The second one is a bit old artwork of mine and not that accurate so I just didn't use in any wikipedia page. The first one I did using the fossil ilustration of MNN GDF 500 (holotype) and MNN GF501, Dan folkes skeletal (2023) and the digital skeletal reconstructio of Suchomimus from the ''Spinosaurus is not a aquatic dinosaur'' study by Sereno et al., 2022. So I'm quite sure it's an accurate approach of the taxon. The tail isn't short because of the perspective (talking about the first image). So do you want me to remove it? Does all the illustrations needs a review to be inserted here? The image that I changed was outdated by years, as it was not the current interpretation of Suchomimus we have today. Sauroarchive (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Kiyacursor size comparison

Kiyacursor size

Size chart for the new noasaurid based on the paper's skeletal and related taxa. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I see no major issues here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Tiamat

Newly named basal titanosaur from Brazil. Please review for accuracy.T UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the tail about half way down to its end should be lowered lower, it looks strange how it goes up in the distal section. I noticed the same thing with the Udelartitan.

Aventadoros (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The short tail here doesn't really gel with the skeletals above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Incisivosaurus & Kiyacursor

Incisivosaurus
Kiyacursor
Kiyacursor
Kiyacursor

Here is a restoration of Incisivosaurus. Besides, the Kiyacursor model will be ready soon; it was reviewed by Andrey Atuchin, so I don't think there will be any problems, but you can check the WIP. Sittaco (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here it is. I will add it to the article now since the restoration has already been reviewed by Atuchin, but for formality I also post it here. Sittaco (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does the rhamphotheca of Kiyacursor extend onto the maxilla? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no information on the shape of the rhamphotheca in noasaurids, but it can extend in this way in birds (see this photo). Sittaco (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Koleken

Newly described abelisaur from Argentina. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any abelisaurs confirmed to have osteoderms? Carnotaurus didn't have them, and its a close relative of this guy. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Aorun artwork

Here's my artwork for Aorun, a Jurassic alvarezsaur from the Shishugou Formation.The entire body shape is based on other basalmost alvarezsaurs like Haplocheirus and Shishugounykus. Tell me if there is anything else to correct. Much appreciated. Palaeotaku (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks quite top-heavy. The tail is proportionally very short and the feet are planted posterior to where the center of mass would have been. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Aorun.png Here's the changed version. Palaeotaku (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Works by User:UniverseScienceItaly

Added by @UniverseScienceItaly: without review. Are there any anatomical issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Protungulatum is only known from jawbones and teeth if I recall correctly. I don't know what the current consensus on its reconstructions is, but I believe it's been supposed to be a relative of Purgatorius or other stem-eutherians, so it doesn't look too off-base.. As for Efraasia, the feathers are a bit speculative, but we have a reconstruction of a feathered Pampadromaeus, so if that's fine, then this is probably fine. This reconstruction of Spinostropheus is extremely speculative, but its not certain what specimens even belong to that genus, so we're not even sure what kind of theropod it is. I would say that any reconstruction is fine, as long as the caption makes it clear that its a speculative restoration, but that's just my opinion on the matter (see also: Gualicho, Deltadromeus). Some reviewers I've seen would advise against this kind of speculation. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the use of the new reconstruction of Spinostropheus to the article body rather than the infobox. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps neither Spinostropheus version should be in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The feathery integument on Efraasia might be too speculative for Wikipedia purposes? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Should a species be specified for Protungulatum in the file description, seeing as five have been named? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but hard for us to know which species it is if the artist doesn't react. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Added another mammal image (Buronius) by UniverseScienceItaly. I can't comment on anatomical accuracy, but the position without an actual tree branch for it to hold looks awkward. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah even through I told this user to review image first in their talk page, they still added this without review... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for advices, will add a branch for Buronius. Sorry for not posting here before adding on pages, didn't know i have to. Will here first next time UniverseScienceItaly (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, could you also add which which species of Protungulatum you depicted in the image's description? FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)