Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 6

Protomammal issues

A few issues about protomammals were left unresolved before I archived this page. I'd like to see what Petter and Peter have to say further before anything is done. First, there was talk about the ears and spurs of Morganucodon. Any acute reason to change them? Should Gobiconodon have spurs? By the way, juxtaposed like this, there seems to be similarity in colouration, which is incidental. I based the one above on some kind of shrew, perhaps Riha did too. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have a nice Christmas FunkMunk! Here's my take:

Spurs: Morganucodon should keep its spurs, and Gobiconodon should have them too. Quote from Hurum, Luo & Kielan−Jaworowska (2006): "Among fossil mammals, the co−ossified os calcaris and ossified cornu calcaris have been found in the eutriconodontan Gobiconodon and in the spalacotheroid “symmetrodontan” Zhangheotherium." That is, if the critter is male. The female seems not to have spurs, so for artists that don't feel comfortable with including them, they can always say they have drawn a female. As for who should have them and who shouldn't, the text for the Hurum & al. article is here

Ears: The ears of Gobiconodon looks good to me. It sits at the base of the therian tree, so there's no reason to assume they did not have full pinnae, they could even be larger. The pinnae on Morgunacodon seem a tad to optimistic though. They fall outside crown group mammals, and they still have the articular and quadrate bones attached to the lower and upper jaw respectively, so there is little reason to assume they had anything beyond lizard-like ear-slits in connection to the jaw joint, and it was quite likely all covered by hair. I recommend hiding the ear beneath the fur, that way we don't need worry about it's exact nature. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and happy new year! I'll just leave Riha's image without spurs then, since it could be a female, and it is a bit hard to imitate acrylics in Photoshop. I'll try to cover the ears in the other one. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the lower jaw could be looked into. If you look at the skeleton mount in the Gobiconodon article, the lower jaw looks like it pokes a tad far out. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of species though, perhaps it could be variation? FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were looking for templates for fur, I would look at marsupial mice as an alternative. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor bastard just got his ears cropped.FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parastrapotherium

Here is my reconstruction of the astrapothere Parastrapotherium, what do you think?: [1] --Rextron (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, is there a skeletal it is based on? I'm thinking it may be slightly too bulky... FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, since that Parastrapotherium is known mostly by cranial and dental remains (except for some bones of hips and hindlimbs). But the estimations of weight shows that this animal was bigger that Astrapotherium (even in the range of the 4 metric tonnes), so I depicted essentially a big and more robust version of Astrapotherium, but with shorter tusks, as is typical in this genus.--Rextron (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanosuchus

There are some nice images of the skull on the web. Here's the drawing.[2] Looks like a generic crocodile, with the head shaped after the knowns skull, and with no pointy scutes on the middle of the back, as in Sarcosuchus. A shot in the dark, though, as I know little about pholidosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these skulls and I think that it looks fine. Is an excellent idea to show another pholidosaurids.--Rextron (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyodon

Multituberculate known only from teeth, so the sketch is pretty much just a generic small mammal with spurs. Any issues so far?[3] By the way, one of the only Multituberculate restorations I've seen where the mouth is closed... FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it some colour, alright? FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very well! I appreciate the effort of make a reconstruction of little known species.--Rextron (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He heh, it may be way off though, I have no idea how its closest relatives looked like, so it is kind of improvised... FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about multituberculates, but your image looks consistent with another depictions that I've seen of this group, including the little ears.--Rextron (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More images from Spanish Wikipedia

Here is some images of paleoart made for the user Levi bernardo. Some of it could be used / modified for the articles?--Rextron (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The skulls look quite like scans from a book based on the regular noise on them... FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, then it must be removed... shame.--Rextron (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that some images are copied from others made by other wikipedians. For example, Epanterias and Haikouichthys have the same shape as Nobu Tamura's Mapusaurus and Haikouichthys, while Amphicoelias's drawing is based on MMartyniuk's scale diagrams. Even the Bavarisaurus has exactly the same coloration pattern as the one I did years ago (which was inaccurate) 1. I don't know if that means a copyright violation or something similar. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.--Rextron (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spathicephalus

I'm back! (for the time being) Here is the square-headed Spathicephalus, based on the drawings here (originally from this paper). The spiracles are speculative and based on its very basal position within Tetrapoda. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, looks like a muppet (in a good way!)The tail seems a bit broad at the base, but I really don't know whether that's incorrect or not. Just thinking of giant salamanders, where it appears to be a bit narrower. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Kermit the Stem-Tetrapod! I fixed the tail, so how does it look now? I guess I'm so used to drawing thick tails for archosaurs that I forgot not every vaguely-crocodile like thing had a need for beefy caudofemoralis muscles. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image! --Rextron (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Smokeybjb (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good image!, but what I said is true FunkMonk. I'll page of this animal and place them in the article.--Levi bernardo (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granastrapotherium

Some time ago I made this reconstruction of Granastrapotherium [4], with photomanipulation. Is it acceptable? --Rextron (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool, what is it based on? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I based it in a skeleton made by myself: [5], that is modified from the skeleton of Astrapotherium, but following the description of the limbs of Granastrapotherium (unfortunately, there is not any image of these even in the scientific literature, but according to the paper they are bigger, robust and more pillar-like that in the Astrapotherium) and the skull of the animal. Although this skeleton had issues (like the back and the extension of the tusks), it reproduces the basic shape and proportions of the animal.--Rextron (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead and upload it then! FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Rextron (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixotoxodon

Recently I made some images about the toxodontid Mixotoxodon, including a map with fossil locations [6], a skull reconstruction [7], a full body comparison [8] and a head portrait [9]. The explanation about of the sources and the reasoning behind them is this kind of article that I made: [10] Some of this could be upload? (I guess that the head reconstruction is not necessary, since that the article have a good image already) --Rextron (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me, and I don't think the head is redundant, because the other image shows the entire body (and is very low res). Only problem is the article is small! Also, the map you made is exactly the kind of map we need for fossil animals, not "range maps", that are pretty much fantasy. Also, good to see more fossil mammals, they are kind of underrepresented here... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I known that the article must be larger, my idea is to use my own article (of course, with the necessary modifications) and expand it. And I think too that fossil mammals needs more love. --Rextron (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plataleorhynchus

Rough sketch:[11] Original description for reference: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36621183#page/271/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is very good, although I think that the wing membrane maybe must attached to the knee, like in the designs of Mark Witton: [12] --Rextron (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they even attach to the ankle there? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I forget to say about ankles (although his azdarchids only seems be attached to the knee). On another hand, maybe is the perspective, but the propatagium is not visible.--Rextron (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll fix that, the entire thing will be painted over once I get to it... FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some rough colouring, any thoughts?[13] FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice of colors! similar to spoonbill birds, is reasonable considering its probable lifestyle. --Rextron (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I'm too predictable! FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If predictable means a good work, is not a problem :). i think that you can add it to the article.--Rextron (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks, I mean that it was too easy to guess the basis for colours... But yeah, I'll tidy up the colours some more, and add it then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit more work. Is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me.--Rextron (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amonite Sp.

Hello friends my aunt told me that in her yard was buried fossils and found that everything was mine and I discovered a fossil of a ammonoideo and other fossil organisms that my uncle had discovered on the outskirts of the city of Delicias, Chihuahua, poveniente training needle, that they have a doubt that whether it is a kind of a separate genus or Pachydiscus this. Here are some pictures that you take the fossil. [14] [15] [16] [17][18] [19] and should be done officially to describe a genre.. --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some fossil identification forums you can post them to, see here: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/community/identification/fossils-rocks and http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/forum/14-fossil-id/ FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over sourcing of several images

Following a copyright request and GA nomination for the article these illustrations are used in, I asked if they could be reliably sourced, and was told that reliable sourcing is not necessary. I have always aimed to fully source illustrations and am bewildered that this is not, according to one editor, common practice. It would be helpful if perhaps someone can confirm what sources were used in creating the following images, or add information about what sources could confirm the accuracy of the material. The images are the following:

Thanks for your input.

Samsara (FA • FP) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, your concerns are addressed in these thorough, past discussions: [20][21] There is little to add. The images match published skeletal restorations, and current theories about external appearance, as described in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please list those "published skeletal restorations" on the image description page of each file. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's rather wait until this discussion is played out before we do anything at all. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Illustrations_violating_NOR As per skeletal restorations, there is one in the article you can compare with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, what is the source for these images? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:PanderichthysZICA.png Why the double standards? FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you now claiming that Prothero supports these illustrations? Can you insert that information into the image description pages, please? Samsara (FA • FP) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in one place, I answered you there, people will find it, I linked to it above. And why are you evading the question about the fish restoration? It is quite relevant, no? FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. How is it connected? Samsara (FA • FP) 18:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have had it on your userpage for years, I assumed you condoned it, but its of course quite possible that you do not. The point is that I find it puzzling that you start with such a specific issue (these images), when it is a much broader issue, which has been discussed thoroughly already. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can discern, the image is only used as a barnstar equivalent. So how about telling me why you don't want to add sources to the Paraceratherium illustrations, when you purport that you can provide them? Why withhold the evidence? Samsara (FA • FP) 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered in the thread linked above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pterodactylus

I've done a modified version of my Beasts of Antiquity pterodactyl that essentially removes the crest features that now appear specific to Aerodactylus specimens. Just to make it extra verifiable, it's based entirely on what's been reported for the holotype specimen. The existing image by Nobu Tamura is a little long in the tooth, incorporates a backward-directed sagittal crest incorporating the lappet of Aerodactylus (specifically disputed by Bennet who says there is no evidence those two crests were connected in one structure from any specimen), and all lappet-bearing specimens are the Aerodactylus morphotype, making it plausible that feature was specific to the new species. Thoughts? Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! But I still find the whole situation about which feature is known for what species a bit confusing... What kind of crest is known for P. antiquus? So NT's restoration is petty much a chimaera? FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, without knowing exactly which specimens he based it on it's hard to tell (though you could make the case it's PROBABLY based on the Frey et al. 1998/2003 specimens, which are both Aerodactylus now). According to Bennett and pers. comm. from Witton, there's no evidence the saggital crest and the occipital cone/lappet were connected other than inference from tapejarids(!). The lappet seems flexible and different in composition, IMO it's a wattle like in turkeys, not part of a keratin crest. The occipital cone is known in three specimens, all of which are now referred to Aerodactylus. However, one or two P. antiquus specimens including possibly the holotype do show evidence of a saggital crest so I kept that in. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added it, seems there were no objections. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regisaurus

hello,i found the above image in the Commons.it does not say that its inaccurate,but hereshows it with a not that high skull and,really did therocephalians have that short tails?it would be great if you'd find out if its accurate or not because it problematizes me since I found it.thaks--87.228.204.54 (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the skull, perhaps you are confused by the angle, it fits rather well into the drawing when you rotate it, see my rough example here: http://oi60.tinypic.com/14o63yv.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references used in the article of Regisaurus (this paper [22]) indicates that one relatively skeleton of a small baurioid therocephalian certainly had a short tail, with only nine vertebrae. Surely the drawing is based in this. By the way, this article needs a better redaction. --Rextron (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whiskers look good (if it is supposed to be a nocturnal and/or burrowing animal), but it probably did not have so much hair. Only the actual mammals have an Harderian gland, which are considered a prerequisite for proper fur. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dont think so.i made some research and found out that,during the time it lived south africa was very near to the antarctic circle so,to not freeze to death it must had some(for the evidence see here)also i think the forelimbs have as well issues because there are no forelimb bones.as well the image seems to be cropped out of another image so i dont think it is very accurate.can anyone make a better picture for this animal?(with fur,whiskers,habit,prey and anything)--87.228.204.54 (talk) 8:55 am, Today (UTC+1)

First, sorry for deleting your comment, that was not at all on purpose. I'm not so sure about the fur though. Some burrowing animals can do quite well without fur, and the small size Regisaurus appear to have been juveniles. How large was this critter in adulthood? Cat-size? Badger? Current thinking indicates fur really only evolved with Morgunacodon and thereabouts, and Regusaurus is not even a cynodont. It is of course possible that it had fur as a parallel evolved trait, but I'm not convinced. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hm,this paper [23] says in one occasion that the small baurioid might be a juvenile regisaurus,so I think its adult.as well the skull of regisaurus is more similar to that of microgomphodon than to that of scaloposaurus(another regisaurid) so im pretty sure its adult.also the skeleton lacks the forelimbs (the evidence is here so I think It is better to remove the postcrania and make a illustriation of the skull only.also if you zoom in the illustriation it gives me a impression that it seems to be cut of another image.what do you think?--87.228.204.54 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'v tracked down a skeletal reconstruction of this critter, and I don't think it would have been able to arch it's back like that. Reconstruction here: [24]. It's from Kemp, 1986. The skull look at bit funny because the snout was missing. It says in the article that it was better at lateral flexing than vertical flexing. The current drawing holds it's back like a modern rodent, an anatomically quite advanced mammal. Here's BBC's reconstruction of a cynodont (based on Thrinaxodon), which I think it fairly accurate. Notice the back when it's running. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New images uploaded

The user Christina1969 recently has uploaded a series of images of dinosaurus and other extinct creatures: [25] I wonder if some of these could be useful.--Rextron (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems the uploader isn't the author, and that the source sites do not have those licenses... FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask to the artist in DeviantART who made it.--Rextron (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is his answer: "The image url shows as dinosaur-home.wikia.com. I'm a old member of Dinosaur-home site and one of the person there created a wiki page for dinosaur-home which has info of all the members from that site. My images are in different sites,i have seen them as well.I didn't mentioned anywhere as nobody should use these.However these are not full sized images and i only have the original like all Artists use to have."[26] --Rextron (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to mean the licenses are fake? Because that site doesn't have them. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the licenses only applies to that site, since that he was member, but not to another websites.--Rextron (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we'll have to mass nominate for deletion... FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forstercooperia

Having finished this a while ago, but not having the time to scan it, I have now scanned a reconstruction of a primitive indricothere, either Forstercooperia minuta, as it was based on, or even Juxia sharamurense, as it has a similar skull [27]. Anything about it that can be modified? The image is based off a skull figure in the redescription of Forstercooperia and description of F. minuta. IJReid (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, will compare with the skull when I get home. It is probably best to use it for the animal it was drawn after, though. One thing that could probably be changed is the neck, which seems a bit skinny near the throat, if you for example look at a horse skeletal, the flesh outline doesn't follow the neck vertebrae, and the throat has a lot of room: http://lizditz.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/eq616_4web.jpg Paraceratherum skeletal outlines seem to be drawn in a similar way. The ears also seem a bit small. I'd probably see if I could work some details of modern rhinos into the drawing. Probably basing it on a rhino species with a prehensile upper lip, such as the Indian, Sumatran, or black rhino. For example, I think this[28] restoration would be wrong, because it does not take the huge nasal incision into account, which indicates the presence of a prehensile upper lip or even proboscis. FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the neck is actually okay, after all, no postcranial material of Forstercooperia minuta is known apart from the astragalus. Cervical vertebrae of Juxia, probably the best analogy to Forstercooperia, are all in the top half of the head, so I think that the neck will be okay. I made the upper lip semi-prehensile, after all, this taxon pretty much represents the link between rhinocerotoids and all earlier genera, which I think only had small prehensile lips. Also, I believe that the ears are okay, as again, more primitive taxa had smaller ears, and they only really became large in Paraceratherium. IJReid (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, modern rhinos don't have ears that small, neither do any odd toed ungulates (tapirs, horses, which can be pretty small), so extant phylogenetic bracketing (which should be applied to all groups) would indicate much larger ears anyhow. As for prehensile lips, it is supposed to be a common feature of indricotheres. May have been larger in Paraceratherium of course, but it seems more like a horse muzzle than a prehensile lip in your drawing. Here's a web image of Juxia showing a small prehensile lip:[29] I'll see if I can send you an anatomical Juxia drawing from the Prothero book later, it will also show you what I mean with the neck (the point being that the neck vertebrae can not be used for much when shaping the neck outline). Much stuff on the Internet is pretty inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the head I mentioned, note the more slender front part, and more tapering upper lip: [30] Also note eye and nostril placement, as well as smoother cheek. And full body life restoration, note ear size and neck thickness: [31] FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to fix it well while making it still look good, but why not have it illustrate Cambaytherium. An image was just requested on this pages talk, and from what I can tell (description here) the skull matches my drawing, and the animal is the most primitive perrisodactyl, so could have had smaller ears, a less prehensile lip, and a thinner neck. IJReid (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the neck and ear issue would still stand whatever ungulate it is chosen to be. I don't think I know of any with ears that small in relation to the head? Anyone else have thoughts about this? Should be fairly easy to fix in Photoshop. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see problems to use it as Cambayatherium, although the ears could be larger and rounded, as in tapirs.--Rextron (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it. How does it look? IJReid ^discuss 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, could the years be a tad bit longer? See the smallest living rhino: [32][33]FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. IJReid ^discuss 04:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, don't know where that y came from! Ears... FunkMonk (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood that you mistyped ears, but do you want them taller, wider, or both? IJReid ^discuss 14:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longer, so "tall", the width is ok. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. IJReid ^discuss 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langstonia

I made a life recosntruction of this sebecid, based in the skeletal that I made some time ago: [34] What do you think?--Rextron (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, could be nice if the tip of the tail wasn't chopped off! Will take a closer look later. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I made it, for some reason I don't made the tip... But really is not a great portion of the taili, anyways if is necessary I can try to complete it.--Rextron (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement, but I guess it would just look good! It matches the skeletal, so not much to add from me, but it maybe seems a bit "deeper"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper? could you explain it more?--Rextron (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean around the belly. As if is a bit chubby? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I didn't considered it before, I based the body of the animal mostly in Baurusuchus: [35], but is something easy to fix.--Rextron (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems a bit more robust overall. Maybe Smokeybjb has some comments, he's our main croc-guy... FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The neck of the original illustration looks a bit off, too deep compared to the skull and a tad too short compared to skeleton pic you've based it on. I'm not sure about the tail either, it seems just a bit too heavy for a running animal. If the tail was for swimming, then it would likely have been very broad, but the legs is reconstructed as a runner, not a swimmer.

The stance looks a bit funny to me too. The animal must have weighted quite a bit. The skull alone is 70 cm (according to the description). The legs would carry considerable weight, and I would expect to see a more platigrade stance and wrinkling around the ankles. The stance too suffers from the same problem as the skeleton stance, with the left front foot sticking below the horizontal plan indicated by the other feet, while the left hindfoot does not quite reach down to the ground. This makes the whole skeleton appear imbalanced, and an animal of that size would not be imbalanced in a relaxed stance. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stance would be okay for the schematic, since the point is to show as much of the skeleton as possible, but yeah, I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it seems a bit off for the life image... FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found it. The skeleton appear to be walking in pace rather than trot. Both of the left legs are forward, I would expect the one leg forward and one leg backward on each side. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have fiddled a bit with Rexton's skeleton drawing to try to make a more natural pose, including switching to trot and angeling it a tad over the hips [36]. Since it's Rexton's file, I'll delete the image as soon as he has had a look at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admitt that the stance of sebecosuchians is confusing for me, I've seen that are reconstructed both as digitigrade or plantigrade animals. Finally I prefered to show a digitigrade stance. I appreciate a lot the comments made, but now I'm not sure if the life reconstruction and the skeleton are still usable or I must to made new ones, maybe based in the version made by Petter Bøckman (you don't need to delete it). By the way, the skull of Langstonia don't measures 70 cm (you probably are thinking in Barinasuchus), the description made by Langston only says that the mandible type of it is 18% bigger than the same element of Sebecus; probably the length of the head would be about 60 cm, although there is not any paper that have an actual estimate. --Rextron (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The description paper is in Spanish, so I may be off, but the accompanying English description has this to say about size:

the genus reaches at least up to 700 mm y 410 mm of cephalic length and high, respectively

The translation into English seems to be somewhat rudimentary, but the only way I think this can be interpreted is that the skull is 700mm and 410mm tall. Even if the skull is only 60cm, it is still a bloody big animal. Crocodiles in general are quite heavily built. The skeleton reconstruction is that of a quite nimble animal, but all we really have to go on is bits of skull, a couple of vertebrae and some back scutes. If this was a lightly built animal, perhaps one of the more crocodile-like thecodonts like Revueltosaurus [37] might be a starting point? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right in the measures, but the complete phrase says "Diagnosis-Barinasuchus, gen. nov. can be distinguished among other genera of Sebecosuchia by the following combination of characters: the genus reaches at least up to 700 mm y 410 mm of cephalic length and high, respectively". Barinasuchus, of course, is not complete, but was the real monster between sebecids. That paper also talks about Langstonia, due that they created the new genus for Sebecus huilensis, but they don't talk a word about its size (Spanish is my native language, so I'm pretty sure about that). The problem with Revueltosaurus (great illustration, by the way) is that is very distant in time and relationships with sebecids... also we have this Baurusuchus: [38] That's closer to my idea: powerful but more slimmer and swift than modern crocodiles. After all, Langstonia is very similar (as far we known) to Sebecus, and the recent findings of it shows a skeleton similar in proportions to baurusuchids.--Rextron (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I must show it before: this reconstruction of the skeleton of Baurusuchus that was one of my references: [39] --Rextron (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Fascinating critters! Too bad those pesky mammals has delegated crocodiles to the rivers edge!

So, 70 cm is for Barinasuchus? I did not find any measurments for Langstonia. What does the article have to say about the size this genus?

There's some details of crocodylian anatomy that make me doubt the most agile reconstructions. Notice the hind legs of Baurusuchus [40]. They sprawl quite a bit. It's like a reverse therapsid (therapsids have sprawling front legs). Since the hind legs are the main propulsion unit, this will give them a slightly ponderous walk in an animal with a bit of bulk. I am sure Langstonia and Baurusuchus could run fast, but their walk would be more measured. Perhaps it would be better showing the animal running? Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very cool indeed. Too bad that were victims of the climate and geographical changes in the Middle Miocene (I'm not sure about competition with mammals)...

70 cm. is the preserved length of the skull of Barinasuchus, complete surely was a bit larger: [41] Probably the entire body measures up to 6 meters in length, although again, there is not an official estimate... As I said before, the article of Paolillo & Linares don't have measures for Langstonia, but in the original description made by Langston (1965) says: "Description.—This mandible (fig. 3) is about 68 per cent larger than the type of Sebecus icaeorhinus Simpson as measured along the tooth row to the mid-vertical of the sixth tooth, a distance of 189.0 mm" (is the dentary portion that you can see in the skeletal that I made). Assuming that the entire animal had the same proportions than Sebecus, probably measures more than 3 meters in lenght.

About the posture, the papers that I read mentions that both Baurusuchus and Sebecus had a parasagittal stance, which I understand as fully erect. I agree that the postures of walking and runnig would be different, running could be something like this Iberosuchus: [42] I think that is better leave the skeleton as in a walking posture.--Rextron (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, 3 meters only. That would make it a mid-size crock, and make it more likely it walked on it's toes, at least partially. Being parasagittal doesn't necessarily mean the hip were narrow and the legs fully tucked in under the body. Arn't primitive crocks more "pillar erect" rather than mammalian/dinosaur type erect? I really look forward to see what you get out of it! As for mammals and Miocene: Point taken, but without large mammalian predators coming onto the scene, they would likely have bounced back. Compare it to what happened to labyrinthodonts and reptiles after the Carboniferous rainforest collapse. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, precissely the crurotarsan line is known for the pillar-like configuration in the hips. Notosuchians, as far I know, are more "primitive" than modern crocs. Well, so I don't going to upload the image, until find a better posture.

Interesting analogy with the Carboniferous, the point is that the members of the "predatory triunvirate" (sebecids, sparassodonts and phorusrhacids) in South America were affected by the same crisis, although in different levels. Also I just have read a paper that suggests, based in a tooth, that at least some sebecid managed to survive until the end of the Miocene... but alas, the GABI was just to begin...--Rextron (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything happening here, or should it be archived? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive it. When I make a new version, I'll repost the issue.--Rextron (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]