This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur
paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"
[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category
[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per
WP:OI and
WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during
WP:Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent
WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an
hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without
pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example:
Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
DBogdanov just uploaded so many new drawings that I thought it best to make a new section rather than add them to the previous one where they may be overlooked. I don't know anything about any of these, but on the Discord server it was mentioned that the Hyaenodonhas a way too large head and is based on a chimaeric specimen (head could be shrunk if we want to use it). I also think I read somewhere that hyaenodonts are supposed to have been plantigrade, but these restorations are all digitigrade. Is it incorrect?
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that specimen is definitely chimaeric, and yes, hyaenodonts had a plantigrade stance. I already talked about this in the discord, but the Gorgonops is probably inaccurate based on the presence of whiskers, because most papers I could find, like Benoit (2019) suggest whiskers first appeared in the Probainognathia.
Fossiladder13 (
talk)
22:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So the spine should just be the same colour as the skin? And the horizontal lines on the gills should just be removed to make it look like they're covered?
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That would be the best course of action I think, though It is probable that the tip of the fin spine would have been exposed, with the majority being hidden.
Fossiladder13 (
talk)
16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
FunkMonk Sorry to not be as specific about it, the spines currently are fine (the tip being exposed at least) I believe the problem is that the spine itself should not be jutting out that much (the base should be buried more).
Fossiladder13 (
talk)
22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Even more hyaenodonts now added, among others. I've just tagged the Hyaenodon macrocephalus with the big head as inaccurate for now, not worth fixing when there are so many other restorations to choose from anyway.
FunkMonk (
talk)
21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Next time Bogdanov adds stuff, we need to create another thread, this one is kinda pointless and obviously unreviewed anymore.
Larrayal (
talk)
23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
i could argue that, based on the trilophosaurus skeletal, the illustration you showed has actually kind of short arms, and that my depiction is within a natural range of motion for the creature, between the usually depicted limb that's far away back and the other far away forward
[12]. So like a mid-step position
LiterallyMiguel (
talk)
03:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regardless, the point is to ignore Peters' work entirely (found on his blogs "Reptile Evolution" and "The Pterosaur Heresies") since he usually introduces many misinterpretations due to his unorthodox methods. -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
i mean; ok, but that's not really the point, judging by other skeletals (like the one from its own paper) the arm lenght is fine in my opinion, and its in a natural middle-ground between the usually depicted far-away-back and far-away-forward foot pose, unless there's evidence of teraterpeton's legs being shorter which i haven't found yet
LiterallyMiguel (
talk)
21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here are all of this user's uploads (including Teraterpeton, discussed above). I can't speak to the little anatomical details, but they seem quite good artistically. -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
thanks!, i also wonder what other species could be in need of a good paleo-art, like i did with Puercosuchus, which even with how interesting it is, there's ZERO other drawings of it i the internet!
LiterallyMiguel (
talk)
21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Artistically it's quite nice; though I am concerned that the snout might be too short (I have not yet done a detail proportions check though). Additionally, the nostrils seem to be located at the very tip of the snout; a configuration unknown in any ichthyosauromorph. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs13:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
When I increased the brightness and looked closely, I realized that it had hind legs with toes. This seems to be a common for most artwork in Thaisaurus, but since David Peters is one reconstructed it, I'm not sure if it's reliable.
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
23:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We already discussed this on the Discord server, but for the record here, yes, there is definitely no good reason to assume independent toes in Thaisaurus, whose hindlimbs are incomplete from the metatarsals down, and is in the bracket for flippered hindlimbs formed by other ichthyopterygians, hupehsuchians, and omphalosaurids. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks pretty good based on fossil images and a model I found from the Yale Peabody museum, but I am very unfamiliar with the specifics on these worms.
Fossiladder13 (
talk)
00:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
PaleoEquii: also created reconstruction of Pambdelurion (originally created as Omnidens and posted to Twitter but I recommended him to upload this as Pambdelurion). Spines on frontal appendage looks like different from reconstruction by @
Junnn11:, but I think spine numbers are uncertain?
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
16:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think so. Some specimens seems to show a bit more of them. In my opinion, Even the size of frontal appendage itself seems to be somewhat variable (flexible?) as well.
Junnn11 (
talk)
02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure its related but yes the appendages are extremely flexible. The appendage and head anatomy here was based on Supplementary Figure 9 of Young & Vinther (2016), MGUH 31551. This one shows the many thin elongate spines well, as well as the cephalic spines, and the extreme flexure of one of the appendages.
PaleoEquii (
talk)
04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I had a similar thought (but I also know very little about ichthyosaurs). Was there any specific reasoning behind that particular fin placement? -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, not really besides that whales of similar sizes seem to have if slightly further back, I know it’s a bit speculative but maybe there’s a purpose for that.
SeismicShrimp (
talk)
10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Between that and the large tail fluke, I think it's much better to stick to the anatomy of known shastasaurids than inventing something new for an animal known from mandibles. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The proportions look like a mix of Guanlingsaurus and Shonisaurus (based on head size and trunk depth), but some features seem to fall outside of known variation among "shastasaurs". The forelimb length in particular seems pretty excessive, nearly as long as the trunk; they are significantly shorter even in the long-limbed Guizhouichthyosaurus. The hip region and preflexural tail seem excessively deep; shastasaurs were typically fairly slender animals (Shonisaurus is a bit of an exception), and even the thunnioform ichthyosaurs like Stenopterygius seem to have skinnier tails. Additionally, the tail fin seems quite short, in Guizhouichthyosaurus and Shonisaurus, it seems like they take up half the length of the tail. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ichthyotitan size comparison diagram
Trying to keep things together here for future reference so I'm posting this as a subsection of the above.
It seems to follow the proportions of Shonisaurus popularis fairly closely, though it looks like the tail fin is a bit small relative to the preflexural tail compared to this species and Guizhouichthyosaurus. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The preflexural tail (the part between the hips and the tail fin, basically the part of the tail before the bend; my apologies, I probably should have explained that) still seems kind of long relative to the postflexural (fin) portion. Some other thoughts: Hartman's Shonisaurus has quite a steep tailbend, steeper than Kosch's 1990 reconstruction that McGowan & Motani (1999) described as "far too steep", so making it shallower might be warranted. Additionally, since we have almost no information to go on regarding what Ichthyotitan looked like in life, I wonder if putting a question mark in the silhouette might be warranted. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification. I made some further adjustments to the caudal region and added a question mark. Let me know if any further fixes are needed. -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is my latest art released, a sketch for the new and colossal Ichthyotitan! I also have a piece for Gamatavus that I've had sitting around on Wikimedia for about a year now, and I never got the time to also share it. With that said, please let me know your thoughts on these two!
SpinoDragon145 (
talk)
05:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't speak much for ichthyosaurs, and of course there is a lot we don't know with Ichthyotitan, but based on other reconstructions (including the "official" commissioned illustrations) the dorsal fin (if it had one) should maybe be less prominent and more posteriorly placed. Maybe the torso should be deeper, too?
Since Ichthyotitan is only known from lower jaw bone fragments, a lot of whats in the sketch is speculation. The overall anatomy is referenced from mostly Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus just slightly for the head shape, and the dorsal fin is based off of a Mixosaurus specimen that preserves a dorsal fin. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do about the mass of the torso and size of the dorsal fin.
As for Gamatavus, it's time I made this piece brighter anyway since that's the main critique I get from this one, lol. Thanks for the advice!
SpinoDragon145 (
talk)
02:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think we can necessarily consider the dorsal fin placement as inaccurate, currently all we can really say about "shastasaur" dorsal fins is that they probably existed. I haven't done a detailed check, but I'm not sure if the torso here is necessarily too shallow either; Shonisaurus popularis is actually pretty unusual among large "shastasaurs", which more typically have shallower bodies. If anything, given how poor the Ichthyotitan material is I think it would be better to show a variety of interpretations, rather than just make everything a giant Shonisaurus popularis. I'll see if I can do a more detailed review of all the Ichthyotitan restorations here in the coming week. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs13:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Based on other "shastasaurs" (and most ichthyosaurs in general), the nostrils probably should be lower on the skull and oriented more laterally; they are higher up in Shonisaurus popularis but in that taxon they're closer to the eyes, and once again that species is an exception to the typical rule. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, wanna put this Ichthyotitan restoration up for review, since the remains aren't that good I based some of it off related Ichthyosaurs like Shonisaurus, though I don't usually make artwork of Ichthyosaurs so I've very little idea how much I got it right... Please check it out and let me know if there's any problem with it, thanks! :)
Edit: I should also probably mention all the art references I've used for this, I used the size comparison on its page by SlvrHwk based on Shonisaurus, the artwork by Sergey Krasovskiy and one by Gabriel Ugueto
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
06:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Judging by Shonisaurus popularis, which this restoration seems to be very similar to, the nostrils should probably be further back, the preflexural tail shorter and the tail fin longer. I almost wonder though if this might work better repurposed as a life restoration of Shonisaurus? For future reference, I would recommend using fossils and skeletal diagrams as references for life restorations, rather than other life restorations. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the late response, and thank you for the review... I will make the changes that you mentioned as soon as I get more time for this. Though since there's very little material that gives a good clue about this thing's life appearance, I didn't think it'd be wise to stray from other related ichthyosaurs, at least until better material is assigned to it..
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
17:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The anatomy seems pretty similar to Shonisaurus popularis, which makes the apparent lack of teeth seem odd; the toothless shastasaurs seem to typically have shorter snouts, where the more longirostrine ones (Shonisaurus, Guizhouichthyosaurus, and Besanosaurus) all have teeth of some sort. The eye looks too low on the head. The postcranium looks kind of odd as well; there seems to be a sort of hump immediately behind the hips that makes it look like the body is bent pretty sharply dorsoventrally; additionally, the shading on the flippers and the way that they attach to the body makes them look almost conical rather than flat. --
Slate Weasel [
Talk -
Contribs14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Now new study
[15] have shown complete remain of Ptychodus. Although paper is not freely licensed, supplementary information of the paper
[16] is CC BY 4.0 which we can use some of fossil images. Either way, I think we probably need new Ptychodus reconstruction based on Mexican specimen. @
Damouraptor: or @
EvolutionIncarnate: would be interested in that? Supplementary material also includes size estimation of multiple specimens based on newly found specimen. I wonder if @
PaleoNeolitic: would be good at making new size chart?
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
07:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Size comparison done. I depicted four species of each tooth morphology following Vullo et al. 2024, as well as the new body shape indicated by the new fossils.
PaleoNeolitic (
talk)
02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For Makarkinia, as I see there are no morphological issue but any opinions? This blogpost estimated flying posture of Kalligrammatids
[17] and shows some videos which shows slow-motion of flight of neuropterans, comparing that this would be fine.
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Found two Paleozoic arts, Bothriolepis looks fine to me, especially since it is based on latest interpretation. While Pterygotus, is outdated.
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Paleoart request : Fossil hyraxes and a review of Dmitry Bogdanov's Titanohyrax
I've recently started working on the Parapliohyrax article, which should be finished tonight. Constating that hyraxes reconstructions are not only rare, but the papers containing their descriptions are, in most cases, and like those of a large number of other Cenozoic taxa, wildly unavailable to public access, it could be good if at least scale charts could be realized about the
Pliohyracidae and the
Titanohyracidae.
If a potential artist is interested to give a more deep look into this group to create a life reconstruction, and search for taxa known from good materials and important locations, I can recommend Saghatherium (known from extensive postcrania), Antilohyrax, Afrohyrax, Thyrohyrax, Megalohyrax, Prohyrax, Pachyhyrax, Parapliohyrax and Postschizotherium. Skeletal diagrams are welcome too, specially for postcrania.
As an aside, the recent reconstructions of Pliohyrax and Kvabebihyrax by @
ДиБгд: (Dmitry Bogdanov) are both well-executed and quite educative. The reconstruction of Titanohyrax, here presented, however, posted 12 years ago, has aged quite a lot ; it is quite skinwrapped, with an almost complete loss of fur (a condition that is rare in most mammals of its size) and I'm not sure about some of the feet articulations (given the lack of postcranial material, these long limbs being seemingly based, with a good reasoning, on its smaller parent Antilohyrax, despite the important size difference.) Given that extinct hyracoids are not the group with the most reconstructions out there, I'd recommend keeping it on page for the time being, until a more up-to-date reconstruction is provided - the edits needed being probably too important to simply modify it.
Larrayal (
talk)
18:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi! Wanted to put this Vasuki life reconstruction up for review... since it's only known from a few vertebrae I didn't have much to go off with, but I've tried to keep it in line with Madtsoiidae in general, taking inferences from Madtsoia and Gigantophis
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Those weren't supposed to be scales, just a pattern, though I see now that they look more like scales... I'll make some changes to make it look more obvious Edit: I have made some changes to fix the issue, please check now
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is a size comparison, originally by
Steveoc 86 and
Oryctolagus XL reuploaded with the addition of Vasuki, I have used the mean of the lower and upper ranges provided in Datta & Bajpai 2024 (10.9-12.2 m has been averaged to 11.5 m and 14.5 to 15.2 m has been averaged to 14.8 m)
I have no idea about the others, I took the size comparison from the Titanoboa page so figured it might be right... If it is problematic though here's one specifically for Vasuki
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I started an update to my version a while ago with the intention of adding Palaeophis but I don't know when I'll finish it. I should probably add Vasuki now. The current iteration can be seen here
[18]. The extinct snake silhouettes in the diagram mainly use the size of known vertebrae to roughly estimate torso height, then draw the snake to the estimated length. Doing this resulted in my version of Palaeophis being slightly leaner but otherwise similar. I gave it a more rounded head shape, which some living sea snakes have, but I'm unaware of decent skull material for the group. The paddle is slight less prominent in my version as well.
Steveoc 86 (
talk)
22:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That sounds better, then I think it'll be best to wait for the updated version for a size comparison. Adding only the life restoration for now to the Vasuki page then.
Ansh Saxena 7163 (
talk)
14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Bright yellow isn't the best color for visibility, a more subdued shade would be ideal. Maybe Steveoc 86 can share his font and text size details so the labels for Vasuki can be standardized even further. But otherwise the diagram looks good!
NGPezz (
talk)
03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's a link to a potential update that adds Vasuki[19]. The skulls of both Vasuki' and Giganotophis are inspired by a diagram of Wonambi by Scanlon & Lee (2000).
Re Palaeophis; There's Archaeophis that is well preserved and doesn't seem to show evidence of a paddle. It also seems that the lateral compression of the body varies within Palaeophis and P. colossaeus 'might' not be as compressed as other species. So, I dialled back the paddle somewhat, but still speculative.
Re the anaconda; Living snake sizes seem fairly contentious. 5.21 m is usually mentioned as reliable and is leaned towards in the wiki article but just recently one was found dead that is larger. There's video of it being measured by rope that estimated it at around 6.45 m. Reportedly, it was later measured properly by a biologist at 6.32 m. However, most the information comes from Instagram and YouTube videos. So it might not make sense to include it here unless we can find a better source?
Steveoc 86 (
talk)
23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Created life restoration of Pliodetes, lepisosteiform from
Elrhaz Formation. Proportion and fin placement are based on Wenz (1999) (inaccessible, I obtained from resource exchange and shared that in discord server), and head anatomy is based on Cavin and Suteethorn (2006).
[20] I already got review by
User:Orthocormus but any opinions from others?
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An impaled turtle was found at the Tanis sight, but this illustration was clearly not informed by the preserved material. As can be seen in the fossil, the branch enters near the head and leaves near the leg, thus not penetrating the carapace as shown here. Also strange that the image specifically depicts a nanhsiungchelyid rather than a
baenid, since the specimen was suggested to have affinities with the latter clade. I agree with previous comments regarding overall clarity and detail. -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
04:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In my defense, this was a piece inspired by the finds in the Tanis, not necessarily a depiction of the actual fossils we find there. I wasn't, indeed, aware of what kind of turtle was the one impaled in the tree, just that it was a turtle. Considering the setting, a baenid seems just as likely as a nanhsiungchelyid, though the latter was ultimately the one chosen. Lacking much awareness of how exactly the turtle was impaled, naturally the result of this art was merely a product of imagination rather than one taken from a direct reference of the fossil, though I assumed the overall strength of a blast could, hypothetically, allowed a turtle shell to break after colliding against a strong tree branch, though perhaps that's still unrealistic (ultimately I suppose the lack of available pictures of the fossils reported from Tanis was a contributor to the poorly informed conclusions here, but maybe I just didn't look in the right places).
Regardless, thank you for the replies. I was a bit reticent about this artwork of mine, not going to lie, but I still thought it was worth giving it a try.
YellowPanda2001 (
talk)
23:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, could probably be impaled~in other ways, but the scenario shown here looks unlikely. But I don't know the details of the fossil, of course.
FunkMonk (
talk)
11:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dichodon
Hey folks, our next Eocene European mammal, Dichodon.
Seems that this image is added to page without review, and uploader seems to be author of the research
[21] Dan Valentin Palcu. Seems that this image origins at late 2023.
[22] Maybe it would be fine that is created by paper author himself, but there is some concerns, that first image includes multiple logos, and size chart seems to directly taken from Prehistoric Wildlife (which is already dead website, here is archive link
[23][24]). How should we deal that and other than that are there any issues?
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk)
12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am very rusty in my knowledge of Synapsids and even more so in their anatomy, and this image is from 2017, but I gave it a little background and improvements to make it look better.
Levi bernardo (
talk)
20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was thinking about it, at the time of giving color to the background, it is very clear that it does indeed need correction in the posture of the legs, I will be reading more about this point in some papers and I will correct that detail. Thank you.
Levi bernardo (
talk)
07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's now a much closer match to D. acanthocercus, though the grooves on the raptorial appendages, tail fan and final abdominal segment still seem to be missing (I annotated a figure from Schram (2007) to show what I mean:
here).
Olmagon (
talk)
20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The abdomen apparently lacking 1 short basal segment (
see fig. 12). Other than that it looks nice to me as well.
Thoracic region around the wing base might be more complex like a dragonfly, but the
previous reconstruction of this region are best considered doubtful (the author is known for faking insect fossil anatomy). Without further information, I think it's better to keep it rather simple like this artwork for now.
Junnn11 (
talk)
02:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have already added another segment. And thanks for the information!, I will leave the wing base unchanged if that is better.
Qohelet12 (
talk)
13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I made basic improvements to an old Cryptovenator illustration, as I said before I'm rusty with synapsids. I added lips, put gingiva, gave more shadow to necessary areas, put a more natural and neutral color to certain areas and modified the neural spines. Any comment?
Levi bernardo (
talk)
09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Overall looks ok for me as well, only the leg with following issues:
Absence of trochanter (a small, narrow, triangular segment located between coxa and femur, a general feature of insect legs). In the original decription the segment is even visible via the specimen photo, but ommited in the drawing for whatever reason.
Detail of tarsus. According to
Li & Huang 2022 Manipulatoridae should have 5 tarsomeres instead of 4 unless it was regenerated (see fig. 8B, although it's a different genus but still from the same family). Also an arolium (median sucking pad) is evident between the tarsal claw as well (see fig. 5C).
As far as I can tell,
Clark (2013) is the most recent publication to have described T. etheridgii so the comments I'm about to make are based on that:
By my count, this drawing shows 8 spines on the lateral margin of the carapace, whereas the study states there should be at least 10 (see figures 14 and 17a).
The antennal scale seems to have too many spines, which are also too small (see figure 16b).
Well a spatulated premax is present in paratypothorax, just not to the extent I've shown here. I'll update it. thnx for the critique!
DNB XD (
talk)
14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The skeletal is not a rigorous reconstruction of Venkatasuchus. It is almost certainly copied from this reconstruction of Typothorax:
[28] And I will note the following passage from the paper I linked: "The tip itself appears to have been unexpanded as in Aetosaurus and Stenomyti, and is rather different from the shovel shaped premaxilla in most other aetosaurs." Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
16:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello. It's been a while, but can I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to reconstruct Koleken mostly based on the skeletal reconstruction from the official paper (?) in this page...
https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/05/koleken.html For the scale with human, I am basing it on the femur length that is described from the paper which is 50 or so cm if I remember correctly? So that is for the reference. Is my reconstruction good enough to be put in the Koleken page? If the human scale is jarring or say "unartistic" and inaccurate, I can just omit it from the image... Thank you very much as always and sorry for my bad english!
The foot claws look overly curved, and like they're reaching below the line of the feet themselves, which would be impossible. Dinosaur palaeoart should be posted to
WP:Dinoart, by the way.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah I guess you are right. I just realized it is too curvy..
Oh I didn't aware that there is a page dedicated to dinosaur paleoart review.. Thank you for both of you guys input! I will not upload it then if there are some major issues..
DD (
talk)
01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Aw how could I forget about that paper.. For the right foot, yes I made it to looks like its just about to lift from the ground
DD (
talk)
01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that the "official" skeletal diagram was for whatever reason not created with a scale bar(‽) (and wasn't actually published in the paper) and no size estimate seems to be given in the paper, the human scale seems to fall under original research. -
SlvrHwk (
talk)
17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
two pterosaur holotypes
Ordosipterus planignathus
Caviramus schesaplanensis
Just quick illustrations of the type specimens, not much that I expect to be controversial but putting up for review in case anyone has comments.
Skye McDavid (
talk)
22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply