This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've made this image of Brontoscorpio with size estimation based on Kjellesvig-Waering (1972). The only evident part (free finger of right pedipalp, does anyone know the specimen number?) highlighted in dark grey, while the remaining parts were based on Vaejovis. It might be better to use a close-related taxon as reference, but I can't find any further taxonomic interpretation on Brontoscorpio. So I went after Vaejovis, an extant genus which had been selected as a reference for size estimation by the same paper. Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, TheRealLTG here. I've uploaded my first life restoration to Wikimedia Commons, but i think this might be admittedly inaccurate. Can you give me a little help on finding inaccuracies on my restoration of Albumares brunsae? TheRealLTG talk 03:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've created this image of the preserved upper snout of the Peloneustes holotype as part of my expansion of the Peloneustes article. This diagram's based on the photos in Ketchum & Benson (2011). Any thoughts on this? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made two diagrams of eurypterid opercula, with terminologies follow those of Lamsdell (2011) and Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017). For reconstruction, the ventral view follow figures from Lamsdell (2011) with some comparison to Braddy & Dunlop (1997). While the sagittal section follow those of Lamsdell et al. (2020), with tagmosis based on Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017) (hence the dismatch of opisthosomal somite and tergite count). The reconstruction of Lamsdell et al. (2020) included internal organs and articulation between sternites and opercula, but I tentatively omit it in my diagram since I can't find any significant reports on their occurence.
The chasmataspidid size comparison were based on the maximum size measurement/estimation from the original description or redescription of each included species (references listed in summary). I did not include Nahlyostaspis, Skrytyaspis and Kiaeria in the diagram, as these fragmental taxa still lacking any full-bodied reconstruction (nor any estimation of body length?). Since most of the original reconstruction did not including appendages, I choose to omit it all at once to avoid any uncertainties (also a better view on their unique body outline). Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 00:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this Theosodon size comparison by Nobu Tamura is wrong. I compared ilium in this paper [4] and this [5] skeleton image, but it can't be too large like this image. Also, in "Illustrated encyclopedia of extinct mammals" (by Yukimitsu Tomida. 30 January 2011.), shoulder height of Theosodon is 1 meter, much smaller than shown in this image. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made this image of the trunk appendage of Cucumericrus decoratus based on the interpretive drawing by Hou et al. 1995, since this species is problematic as a radiodont but still lacking any media on Wikipedia and Commons. Recently I'm not going to label any of the structures due to the different interpretations of this appendage as either dinocaridid or euarthropod-type (component and commonly-used terminology between this two appendage types are quite different, see this for summary). Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Corrections to this image mostly already been done, all except for the tubercles on the neural spines. I've drawn them in now, and just wanted to check that they fit the image and don't appear stylistically out of place or anything like that. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Redrawn from figure 2 of Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
So the first version was too cartoony so I decided to use pencil instead. I don't have the means to scan images so I had to use my phone camera. It's based on the female specimen DNH-7, and I haven't added hair yet. Any comments before I do, because it'll be hard to change anything after User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This image was added to the page of Necromantis. This image seems to depict Necromantis attacking a Gigantornis chick, but neither has fossils found in the area and it is unknown if they have met. Also, since the skull of Necromantis is about 3.2 cm, the depiction of the Gigantornis chick seems too small. What do you think about this? -- Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey guys - I'm unsure if this is how to reply to these, so bear with me (I;m relatively new here). I appreciate and agree with your fedback - I didn't do as much research as I could have done. I originally mistook Necromantis for an actual African genus, Witwatia, so that explains why the two are together where they otherwise wouldn't be. Would you like me to either (a) remove the artwork, (b) replace it with more up-to-date artwork, or (c) re-edit it to a generic Anseriforme? Thanks.
Mystriosuchus only has some vintage paleoart on its main page. How scientifically accurate are these three modern restorations? Monsieur X ( talk) 13:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This image was created without knowledge of the skull of Edestus. However, in 2019, a complete skull of Edestus was described, and it looks very different to the one in the drawing see Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition (open access). As such I request that someone redraws the skull from the figures shown in the paper. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it myself based on the 3D model in the paper. As can be seen, this is still pretty bizarre, but more plausible than previous restorations. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a Xinpusaurus size chart, depicting the holotypes of the two generally accepted species. X. xingyiensis has the dubious distinction of being Guizhouichthyosaurus food. I wasn't sure if the limbs should be paddle-like or webbed, so I went with the latter because it would be easier to change to the other. Comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 17:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Kairuku in this image looks too tall. In fact, its height should be in the range of 120-130 cm. If a man is 180 cm, it doesn't fit the measurement. -- Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that this might be my first freshwater marine reptile size comparison. Here's the newly described Albertan elasmosaurid Fluvionectes in size chart form, with the length estimates matching those in the paper pretty well. Comments? Also, does anyone know of a Dakosaurus skeletal? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of Lindwurmia, which doesn't even have an article yet! I tried a new layout this time, how does it look? Comments on the plesiosaur? I've not been super productive this month, but I'll try and make a dinosaur (and update my Savannasaurus' skull), as well as a chart for Peloneustes (does anyone know the specimen number of the mounted skeleton at GPIT?), over the next few days. Also, if no one has any objections, I should probably start adding some of the August and November size charts to their respective articles. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
With the 2014 paper revealing that sthenurine kangaroos were bipeds that walked tips of their "toes", it's probably best to review & eventually modify these pics. Monsieur X ( talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that are no images of Xenorhinotherium. No fossils, skeletals or paleoart. Despite possibly being the trunked creature seen in the pictographs from Colombia's Serranía de La Lindosa rock formation. Are there any fossil images that fall under the public domain or are licensed under Creative Commons? Monsieur X ( talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the gif previously used in the article was a copyvio, which spurred me to create the diagram. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
We discussed this a bit on my talk page, but it turns out that both I and Hemiauchenia were working on crafting Helicoprion skull diagrams independently for the article. I don't want to make this feel like a competition, but I still thought that we should discuss and compare our diagrams further. Here is my skull diagram, which incorporates a speculative chondrocranium (albeit one with a general shape which is fairly well-supported by phylogenetic bracketing). My rationale was that by solely illustrating the jaw structures, we may unintentionally confuse readers who are not aware of the specialized skull structure of chondricthyans, and therefore may mistake the palatoquadrate for the skull. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, this life restoration by DiBgd may not be completely accurate, though it does come close. Helicoprion postcrania is not fully known, but other eugeneodonts are known to have five or six shark-like gill slits, not a fleshy chimaera-like operculum. That may have simply been an over-correction based on the confirmation that eugeneodonts were holocephalans. The tail also looks a bit thin relative to the powerful lamnid-like keeled tail of eugeneodonts like Fadenia and Romerodus. Would someone be able to make a few edits if possible? Other options would be just to remove it (since we also have the Stanton Fink reconstruction without the same issues), or it could be replaced with a new life restoration. I have a few off-Wikipedia friends who are very knowledgeable about eugeneodonts, and they may be willing to give some of their art a CC BY license if asked nicely. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that FbP has gotten the skull down. I thought I would do the jaw motion. The figure is based on those in Ramsey and Colleagues 2015, perhaps a bit too closely. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Based off figure 7 in Ramsay and Colleagues 2015, I didn't include the interior revolutions of the whorl because I thought that they were not necessary. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
First thalattosuchian! Cricosaurus is really-welled preserved. I'm not super well-versed in thalattosuchian anatomy, so I do have some questions regarding some aspects of my silhouette, especially the amount of flesh on the caudal fin, the flexibility of the hindlimbs, and whether or not metriorhynchids had external claws. Comments? Next up will likely be Dakosaurus, assuming a bunch of plesiosaurs don't beat it. As suggested by Lythronax, I'll probably use the postcranium of Cricosaurus for Dakosaurus, although after seeing how slender Cricosaurus is, it'll probably need some beefing up to accomodate the macroraptorial nature of Dakosaurus. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Does this restoration meet your quality and accuracy standards? This is my first time drawing paleo-art for Wikipedia.-- Gasmasque ( talk) 23:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Gyrosteus article has been updated recently and yet still does not have any art now that the old (and as I understand it, outdated) art that was on the page prior has been removed. I would like to suggest adding this piece depicting Gyrosteus and Hauffiosaurus by Fishboy86164577 as a possible replacement. Pryftan213 ( talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I did both of these freehand using the figures in Dupret 2004 for reference. The linework and and the exact outline vary substantiantially from the originals, though there are substantial differences between the left and right halves of Dupret's original drawings anyway, which in some cases vary contacts between bones, so I think this is fine. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thought I would do Palaeopleurosaurus as well. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
the current reconstruction by fink differs substantially from the known skeletal and non skeletal elements of the animal so i am providing an alternative reconstruction based more on living mitsukurina but also the well preserved fossils of S. lewisii
Restoration of the skull of the Menat Formation specimen of Lazarussuchus After this figure in Matsumoto, R.; Buffetaut, E.; Escuillie, F.; Hervet, S.; Evans, S. E. (2013). "New material of the choristodere Lazarussuchus (Diapsida, Choristodera) from the Paleocene of France". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 33 (2): 319. The original drawing was pretty wonky to begin with (at least in dorsal view). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Skull diagram of Champsosaurus lindoei based on figure 1 of Computed tomography analysis of the cranium of Champsosaurus lindoei and implications for the choristoderan neomorphic ossification (open access). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Realised that the diagram considered the parasphenoid and exoccipital the same bone, so I've distinguished them, I've also added the palatal dentition. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, a plesiosaur beat Dakosaurus. I've been sitting on this for awhile (more than a year), but it only came together properly recently (thanks to my understanding of plesiosaur anatomy improving). Comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Added to the Anteosaurus article by Bluedwarf without review. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's that time of year, new megalodon estimates... Perez et al. 2021 propose a method of estimating total length by using the sum of all the tooth crown widths.
[25] Using this technique, a large tooth produced an estimated range of 17.4 - 24.2 m, with the mean being 20.3 m. Here is a proposed update to the size chart.
[26]
However, there are a few issues to consider that might affect this size chart. Both Shimada 2019 and Perez et al. agree that using Shimada 2002 equations can produce wildly varying estimates, especially for the more posterior tooth positions. E.g. 11.6-41.1 m for different teeth of the same shark. This means that the 10.5 m average estimates by Pimiento & Balk 2015, which used the Shimada 2003 equations, is probably unreliable. Should it be included in the size chart?
Another issue is that the Perez et al. and Shimada techniques produce differing results. The Perez et al. estimates are generally larger than the anterior tooth equations. E.g. a shark that Shimada 2019 equation estimates at 12 m, the Perez et al. estimates 15.1-20.3 with a mean of 17.3 m. Having sharks estimated with both these techniques in the same size chart might be misleading to the viewer. Because of this, I've tried to clarify the techniques used in the image text. Any thoughts?
Steveoc 86 (
talk)
16:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've made this image of Brontoscorpio with size estimation based on Kjellesvig-Waering (1972). The only evident part (free finger of right pedipalp, does anyone know the specimen number?) highlighted in dark grey, while the remaining parts were based on Vaejovis. It might be better to use a close-related taxon as reference, but I can't find any further taxonomic interpretation on Brontoscorpio. So I went after Vaejovis, an extant genus which had been selected as a reference for size estimation by the same paper. Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, TheRealLTG here. I've uploaded my first life restoration to Wikimedia Commons, but i think this might be admittedly inaccurate. Can you give me a little help on finding inaccuracies on my restoration of Albumares brunsae? TheRealLTG talk 03:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've created this image of the preserved upper snout of the Peloneustes holotype as part of my expansion of the Peloneustes article. This diagram's based on the photos in Ketchum & Benson (2011). Any thoughts on this? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made two diagrams of eurypterid opercula, with terminologies follow those of Lamsdell (2011) and Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017). For reconstruction, the ventral view follow figures from Lamsdell (2011) with some comparison to Braddy & Dunlop (1997). While the sagittal section follow those of Lamsdell et al. (2020), with tagmosis based on Dunlop & Lamsdell (2017) (hence the dismatch of opisthosomal somite and tergite count). The reconstruction of Lamsdell et al. (2020) included internal organs and articulation between sternites and opercula, but I tentatively omit it in my diagram since I can't find any significant reports on their occurence.
The chasmataspidid size comparison were based on the maximum size measurement/estimation from the original description or redescription of each included species (references listed in summary). I did not include Nahlyostaspis, Skrytyaspis and Kiaeria in the diagram, as these fragmental taxa still lacking any full-bodied reconstruction (nor any estimation of body length?). Since most of the original reconstruction did not including appendages, I choose to omit it all at once to avoid any uncertainties (also a better view on their unique body outline). Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 00:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this Theosodon size comparison by Nobu Tamura is wrong. I compared ilium in this paper [4] and this [5] skeleton image, but it can't be too large like this image. Also, in "Illustrated encyclopedia of extinct mammals" (by Yukimitsu Tomida. 30 January 2011.), shoulder height of Theosodon is 1 meter, much smaller than shown in this image. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made this image of the trunk appendage of Cucumericrus decoratus based on the interpretive drawing by Hou et al. 1995, since this species is problematic as a radiodont but still lacking any media on Wikipedia and Commons. Recently I'm not going to label any of the structures due to the different interpretations of this appendage as either dinocaridid or euarthropod-type (component and commonly-used terminology between this two appendage types are quite different, see this for summary). Any thoughts? -- Junnn11 ( talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Corrections to this image mostly already been done, all except for the tubercles on the neural spines. I've drawn them in now, and just wanted to check that they fit the image and don't appear stylistically out of place or anything like that. DrawingDinosaurs ( talk | contribs) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Redrawn from figure 2 of Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
So the first version was too cartoony so I decided to use pencil instead. I don't have the means to scan images so I had to use my phone camera. It's based on the female specimen DNH-7, and I haven't added hair yet. Any comments before I do, because it'll be hard to change anything after User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This image was added to the page of Necromantis. This image seems to depict Necromantis attacking a Gigantornis chick, but neither has fossils found in the area and it is unknown if they have met. Also, since the skull of Necromantis is about 3.2 cm, the depiction of the Gigantornis chick seems too small. What do you think about this? -- Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey guys - I'm unsure if this is how to reply to these, so bear with me (I;m relatively new here). I appreciate and agree with your fedback - I didn't do as much research as I could have done. I originally mistook Necromantis for an actual African genus, Witwatia, so that explains why the two are together where they otherwise wouldn't be. Would you like me to either (a) remove the artwork, (b) replace it with more up-to-date artwork, or (c) re-edit it to a generic Anseriforme? Thanks.
Mystriosuchus only has some vintage paleoart on its main page. How scientifically accurate are these three modern restorations? Monsieur X ( talk) 13:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This image was created without knowledge of the skull of Edestus. However, in 2019, a complete skull of Edestus was described, and it looks very different to the one in the drawing see Saws, Scissors, and Sharks: Late Paleozoic Experimentation with Symphyseal Dentition (open access). As such I request that someone redraws the skull from the figures shown in the paper. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it myself based on the 3D model in the paper. As can be seen, this is still pretty bizarre, but more plausible than previous restorations. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a Xinpusaurus size chart, depicting the holotypes of the two generally accepted species. X. xingyiensis has the dubious distinction of being Guizhouichthyosaurus food. I wasn't sure if the limbs should be paddle-like or webbed, so I went with the latter because it would be easier to change to the other. Comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 17:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Kairuku in this image looks too tall. In fact, its height should be in the range of 120-130 cm. If a man is 180 cm, it doesn't fit the measurement. -- Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that this might be my first freshwater marine reptile size comparison. Here's the newly described Albertan elasmosaurid Fluvionectes in size chart form, with the length estimates matching those in the paper pretty well. Comments? Also, does anyone know of a Dakosaurus skeletal? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of Lindwurmia, which doesn't even have an article yet! I tried a new layout this time, how does it look? Comments on the plesiosaur? I've not been super productive this month, but I'll try and make a dinosaur (and update my Savannasaurus' skull), as well as a chart for Peloneustes (does anyone know the specimen number of the mounted skeleton at GPIT?), over the next few days. Also, if no one has any objections, I should probably start adding some of the August and November size charts to their respective articles. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
With the 2014 paper revealing that sthenurine kangaroos were bipeds that walked tips of their "toes", it's probably best to review & eventually modify these pics. Monsieur X ( talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that are no images of Xenorhinotherium. No fossils, skeletals or paleoart. Despite possibly being the trunked creature seen in the pictographs from Colombia's Serranía de La Lindosa rock formation. Are there any fossil images that fall under the public domain or are licensed under Creative Commons? Monsieur X ( talk) 14:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the gif previously used in the article was a copyvio, which spurred me to create the diagram. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
We discussed this a bit on my talk page, but it turns out that both I and Hemiauchenia were working on crafting Helicoprion skull diagrams independently for the article. I don't want to make this feel like a competition, but I still thought that we should discuss and compare our diagrams further. Here is my skull diagram, which incorporates a speculative chondrocranium (albeit one with a general shape which is fairly well-supported by phylogenetic bracketing). My rationale was that by solely illustrating the jaw structures, we may unintentionally confuse readers who are not aware of the specialized skull structure of chondricthyans, and therefore may mistake the palatoquadrate for the skull. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, this life restoration by DiBgd may not be completely accurate, though it does come close. Helicoprion postcrania is not fully known, but other eugeneodonts are known to have five or six shark-like gill slits, not a fleshy chimaera-like operculum. That may have simply been an over-correction based on the confirmation that eugeneodonts were holocephalans. The tail also looks a bit thin relative to the powerful lamnid-like keeled tail of eugeneodonts like Fadenia and Romerodus. Would someone be able to make a few edits if possible? Other options would be just to remove it (since we also have the Stanton Fink reconstruction without the same issues), or it could be replaced with a new life restoration. I have a few off-Wikipedia friends who are very knowledgeable about eugeneodonts, and they may be willing to give some of their art a CC BY license if asked nicely. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 04:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that FbP has gotten the skull down. I thought I would do the jaw motion. The figure is based on those in Ramsey and Colleagues 2015, perhaps a bit too closely. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Based off figure 7 in Ramsay and Colleagues 2015, I didn't include the interior revolutions of the whorl because I thought that they were not necessary. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
First thalattosuchian! Cricosaurus is really-welled preserved. I'm not super well-versed in thalattosuchian anatomy, so I do have some questions regarding some aspects of my silhouette, especially the amount of flesh on the caudal fin, the flexibility of the hindlimbs, and whether or not metriorhynchids had external claws. Comments? Next up will likely be Dakosaurus, assuming a bunch of plesiosaurs don't beat it. As suggested by Lythronax, I'll probably use the postcranium of Cricosaurus for Dakosaurus, although after seeing how slender Cricosaurus is, it'll probably need some beefing up to accomodate the macroraptorial nature of Dakosaurus. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Does this restoration meet your quality and accuracy standards? This is my first time drawing paleo-art for Wikipedia.-- Gasmasque ( talk) 23:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that the Gyrosteus article has been updated recently and yet still does not have any art now that the old (and as I understand it, outdated) art that was on the page prior has been removed. I would like to suggest adding this piece depicting Gyrosteus and Hauffiosaurus by Fishboy86164577 as a possible replacement. Pryftan213 ( talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I did both of these freehand using the figures in Dupret 2004 for reference. The linework and and the exact outline vary substantiantially from the originals, though there are substantial differences between the left and right halves of Dupret's original drawings anyway, which in some cases vary contacts between bones, so I think this is fine. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thought I would do Palaeopleurosaurus as well. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
the current reconstruction by fink differs substantially from the known skeletal and non skeletal elements of the animal so i am providing an alternative reconstruction based more on living mitsukurina but also the well preserved fossils of S. lewisii
Restoration of the skull of the Menat Formation specimen of Lazarussuchus After this figure in Matsumoto, R.; Buffetaut, E.; Escuillie, F.; Hervet, S.; Evans, S. E. (2013). "New material of the choristodere Lazarussuchus (Diapsida, Choristodera) from the Paleocene of France". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 33 (2): 319. The original drawing was pretty wonky to begin with (at least in dorsal view). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Skull diagram of Champsosaurus lindoei based on figure 1 of Computed tomography analysis of the cranium of Champsosaurus lindoei and implications for the choristoderan neomorphic ossification (open access). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Realised that the diagram considered the parasphenoid and exoccipital the same bone, so I've distinguished them, I've also added the palatal dentition. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, a plesiosaur beat Dakosaurus. I've been sitting on this for awhile (more than a year), but it only came together properly recently (thanks to my understanding of plesiosaur anatomy improving). Comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Added to the Anteosaurus article by Bluedwarf without review. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's that time of year, new megalodon estimates... Perez et al. 2021 propose a method of estimating total length by using the sum of all the tooth crown widths.
[25] Using this technique, a large tooth produced an estimated range of 17.4 - 24.2 m, with the mean being 20.3 m. Here is a proposed update to the size chart.
[26]
However, there are a few issues to consider that might affect this size chart. Both Shimada 2019 and Perez et al. agree that using Shimada 2002 equations can produce wildly varying estimates, especially for the more posterior tooth positions. E.g. 11.6-41.1 m for different teeth of the same shark. This means that the 10.5 m average estimates by Pimiento & Balk 2015, which used the Shimada 2003 equations, is probably unreliable. Should it be included in the size chart?
Another issue is that the Perez et al. and Shimada techniques produce differing results. The Perez et al. estimates are generally larger than the anterior tooth equations. E.g. a shark that Shimada 2019 equation estimates at 12 m, the Perez et al. estimates 15.1-20.3 with a mean of 17.3 m. Having sharks estimated with both these techniques in the same size chart might be misleading to the viewer. Because of this, I've tried to clarify the techniques used in the image text. Any thoughts?
Steveoc 86 (
talk)
16:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)