![]() | 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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I found this Inostrancevia reconstruction at Wikimedia Commons. Artistically, it looks better than Bogdanov's reconstruction (which is now used in the article), but I'm not sure about the background. Any comments? HFoxii ( talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, are any of the skeletal mounts inaccurate? Monsieur X ( talk) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding this Microraptor recon to the article, but I figured I'd upload it here first to see if there's any tweaks I should make to make it more accurate. Thoughts? Entelognathus ( talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Based on 3d model in the new paper. As I can only get figures and not the paper itself, I can't figure out what the bone in purple is supposed to be as it isn't labelled in any of the figures, so I've left it blank for now. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
So my old restoration [1] of Prorubidgea is now kind of outdated, since that genus has since become a synonym of Aelurognathus, and the specimen I based it on [2] appears to have a somewhat deformed skull that doesn't match the latest reconstruction of the skull of Aelurognathus. Since we already have other Aelurognathus restorations, and it appears only three gorgonopsian genera lack restorations here, I thought it would be a good idea to reshape it into Nochnitsa, which its deformed skull-shape matches much better than Aelurognathus anyway. Here [3] is the first attempt at reshaping (shape partially based on this diagram [4]), will make the claws larger and other things too, any thoughts? I've removed traces of hair (and eggs) from the original version, which may be iffy. Pinging MWAK, who commented on the original years ago. There were some concerns about this not being a plausible resting posture for a stem-mammal, but let's just say it's getting up from lying down... FunkMonk ( talk) 03:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Checking for approval/input on this skeletal diagram of Toyotamaphimeia based on the holotype specimen (as I am currently overhauling that article). As the disclaimer says the ribs are not figured due to the fact that the description of the animals anatomy does not figure them in lateral view and mounts, while overall not always a great reference, also don't really have any lateral views of their ribs. The broken jaw and foot represent pathologies present in the holotype.
UPDATE: got in contact with someone who managed to provide a reference for the dorsal ribs in lateral view, image has been updated accordingly
Armin Reindl (
talk)
13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have updated my P. brasiliensis diagram, but now I have covered the DGM 527-R specimen based on its new description and the silhouette has been revised to have the proportions of a Caiman latirostris and an Aligator mississippiensis, this revision was done with the help of Jão. But anyway, do you have any thoughts on how I could improve the diagram?
Because Aureliano et al. (2015) uses the proportions of Caiman latirostris for their calculations due to phylogenetic proximity. -- User:Megaraptor-The-Allo 12 Setember 2021 (UTC)
The shell of Plectronoceras had chambers and a siphuncle, which are structures for maintaining buoyancy, so it obviously wasn't a snail-like crawler like depicted here. The pinhole-type eye is probably correct, but it should have ten, roughly equal length arms and a siphon. Carnoferox ( talk) 18:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that we had three restorations of the same species of Nothrotheriops, N. shastensis, so I decided to just relabel mine as the smaller, less famous species, N. texanus, as I don't think their differences would be externally visible, but feel free to point out if I'm wrong, I'm trying to track down the original article. But since my restoration has been heavily modified since it was first reviewed here, and since the two others have never been reviewed, I thought it would be good to post them here. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I had forgotten that I had uploaded some of Nobu Tamura's artwork. Any thoughts on these restorations? Monsieur X ( talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead & removed the whiskers from all Bauria restorations, as well as hid their front teeth. Monsieur X ( talk) 04:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Since the taxonomic revision of Metriorhynchus has left the article without any life reconstructions, I made this one of M. brevirostris, based largely on related taxa. Mettiina ( talk) 14:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The page Homo longi notably has no reconstruction or image of the fossil besides the poorly-traced image of the skull used as the header. Is the file File:Homo longi NT.jpg accurate enough to be used on the page? Are there any major issues with it? Di (they-them) ( talk) 20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I know we mainly deal with prehistoric reptiles here, so maybe it will be hard to judge this drawing of an obscure, modern bird, but I did a sketch of the recently extinct Rodrigues night heron eating a Rodrigues day gecko, based on photos of living relatives and the bones [9] (will colour it later, probably based on published restorations like this [10]). Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there any scientific issue with File:Obamadon gracilis known fossil material.svg? Is it suitable enough for the page? The centimeter was made to-scale with File:Obamadon gracilis jaw fossil.jpg, so it is an accurate scale. Di (they-them) ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, my first mammal paleoart submission for Wikipedia, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTMTheMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) .
Here is a recently uploaded paleoecological restoration by SmirnovaNataliaArt demonstrating the hunt of the Clidastes propython for Ichthyornis dispar. HFoxii ( talk) 03:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Asking for approval for this skeletal reconstruction of the mekosuchine Kalthifrons to more or less complete my work on its respective article, the general shape of missing elements and sutures is derived from the work of Yates and Pledge (2017) with an additional attempt to depict a hypothetical uncrushed depiction of the skull Armin Reindl ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't intend to use it any time soon given that the creative commons figures from Ristevski et al. have that covered in the article, but I'd still rather get the review out right away regardless. Depicted are Paludirex vincenti and Paludirex gracilis, proportions are based on figures by Ristevski et al. Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
skull recon of Astorgosuchus, I based the general shape vaguely around Asiatosuchus germanicus and the featured material is the holotype material as figured in 1912 by Pilgrim done to finally complete the article which I recently worked on Armin Reindl ( talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Let me know there are any issues with this Aysheaia. PaleoEquii ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Bothriodon currently has no reconstructions on the Wiki, even appears to lack its own category on Wikimedia, so I uploaded the portrait I made based on a 3D scan of the skull. Mettiina ( talk) 08:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
New digital life restoration of cryptoclidid plesiosaur Ophthalmothule cryostea. HFoxii ( talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Reconstruction of Ophthalmosaurus icenicus, based on the skeletal reconstruction by Scott Hartman, the illustrations provided in Moon and Kirton (2018), and with loose reference from the soft tissue preserved in Aegirosaurus leptospondylus. Fishboy86164577 ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
On the page Elasmotherium, there are several reconstructions that depict it with a large, modern rhinoceros-like horn, which has been accepted for a long time. However, a recent paper by Titov et al. ( https://zmmu.msu.ru/rjt/articles/ther20_2_173-182.pdf) suggests that this is inaccurate and that Elasmotherium had a much smaller horn. It's also worth noting the depictions in Kapova Cave that show the animal with a small horn. As for the cave art on the page ( File:Elasmotherium cave art.jpg), I believe that the current consensus is that it is a depiction of Coelodonta. So should the images on the page with the apparently outdated reconstructions be removed? Should reconstructions with a large horn be tagged with the inaccurate paleoart tag? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/watch/wZkN00vynhE
I commissioned File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer.png for use on the Wikipedia page Crash bandicoot (species). I also edited it to create File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer (edited into environment).png. When I asked Dr. Kenny Travouillon, the scientist that named the species, what it may have looked like, he said it was likely close to species from Isoodon and Perameles, so those were the references used in the commission. I believe that the image is probably as accurate as possible based on the advice given from the Dr., so I just post this here to get enough consensus to use it on the page. I also ask which one would be best used, the one without the environment or the one edited into the environment? Di (they-them) ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I recently drew this life restoration of Ornithoprion, but I wanted to make sure it was suitable to add to the page. The large eye is based on that of living chimaeras, and the unevenly forked tail is inspired by halfbeaks and ballyhoos, but I don't know if that might be considered too speculative. Are there any other glaring anatomical problems with this drawing? Gasmasque ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
A series of size comparisons of the taxa native to the middle Miocene Pebas Formation that I've recently been working on, which might come in handy for future expansions of the respective articles Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Reconstruction of the skull of Norellius. The article currently has no images. Based on figures in Conrad and Daza, 2015 ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2015.980891) Crushed parts of the skull are not depicted in this reconstruction. Feedback appreciated. P2N2222A ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The coloration of this Debeerius reconstruction does not match the patterns preserved in the holotype. The holotype has dark stripes running along the back and sides of the body. [14] Carnoferox ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This reconstruction of Dvinosaurus primus have external gills. Over the years Dvinosaurus is considered as neotenic, even in the paper from 2020 writes that is neotenic, [15] but it is strange that this paper doesn't referred about "Bystrow's Paradox". In 2011, like Gerrothorax, it is considered that adult of Dvinosaurus had internal gills, not external ones. [16] Is that study denied about Dvinosaurus? Should D. primus have external gills? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Most Meganisoptera (especially Meganeura) reconstructions on Wikipedia are based on traditional reconstructions with discontinuous eyes. However, this reconstruction is based on a poorly preserved fossil of a insect from probably related group, called Erasipteroides. [17] According to recent study, [18] Meganeurites gracilipes have the only fully preserved head in Meganisoptera. Fused large compound eyes and developed mandibles can be seen. The problem is that Meganeura itself did not preserved the head, but I think it's a good idea to use it because Meganeurites is the only reliable record that can be based on the status quo. (There is reconstruction of Meganeuropsis based on that in Wikipedia. [19]) There is also fossil of Meganeurula selysii that preserved the head, but that fossil have been found to have "over-prepared". Kukalová-Peck claims to have reconstructed the heads of Meganeura and Meganeurula based on fossils, with detailed drawings of it, [20] [21] but her papers are known for erroneous observations and over-interpretations and is not recommended for use as a source. [22] [23] [24] Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised that this had not been brought up already. This was posted back in May, showing several Manda Formation animals interacting over a photo background. One could take issue with the general cluttered composition, blurry and indistinct forms, and the usage of a photo of uncertain origin as the background. But for now I'll just focus on the scientific issues. The Mandasuchus has a huge head, short limbs, and no apparent osteoderms, looking more like an erythrosuchid than a basal paracrocodylomorph. The Kannemeyeria has a blunt skull, more reminiscent of Placerias than the actual animal. I think the Nyasasaurus and Teleocrater have some kind of fuzz, which isn’t necessarily a problem itself, but it’s difficult to interpret the art regardless. I don’t think any interpretation of the perspective on Cynognathus would make its big wonky banana teeth accurate. The decision to have Kannemeyeria and Cynognathus interacting with the rest of the group is a bit suspect, since they likely fall into an older biostratigraphic zone (though the age of the Manda Beds is still debated). I’m also not sure how accurate the arid-looking background is, and whether it is acceptable under copyright. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The species lacks a proper life restoration surprisingly despite the rich fossil material we have. Restoration is primarily based on two specimens, the largely complete skeleton IRSNB 3119 and Lingham-Soliar's reconstruction of IRSNB 3127. Unlike typical mosasaurines, M. lemonnieri has a really long head-total length ratio. If Dollo (1892) is accurate in his measurements, this should be around 1:11. Looking to see if there's any anatomical issues I overlooked before adding to the Mosasaurus article. Macrophyseter | talk
New study of Arthropleura is published, that makes it as the largest arthropod ever lived. [25] But most of reconstructions, including one from the paper and all from Wikipedia, have problems with anatomy. Most of reconstructions make rounded sclerite as head, but it is possibly be a collum plate, and head should be under that. Also as Arthropleura is millipede, it is diplopodous, and Brauckmann (2017) [26] claims that should have 29 segments and 39 pairs of legs, similar to modern Polyxenida. Unpublished paper, Wilson (1999) [27] (needs EThOS account) shows the tail segment and collum with embayments, that is also seen in Microdecemplex, which is also described by WIlson. [28] collum with emnayments is also seen in this document. [29] But Brauckmann did not reconstructed the embayments, which he reconstructed as the placement of eyes in early study. There is possibility that embayments can be result of deformation, but I don't know, as there lacks documents about reconstruction of Arthropleura. The problem is that Brauckmann claims that Arthropleura and Eoarthropleura are sister of Polyxenida, and Microdecemplex is sister of Chilognatha, but Wilson claims that Arthropleuridea itself is siter of Chilognatha. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreviewed restorations. Not happy with the quality of the first restoration by Triangulum, the bark is just a flat texture, which is unrealistic, and given that this supposed to be a full-sized tree, the size of the individual scales (technically leaf bases) should be much smaller. The foliage and cones are also copied from photos of living conifers, and are unrealistic for a lycophyte. The second restorations by Falconaumanni's foliage also appears inaccurate. A proper restoration of mature aborescent lycophytes (Lepidodendron and kin) can be seen in figure 3 of Arborescent lycophyte growth in the late Carboniferous coal swamps (Open Access). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This is reconstruction of Revueltosaurus that is used in article, but it seems to be that needs rework. Recent study [31] shows that had much larger, longer body compared with skull, and on the tip of the tail, there should be club-like osteoderm. I'm not familiar with pseudosuchian, so I'll leave the decision to others though. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 13:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The scale of this reconstruction of Koolasuchus seems to be incorrect. When the height of a man is 180 cm, the length of the head of this Koolasuchus is close to 1 m, which is far from the actual value of about 65 cm. Probably the result of simply expanding the size of "total length of 5 m" from Siderops. Actually compared with fossil material of Koolasuchus [33] and full body skeleton of Siderops [34], it is suspicious that the value of 4-5 m in total length is reliable. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
My reconstructions of several bony fish from the Western Interior Seaway. I’ve noticed a lot of prehistoric fish restorations on wikipedia can be iffy anatomy-wise (missing fins, missing skull bones, shrinkwrapped soft tissue, etc.), so I hope these reconstructions can prove helpful for relevant articles. Fishboy86164577 ( talk) 17:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's a Mixosaurus cornalianus, based on the skeletal diagram in Renesto et al. (2020). Currently the image is uncolored, but I thought I'd post it here before coloring it as it will be easier to fix earlier on. How does it look? -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Largest specimen. Canine exposure is still a possibility. Eotyrannu5-Returns ( talk) 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Full body and skull reconstruction for Brachiosuchus to add to its page. The proportions for the body are mostly based on Dyrosaurus maghrebensis and Congosaurus, while the skull reconstruction takes cues from Dyrosaurus, Arambourgisuchus as well as elements of more basal taxa like Cerrejonisuchus and Anthracosuchus (the later of which I restored previously) Armin Reindl ( talk) 12:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I created File:Homo sapiens VS Arctotherium angustidens size comparison.svg, is there any issue with the image in terms of accuracy? Is it suitable to be used on the Arctotherium page? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This Chinlea looks like having too long body compared with actual fossil specimen [36] and closely related Parnaibaia. Also, shape of tail fin is not acceptable for coelacanths I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I made this piece in IbisPaint, sorry if it looks kinda rushed or something. Thoughts?
Looks a bit rough but still in the page. I am not good at anatomy of Euparkeriidae, but do someone have opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have been reviewed. Currently used in the Lava mouse article. A skeletal reconstruction (minus the tail) can be seen here (Open access) in case anybody wants to try and judge the proportions. The genus has been shown to be nested within Mus so living members of that genus can be used to judge life appearance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The page Mcqueenoceras has no image, and there is a file ( File:"Mcqueenoceras cariniferum" is an extinct cephalopod (a member of the group including squids and octopi) that lived during the (12feda3c-f838-4f3e-984c-eadb8cb13e7f).png on Commons of a restoration made by the US National Parks Service. Is this image suitable for the page? Di (they-them) ( talk) 11:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I made an additional reconstruction of Dunkleosteus terrelli to replace some of the outdated artwork on the page (the image that includes the size comparison). Let me know if there are any issues. PaleoEquii ( talk) 08:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
We should see about numbers of foreleg fingers of temnospondyl, especially for Metoposaurus and Capitosauria. According to this study, [42] it seems that Metoposaurus (Not Metoposauridae, as Dutuitosaurus had four fingers) and Capitosaur temnospondyls had evidence of pentadactyly of the manus, unlike other temnospondyls like Eryops. For example, on these reconstruction, only Cyclotosaurus have five fingers on the manus, but not for Metoposaurus. I think there are other reconstruction that have same issues. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 08:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
updated restoration of C. fyleri based on more modern anatomical knowledge and phylogenetic placement to replace the out of date restoration on the current cladoselache page EvolutionIncarnate ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I found this Inostrancevia reconstruction at Wikimedia Commons. Artistically, it looks better than Bogdanov's reconstruction (which is now used in the article), but I'm not sure about the background. Any comments? HFoxii ( talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, are any of the skeletal mounts inaccurate? Monsieur X ( talk) 17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding this Microraptor recon to the article, but I figured I'd upload it here first to see if there's any tweaks I should make to make it more accurate. Thoughts? Entelognathus ( talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Based on 3d model in the new paper. As I can only get figures and not the paper itself, I can't figure out what the bone in purple is supposed to be as it isn't labelled in any of the figures, so I've left it blank for now. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
So my old restoration [1] of Prorubidgea is now kind of outdated, since that genus has since become a synonym of Aelurognathus, and the specimen I based it on [2] appears to have a somewhat deformed skull that doesn't match the latest reconstruction of the skull of Aelurognathus. Since we already have other Aelurognathus restorations, and it appears only three gorgonopsian genera lack restorations here, I thought it would be a good idea to reshape it into Nochnitsa, which its deformed skull-shape matches much better than Aelurognathus anyway. Here [3] is the first attempt at reshaping (shape partially based on this diagram [4]), will make the claws larger and other things too, any thoughts? I've removed traces of hair (and eggs) from the original version, which may be iffy. Pinging MWAK, who commented on the original years ago. There were some concerns about this not being a plausible resting posture for a stem-mammal, but let's just say it's getting up from lying down... FunkMonk ( talk) 03:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Checking for approval/input on this skeletal diagram of Toyotamaphimeia based on the holotype specimen (as I am currently overhauling that article). As the disclaimer says the ribs are not figured due to the fact that the description of the animals anatomy does not figure them in lateral view and mounts, while overall not always a great reference, also don't really have any lateral views of their ribs. The broken jaw and foot represent pathologies present in the holotype.
UPDATE: got in contact with someone who managed to provide a reference for the dorsal ribs in lateral view, image has been updated accordingly
Armin Reindl (
talk)
13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have updated my P. brasiliensis diagram, but now I have covered the DGM 527-R specimen based on its new description and the silhouette has been revised to have the proportions of a Caiman latirostris and an Aligator mississippiensis, this revision was done with the help of Jão. But anyway, do you have any thoughts on how I could improve the diagram?
Because Aureliano et al. (2015) uses the proportions of Caiman latirostris for their calculations due to phylogenetic proximity. -- User:Megaraptor-The-Allo 12 Setember 2021 (UTC)
The shell of Plectronoceras had chambers and a siphuncle, which are structures for maintaining buoyancy, so it obviously wasn't a snail-like crawler like depicted here. The pinhole-type eye is probably correct, but it should have ten, roughly equal length arms and a siphon. Carnoferox ( talk) 18:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that we had three restorations of the same species of Nothrotheriops, N. shastensis, so I decided to just relabel mine as the smaller, less famous species, N. texanus, as I don't think their differences would be externally visible, but feel free to point out if I'm wrong, I'm trying to track down the original article. But since my restoration has been heavily modified since it was first reviewed here, and since the two others have never been reviewed, I thought it would be good to post them here. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I had forgotten that I had uploaded some of Nobu Tamura's artwork. Any thoughts on these restorations? Monsieur X ( talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead & removed the whiskers from all Bauria restorations, as well as hid their front teeth. Monsieur X ( talk) 04:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Since the taxonomic revision of Metriorhynchus has left the article without any life reconstructions, I made this one of M. brevirostris, based largely on related taxa. Mettiina ( talk) 14:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The page Homo longi notably has no reconstruction or image of the fossil besides the poorly-traced image of the skull used as the header. Is the file File:Homo longi NT.jpg accurate enough to be used on the page? Are there any major issues with it? Di (they-them) ( talk) 20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I know we mainly deal with prehistoric reptiles here, so maybe it will be hard to judge this drawing of an obscure, modern bird, but I did a sketch of the recently extinct Rodrigues night heron eating a Rodrigues day gecko, based on photos of living relatives and the bones [9] (will colour it later, probably based on published restorations like this [10]). Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there any scientific issue with File:Obamadon gracilis known fossil material.svg? Is it suitable enough for the page? The centimeter was made to-scale with File:Obamadon gracilis jaw fossil.jpg, so it is an accurate scale. Di (they-them) ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, my first mammal paleoart submission for Wikipedia, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTMTheMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) .
Here is a recently uploaded paleoecological restoration by SmirnovaNataliaArt demonstrating the hunt of the Clidastes propython for Ichthyornis dispar. HFoxii ( talk) 03:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Asking for approval for this skeletal reconstruction of the mekosuchine Kalthifrons to more or less complete my work on its respective article, the general shape of missing elements and sutures is derived from the work of Yates and Pledge (2017) with an additional attempt to depict a hypothetical uncrushed depiction of the skull Armin Reindl ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't intend to use it any time soon given that the creative commons figures from Ristevski et al. have that covered in the article, but I'd still rather get the review out right away regardless. Depicted are Paludirex vincenti and Paludirex gracilis, proportions are based on figures by Ristevski et al. Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
skull recon of Astorgosuchus, I based the general shape vaguely around Asiatosuchus germanicus and the featured material is the holotype material as figured in 1912 by Pilgrim done to finally complete the article which I recently worked on Armin Reindl ( talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Let me know there are any issues with this Aysheaia. PaleoEquii ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Bothriodon currently has no reconstructions on the Wiki, even appears to lack its own category on Wikimedia, so I uploaded the portrait I made based on a 3D scan of the skull. Mettiina ( talk) 08:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
New digital life restoration of cryptoclidid plesiosaur Ophthalmothule cryostea. HFoxii ( talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Reconstruction of Ophthalmosaurus icenicus, based on the skeletal reconstruction by Scott Hartman, the illustrations provided in Moon and Kirton (2018), and with loose reference from the soft tissue preserved in Aegirosaurus leptospondylus. Fishboy86164577 ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
On the page Elasmotherium, there are several reconstructions that depict it with a large, modern rhinoceros-like horn, which has been accepted for a long time. However, a recent paper by Titov et al. ( https://zmmu.msu.ru/rjt/articles/ther20_2_173-182.pdf) suggests that this is inaccurate and that Elasmotherium had a much smaller horn. It's also worth noting the depictions in Kapova Cave that show the animal with a small horn. As for the cave art on the page ( File:Elasmotherium cave art.jpg), I believe that the current consensus is that it is a depiction of Coelodonta. So should the images on the page with the apparently outdated reconstructions be removed? Should reconstructions with a large horn be tagged with the inaccurate paleoart tag? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/watch/wZkN00vynhE
I commissioned File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer.png for use on the Wikipedia page Crash bandicoot (species). I also edited it to create File:Crash bandicoot paleoart by Lilly Moyer (edited into environment).png. When I asked Dr. Kenny Travouillon, the scientist that named the species, what it may have looked like, he said it was likely close to species from Isoodon and Perameles, so those were the references used in the commission. I believe that the image is probably as accurate as possible based on the advice given from the Dr., so I just post this here to get enough consensus to use it on the page. I also ask which one would be best used, the one without the environment or the one edited into the environment? Di (they-them) ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I recently drew this life restoration of Ornithoprion, but I wanted to make sure it was suitable to add to the page. The large eye is based on that of living chimaeras, and the unevenly forked tail is inspired by halfbeaks and ballyhoos, but I don't know if that might be considered too speculative. Are there any other glaring anatomical problems with this drawing? Gasmasque ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
A series of size comparisons of the taxa native to the middle Miocene Pebas Formation that I've recently been working on, which might come in handy for future expansions of the respective articles Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Reconstruction of the skull of Norellius. The article currently has no images. Based on figures in Conrad and Daza, 2015 ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2015.980891) Crushed parts of the skull are not depicted in this reconstruction. Feedback appreciated. P2N2222A ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The coloration of this Debeerius reconstruction does not match the patterns preserved in the holotype. The holotype has dark stripes running along the back and sides of the body. [14] Carnoferox ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This reconstruction of Dvinosaurus primus have external gills. Over the years Dvinosaurus is considered as neotenic, even in the paper from 2020 writes that is neotenic, [15] but it is strange that this paper doesn't referred about "Bystrow's Paradox". In 2011, like Gerrothorax, it is considered that adult of Dvinosaurus had internal gills, not external ones. [16] Is that study denied about Dvinosaurus? Should D. primus have external gills? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Most Meganisoptera (especially Meganeura) reconstructions on Wikipedia are based on traditional reconstructions with discontinuous eyes. However, this reconstruction is based on a poorly preserved fossil of a insect from probably related group, called Erasipteroides. [17] According to recent study, [18] Meganeurites gracilipes have the only fully preserved head in Meganisoptera. Fused large compound eyes and developed mandibles can be seen. The problem is that Meganeura itself did not preserved the head, but I think it's a good idea to use it because Meganeurites is the only reliable record that can be based on the status quo. (There is reconstruction of Meganeuropsis based on that in Wikipedia. [19]) There is also fossil of Meganeurula selysii that preserved the head, but that fossil have been found to have "over-prepared". Kukalová-Peck claims to have reconstructed the heads of Meganeura and Meganeurula based on fossils, with detailed drawings of it, [20] [21] but her papers are known for erroneous observations and over-interpretations and is not recommended for use as a source. [22] [23] [24] Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 23:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised that this had not been brought up already. This was posted back in May, showing several Manda Formation animals interacting over a photo background. One could take issue with the general cluttered composition, blurry and indistinct forms, and the usage of a photo of uncertain origin as the background. But for now I'll just focus on the scientific issues. The Mandasuchus has a huge head, short limbs, and no apparent osteoderms, looking more like an erythrosuchid than a basal paracrocodylomorph. The Kannemeyeria has a blunt skull, more reminiscent of Placerias than the actual animal. I think the Nyasasaurus and Teleocrater have some kind of fuzz, which isn’t necessarily a problem itself, but it’s difficult to interpret the art regardless. I don’t think any interpretation of the perspective on Cynognathus would make its big wonky banana teeth accurate. The decision to have Kannemeyeria and Cynognathus interacting with the rest of the group is a bit suspect, since they likely fall into an older biostratigraphic zone (though the age of the Manda Beds is still debated). I’m also not sure how accurate the arid-looking background is, and whether it is acceptable under copyright. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The species lacks a proper life restoration surprisingly despite the rich fossil material we have. Restoration is primarily based on two specimens, the largely complete skeleton IRSNB 3119 and Lingham-Soliar's reconstruction of IRSNB 3127. Unlike typical mosasaurines, M. lemonnieri has a really long head-total length ratio. If Dollo (1892) is accurate in his measurements, this should be around 1:11. Looking to see if there's any anatomical issues I overlooked before adding to the Mosasaurus article. Macrophyseter | talk
New study of Arthropleura is published, that makes it as the largest arthropod ever lived. [25] But most of reconstructions, including one from the paper and all from Wikipedia, have problems with anatomy. Most of reconstructions make rounded sclerite as head, but it is possibly be a collum plate, and head should be under that. Also as Arthropleura is millipede, it is diplopodous, and Brauckmann (2017) [26] claims that should have 29 segments and 39 pairs of legs, similar to modern Polyxenida. Unpublished paper, Wilson (1999) [27] (needs EThOS account) shows the tail segment and collum with embayments, that is also seen in Microdecemplex, which is also described by WIlson. [28] collum with emnayments is also seen in this document. [29] But Brauckmann did not reconstructed the embayments, which he reconstructed as the placement of eyes in early study. There is possibility that embayments can be result of deformation, but I don't know, as there lacks documents about reconstruction of Arthropleura. The problem is that Brauckmann claims that Arthropleura and Eoarthropleura are sister of Polyxenida, and Microdecemplex is sister of Chilognatha, but Wilson claims that Arthropleuridea itself is siter of Chilognatha. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Unreviewed restorations. Not happy with the quality of the first restoration by Triangulum, the bark is just a flat texture, which is unrealistic, and given that this supposed to be a full-sized tree, the size of the individual scales (technically leaf bases) should be much smaller. The foliage and cones are also copied from photos of living conifers, and are unrealistic for a lycophyte. The second restorations by Falconaumanni's foliage also appears inaccurate. A proper restoration of mature aborescent lycophytes (Lepidodendron and kin) can be seen in figure 3 of Arborescent lycophyte growth in the late Carboniferous coal swamps (Open Access). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This is reconstruction of Revueltosaurus that is used in article, but it seems to be that needs rework. Recent study [31] shows that had much larger, longer body compared with skull, and on the tip of the tail, there should be club-like osteoderm. I'm not familiar with pseudosuchian, so I'll leave the decision to others though. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 13:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The scale of this reconstruction of Koolasuchus seems to be incorrect. When the height of a man is 180 cm, the length of the head of this Koolasuchus is close to 1 m, which is far from the actual value of about 65 cm. Probably the result of simply expanding the size of "total length of 5 m" from Siderops. Actually compared with fossil material of Koolasuchus [33] and full body skeleton of Siderops [34], it is suspicious that the value of 4-5 m in total length is reliable. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
My reconstructions of several bony fish from the Western Interior Seaway. I’ve noticed a lot of prehistoric fish restorations on wikipedia can be iffy anatomy-wise (missing fins, missing skull bones, shrinkwrapped soft tissue, etc.), so I hope these reconstructions can prove helpful for relevant articles. Fishboy86164577 ( talk) 17:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's a Mixosaurus cornalianus, based on the skeletal diagram in Renesto et al. (2020). Currently the image is uncolored, but I thought I'd post it here before coloring it as it will be easier to fix earlier on. How does it look? -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Largest specimen. Canine exposure is still a possibility. Eotyrannu5-Returns ( talk) 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Full body and skull reconstruction for Brachiosuchus to add to its page. The proportions for the body are mostly based on Dyrosaurus maghrebensis and Congosaurus, while the skull reconstruction takes cues from Dyrosaurus, Arambourgisuchus as well as elements of more basal taxa like Cerrejonisuchus and Anthracosuchus (the later of which I restored previously) Armin Reindl ( talk) 12:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I created File:Homo sapiens VS Arctotherium angustidens size comparison.svg, is there any issue with the image in terms of accuracy? Is it suitable to be used on the Arctotherium page? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This Chinlea looks like having too long body compared with actual fossil specimen [36] and closely related Parnaibaia. Also, shape of tail fin is not acceptable for coelacanths I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I made this piece in IbisPaint, sorry if it looks kinda rushed or something. Thoughts?
Looks a bit rough but still in the page. I am not good at anatomy of Euparkeriidae, but do someone have opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have been reviewed. Currently used in the Lava mouse article. A skeletal reconstruction (minus the tail) can be seen here (Open access) in case anybody wants to try and judge the proportions. The genus has been shown to be nested within Mus so living members of that genus can be used to judge life appearance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The page Mcqueenoceras has no image, and there is a file ( File:"Mcqueenoceras cariniferum" is an extinct cephalopod (a member of the group including squids and octopi) that lived during the (12feda3c-f838-4f3e-984c-eadb8cb13e7f).png on Commons of a restoration made by the US National Parks Service. Is this image suitable for the page? Di (they-them) ( talk) 11:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I made an additional reconstruction of Dunkleosteus terrelli to replace some of the outdated artwork on the page (the image that includes the size comparison). Let me know if there are any issues. PaleoEquii ( talk) 08:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
We should see about numbers of foreleg fingers of temnospondyl, especially for Metoposaurus and Capitosauria. According to this study, [42] it seems that Metoposaurus (Not Metoposauridae, as Dutuitosaurus had four fingers) and Capitosaur temnospondyls had evidence of pentadactyly of the manus, unlike other temnospondyls like Eryops. For example, on these reconstruction, only Cyclotosaurus have five fingers on the manus, but not for Metoposaurus. I think there are other reconstruction that have same issues. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 08:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
updated restoration of C. fyleri based on more modern anatomical knowledge and phylogenetic placement to replace the out of date restoration on the current cladoselache page EvolutionIncarnate ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)