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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Illustration of the holotype of Potamornis based on figures in Elzanowski et al 2001 ( http://gspauldino.com/Avianquadrate.pdf) Corrections/feedback appreciated. P2N2222A ( talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As suggested by Lythronaxargestes, I made a reconstruction of the full skull based on Hesperornis. However, I am much less confident in the accuracy of this one. Feedback/corrections much appreciated. Hesperornis skull based on this and this. P2N2222A ( talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm about to expand the article on those animals, so I would like some feedback about the accuracy of those images drawn by Charles R. Knight in 1913, depicting Stegotherium tesselatum and Protypotherium australe. I'm absolutely not arguing for this artwork removal, as I'll definitely use it in the article and it's the only one we have about these species, but I don't know if I should talk about it as an "historic reconstruction", or as a regular one. Any thoughts on that ? Larrayal ( talk) 16:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
These models have never been reviewed before. Unfortunately, many of them have been lost and currently the author can only edit the latest ones (from the ones presented above, these are Baurusuchus and Carnotaurus). HFoxii ( talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello ! Sorry to come back this soon (I'm still working on Stegotherium, but a paywall has recently blocked a bit my progress, so I'm doing Vetelia as well. Here's an image I uploaded from "Barasoain, D.; Gonzalez Ruiz, L.R.; Tomassini, R.L.; Zurita, A.E.; Contreras, V.H. & Montalvo, C.I. (2021). "First phylogenetic analysis of the Miocene armadillo Vetelia reveals novel affinities with Tolypeutinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 66(3): S32–S46. doi:10.4202/app.00829.2020". The image is by Pedro Cuaranta, and was used in the article. (All of this being under CC-BY 4.0 naturally.) It was produced in 2020, a bit prior to the article realisation, by Pedro Cuaranta. The paper's goal is to assess Vetelia as a basal Tolypeutinae (a relative of the three-banded, naked-tailed, and giant armadillo). There's already four images of fossils belonging to the genus on the Commons, which can serve as references for assessment. Larrayal ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Size comparisons/skeletals for the Drazinda Formation (Eocene Pakistan) softshell turtles. The holotype of Drazinderetes tethyensis and the giant indetermined trionychid. Sizes are based on the minimum and maximum estimate of the paper (about 20% cartilage and 45% cartilage respectively based on Apalone and Dogania subplana).
I've done this Dracopristis reconstruction based on the advice of EvolutionIncarnate and wanted to make sure there weren't any further problems with it. Gasmasque ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This image is used as Silurian fauna in multiple articles. But as far as I have seen, Holoptychius or its relatives are from Devonian, although other ones, relatives of Pteraspis, Cephalaspis are known from Silurian, but still more common in Devonian, so this image is more likely to be Devonian and unacceptable to use in article about Silurian. What do you think about that? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the head shape a bit and the amount of toes being wrong. Is there anything else I need to fix? If so, please tell me. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This file is on six Wikipedia pages and has never been reviewed. The skull has a jugal-quadratojugal contact, which, according to Ezcurra et al. (2016), is non-existent in this species. In addition, the tissue covering at least the premaxilla is not in agreement with what is present in the literature. Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Added in the page with no review. Looks like a bit rough, and I don't know what species is that. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
they do look a bit rough, but some of the drawings i've seen of thelodonts have a weird shaped mouth that makes it look like they have jaws. that one's mouth curve goes a bit too deep though, so yeah. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that was the anaspids I was thinking of. One of your drawings of an anaspid has a mouth that's shaped like it has jaws, but it's nowhere as deep as the mouth on that thelodont. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 16:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Size charts and skeletal recon dump: Dearc based on the various size estimates of the type description, Duerosuchus based on the 2021 redescription and C. thorbjarnarsoni based on the upper and lower estimates (of the largest specimen) of the type description Armin Reindl ( talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I just drew this picture of the parareptile Sauropareion since the page for it does not have any restorations. I think I did a pretty good job on it, but i'm not sure about the teeth sticking out, so please tell me if i need to remove them. if you see anything wrong with it, please tell me and i'll try and fix it. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ah, thank you! I'll fix that after someone reviews accuracy. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 20:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This certainly shows the characteristics of that organism well, [4] but I think that the morphology seems a bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Ta-tea-two-te-to can you please tell me what's wrong with my dimetrodon so I can fix it? Also, I'm planning to redraw the Plexus ricei, I did that drawing extremely quickly so the article would have an image. I also fixed the amount of toes on the brazilosaurus and posted the new image on this forum but no one has taken a look at it yet. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that the illustration of P. ricei needs cleaning up. It's not inaccurate necessarily to my understanding, just not very neatly drawn, if that makes sense. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I made an illustration for Plexus ricei that I hope is better than the one that is currently on the page. It is File:Plexus ricei paleoart.png. If there are any issues please let me know. Thank you. Di (they-them) ( talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
So I have uploaded two size comparation charts. Do you have any opinion about them? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Not convinced of the accuracy of restoration of this filter-feeding pachycormiform, the thinness of the body and the bulge around the head looks unnatural compared to other giant filter feeding fish, such as basking sharks and whale sharks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to go through one pachycormiform restoration, why not do them all (Other than Leedsichthys, which I think are well discussed enough at this point). All of the ones currently listed have never been discussed before and are currently used in articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I think better reconstruction for that thing is needed. As image of that genus is only this, (same for Gigantophis) currently there is no way other than use this in page and Wikidata. For the time being is it good to tag that image inaccurate and remove that from page? Though update by Levi bernardo makes that relatively better. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Quick reconstruction of C. falconensis for an in-progress overhaul of the page since there are no creative commons images I could find of it. Left a drawing of the skull as preserved (including the elements of the lower jaw), right the reconstruction of the cranium alone, accounting for taphonomic distortion. Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm very confused about the size of Shringasaurus... the description and described skeletal reconstruction in the paper certainly agrees with the estimate of a total length of 3-4 m, but actually comparing the skeletal elements (skulls and limb bones), it seems that the total length is about 3 m. I don't know if the larger estimation is based on more partial materials. But at least in this image, if the man's height is 175 cm, this looks too big. It looks like it's like just made as "total length" of 4 m (not along the vertebral column) without compared to the skeleton. It looks like a bit larger even compared to the skeletal reconstruction in the paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 10:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to run a final accuracy check on this Romerodus reconstruction. I've already talked to some other editors to make sure there aren't any glaring issues, but there might still be something I've messed up on. What do y'all think? Gasmasque ( talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A lot of fish restorations have been posted here lately, and seems we have a lot of experts around, so I thought it was the time to put up a restoration [7] I did of Jydegård Formation fish for a school project years ago, as parts of it might be useful here. I have absolutely no experience drawing fish, let alone prehistoric ones, apart from this image, so either it's unusable, isolated parts of it can be used, parts need modifications, or some of them could get reidentified as related species we don't have restorations of. The fish shown are an unidentified pycnodont based on Gyrodus (left, could be retooled as some related species?), Lepidotes sp. (upper right), Pleuropholis serrata (lower right, looks a bit wonky, we have no restorations of it), and Hybodus sp. (upper left background). Molluscs are Neomiodon (left) and Viviparus (right). They are probably not drawn to accurate scale in relation to each other (was improvised), so the entire image may not be usable. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed issues with these three ichthyosaur restorations, which I've listed above. I haven't restored the latter two taxa, but I do have an uncolored Cymbospondylus petrinus ( [8]) that I could color and touch up, if it's so desired. Of course, the above images could also be edited, though as I'm not that great at editing pencil drawings, I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to try before I take a stab at it. Feel free to add any other problematic ichthyosaur images that are floating around. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 15:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
So everything but the holotype of Kronosaurus queenslandicus was just moved to new genera [12], Eiectus (awful name for such an iconic animal) and Monquirasaurus, and I've changed their Commons categories and moved images around on Wikipedia accordingly. It leaves us with the problem of what to do with the restorations, though, since while we can be fairly sure most of the are based on what is now Eiectus (the Harvard specimen), some of them show Kronosaurus attacking Woolungasaurus, a plesiosaur which appears to not be known from the Toolebuc Formation, where the K. queenslandicus holotype is from, but from the Wallumbilla Formation, where Eiectus is from. And then there are also a bunch of other restorations that have never been reviewed, so here are they all below for consideration. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago, but nothing was done about it: this scale diagram depicts Mirarce as at least three times larger than it actually was. The measurements in Atterholt et al. indicate that the tarsometatarsus was only 4.8 centimetres (1.9 in) long, but this depicts the tarsometatarsus as nearly as long as the scale human's foot. I have tagged it as inaccurate, and I am bringing it up here in case anyone wants to modify it. Also, enantiornitheans generally didn't have tail fans like those of modern birds, so I think that's probably inaccurate as well. Ornithopsis ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In what might be a first for this process, I feel that it is necessary to un-tag this skeletal reconstruction as inaccurate. Based on my understanding of Tanystropheus anatomy, this appears to be a very good skeletal in basically every respect, it's just labelled with outdated information in the description. The description labels it as T. longobardicus, based on a widespread but recently-debunked interpretation suggesting that the small and large Monte San Giorgio morphotypes are ontogenetic morphs of the same species. The larger morphotypes have been established as a new species, T. hydroides, based on a weird digitally reconstructed skull and histology/ontogeny data. So the skeletal is kind of a hybrid between the two species, which shouldn't be a problem since they're basically identical beyond their size and skull anatomy. It's a great skeletal for T. longobardicus except for the scale bar being labelled as 1 m in the description, and it's great for T. hydroides except for the skull, which has a shape based on smaller specimens. I think it would be wasteful not to incorporate it into the Tanystropheus article (labelled as T. longobardicus), as long as we don't bring attention to the scale given in the description. Alternatively we can crop out the scale bar and/or rewrite the description, but I always feel iffy about doing the latter even when it's obviously incorrect. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 05:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Reconstructions of the three Euthecodon species. Scalebar: 20cm, sources listed in the image description. The dotted line represents tentative sutures based on E. brumpti and grey areas indicate depth and the underline the position of the body outgrowths. Armin Reindl ( talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Added by @ Woodtux: to the article Capromeryx without review. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
At Trilletrollet's Bonacynodon peer review [21], I brought up whether the animal would have pinnae or not, as depicted in the PLOS paper's restoration, and the image was subsequently removed. But I think the image could be used, even if we might have to remove the visible ear. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, I feel that there is a problem with reconstructions of Mawsonia. This reconstruction is based on a skeletal reconstruction of "Mawsonia lavocati" in Japanese museums. According to a pdf released from Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History & Human History, [23] this is based on modern coelacanth and complete specimen of M. brasiliensis. [24] But problem is M. lavocati is later described as Axelrodichthys, at least some of that is belonging to Axelrodichthys. [25] Mawsonia itself should be reconstructed from Axelrodichthys too, but current reconstruction looks like chimera between Axelrodichthys and modern coelacanth (for example large-sized second dorsal fin). This recent paper [26] reconstructs Mawsonia and Trachymetopon based on Axelrodichthys as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I made this size diagram of Herrerasauridae. Do you approve? By the way, I can't delete my old size diagrams, does anyone know how? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I just made this speclative illustration of Kiangyousteus, partially based the skeletal reconstruction in Figure 2 of Zhu and Zhu (2013) ( https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12089) and on the more realistic direction several palaeoartists have recently taken to its much larger relative Dunkleosteus. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. DJK ( talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
So I have this pet peeve about too many illustrations of the same taxa, and I'd like us to have illustrations of as many different species as possible instead of multiple of the same ones. Since I did my old Morganucodon watsoni restoration, Nobu Tamura uploaded one [29] of the same species. Since I didn't really take a particular species into account when I drew it, but just slapped the most well-known species name on it, I wonder if I should just rename it into one of the four other species for the sake of diversity. Any suggestions for which one it would match the best? And on a different note, I've modified the restoration dramatically since the reviewed version [30] to make it more shrew-like and give it a spur, and while it is obviously better, it was never really reviewed in this form, except for when the pinnae were removed... So any thoughts on it in general? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
A skate-like Onchopristis restoration I've done to replace the sawfish-like ones used on the site. The coloration is based on a number of living skates, and the arrangement of the thorny denticles along the back is based on that suggested by Carnoferox. Gasmasque ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Model of Ophiacodon retroversus from Early Permian of Texas and Oklahoma is ready! It's based on skeletals and description by Romer & Price (1940) [Review of the Pelycosauria]. We already have two reconstructions of O. mirus in the article, but this is the first O. retroversus ( Nobu Tamura's old restoration of O. retroversus looks at least too lizard-like). (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov). HFoxii ( talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a quick life reconstruction I made of Thanatosdrakon, using more quetzalcoatline traits than the papers skeletal, is this good for the article? Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This image added to the page without review. The user who draw that art and added to the page only worked for that, nothing to do other work at all. Is this reconstruction accurate or not? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Dropped by the page today and was met by this fairly garish image. The mixture of spindly flippers/feet don't track with pretty much any basal eosauropterygian, and certainly not with a new specimen described in a preprint: [32] Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Is the scute pattern on the shell correct? diagram of the dorsal scute pattern for comparison. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's about time we retire this diagram of pterosaur wings. The extremely rounded shape of the wingtips, almost semi-circular, is not accurate to the known shapes of any pterosaur wing and I find it to be rather misleading on what is actually meant by rounded wingtips [33] (an example of which would be what is shown on the Zittel Rhamphorhynchus wing [34]). The phalanges in the distal wing are overly flexed in this diagram, and the trailing edge extends too far back from the tip of the wing finger based on well preserved pterosaur wings. 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I’ve been contributing to Wikipedia and adding some of my paleoart, is it okay if I could add this restoration?
Hi, I drew a reconstruction of Odontogriphus, is it correct?, the references are the supplementary files of this publication.-- Qohelet12 ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Reconstruction by @ Entelognathus:.Yes, I do not deny that it may have looked like that. However, the problem is that when I look at this reconstruction, it's hard to know what group this belongs. This is a placoderm closely related to Bothriolepis. I know that soft tissue like ceratotrichia or skin on osteoderms may not preserved in fossils of Bothriolepis, but you may need to compose it to make it look more like Bothriolepis. For example, how about to add other one with more dorsal view? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I had previously assumed that my uncolored restorations weren't useful until colored, but my Cymbospondylus was nevertheless added to the article, so I've decided to contribute a few more such life restorations. Despite being known from virtually complete skeletons, none of these ichthyosaurs have any life restorations on Commons, so I decided that these would be particularly useful (I'm currently working on Aegirosaurus, not sure if I'll finish it anytime soon...). I just now realize that I never shaded the eye of Suevoleviathan, so I'll probably do that once the next version gets uploaded. Any comments on these four? I'd especially appreciate feedback on the Leptonectes, as I'll probably do another restoration featuring it eventually. I'll also see if I can find time to color my Cymbospondylus and recolor my Mixosaurus this week. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 21:27, 15 March 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Illustration of the holotype of Potamornis based on figures in Elzanowski et al 2001 ( http://gspauldino.com/Avianquadrate.pdf) Corrections/feedback appreciated. P2N2222A ( talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
As suggested by Lythronaxargestes, I made a reconstruction of the full skull based on Hesperornis. However, I am much less confident in the accuracy of this one. Feedback/corrections much appreciated. Hesperornis skull based on this and this. P2N2222A ( talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm about to expand the article on those animals, so I would like some feedback about the accuracy of those images drawn by Charles R. Knight in 1913, depicting Stegotherium tesselatum and Protypotherium australe. I'm absolutely not arguing for this artwork removal, as I'll definitely use it in the article and it's the only one we have about these species, but I don't know if I should talk about it as an "historic reconstruction", or as a regular one. Any thoughts on that ? Larrayal ( talk) 16:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
These models have never been reviewed before. Unfortunately, many of them have been lost and currently the author can only edit the latest ones (from the ones presented above, these are Baurusuchus and Carnotaurus). HFoxii ( talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello ! Sorry to come back this soon (I'm still working on Stegotherium, but a paywall has recently blocked a bit my progress, so I'm doing Vetelia as well. Here's an image I uploaded from "Barasoain, D.; Gonzalez Ruiz, L.R.; Tomassini, R.L.; Zurita, A.E.; Contreras, V.H. & Montalvo, C.I. (2021). "First phylogenetic analysis of the Miocene armadillo Vetelia reveals novel affinities with Tolypeutinae". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 66(3): S32–S46. doi:10.4202/app.00829.2020". The image is by Pedro Cuaranta, and was used in the article. (All of this being under CC-BY 4.0 naturally.) It was produced in 2020, a bit prior to the article realisation, by Pedro Cuaranta. The paper's goal is to assess Vetelia as a basal Tolypeutinae (a relative of the three-banded, naked-tailed, and giant armadillo). There's already four images of fossils belonging to the genus on the Commons, which can serve as references for assessment. Larrayal ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Size comparisons/skeletals for the Drazinda Formation (Eocene Pakistan) softshell turtles. The holotype of Drazinderetes tethyensis and the giant indetermined trionychid. Sizes are based on the minimum and maximum estimate of the paper (about 20% cartilage and 45% cartilage respectively based on Apalone and Dogania subplana).
I've done this Dracopristis reconstruction based on the advice of EvolutionIncarnate and wanted to make sure there weren't any further problems with it. Gasmasque ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This image is used as Silurian fauna in multiple articles. But as far as I have seen, Holoptychius or its relatives are from Devonian, although other ones, relatives of Pteraspis, Cephalaspis are known from Silurian, but still more common in Devonian, so this image is more likely to be Devonian and unacceptable to use in article about Silurian. What do you think about that? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the head shape a bit and the amount of toes being wrong. Is there anything else I need to fix? If so, please tell me. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This file is on six Wikipedia pages and has never been reviewed. The skull has a jugal-quadratojugal contact, which, according to Ezcurra et al. (2016), is non-existent in this species. In addition, the tissue covering at least the premaxilla is not in agreement with what is present in the literature. Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Added in the page with no review. Looks like a bit rough, and I don't know what species is that. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
they do look a bit rough, but some of the drawings i've seen of thelodonts have a weird shaped mouth that makes it look like they have jaws. that one's mouth curve goes a bit too deep though, so yeah. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that was the anaspids I was thinking of. One of your drawings of an anaspid has a mouth that's shaped like it has jaws, but it's nowhere as deep as the mouth on that thelodont. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 16:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Size charts and skeletal recon dump: Dearc based on the various size estimates of the type description, Duerosuchus based on the 2021 redescription and C. thorbjarnarsoni based on the upper and lower estimates (of the largest specimen) of the type description Armin Reindl ( talk) 23:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I just drew this picture of the parareptile Sauropareion since the page for it does not have any restorations. I think I did a pretty good job on it, but i'm not sure about the teeth sticking out, so please tell me if i need to remove them. if you see anything wrong with it, please tell me and i'll try and fix it. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ah, thank you! I'll fix that after someone reviews accuracy. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 20:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This certainly shows the characteristics of that organism well, [4] but I think that the morphology seems a bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 09:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Ta-tea-two-te-to can you please tell me what's wrong with my dimetrodon so I can fix it? Also, I'm planning to redraw the Plexus ricei, I did that drawing extremely quickly so the article would have an image. I also fixed the amount of toes on the brazilosaurus and posted the new image on this forum but no one has taken a look at it yet. Firewing The Wyvern ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that the illustration of P. ricei needs cleaning up. It's not inaccurate necessarily to my understanding, just not very neatly drawn, if that makes sense. Di (they-them) ( talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I made an illustration for Plexus ricei that I hope is better than the one that is currently on the page. It is File:Plexus ricei paleoart.png. If there are any issues please let me know. Thank you. Di (they-them) ( talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
So I have uploaded two size comparation charts. Do you have any opinion about them? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Not convinced of the accuracy of restoration of this filter-feeding pachycormiform, the thinness of the body and the bulge around the head looks unnatural compared to other giant filter feeding fish, such as basking sharks and whale sharks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to go through one pachycormiform restoration, why not do them all (Other than Leedsichthys, which I think are well discussed enough at this point). All of the ones currently listed have never been discussed before and are currently used in articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I think better reconstruction for that thing is needed. As image of that genus is only this, (same for Gigantophis) currently there is no way other than use this in page and Wikidata. For the time being is it good to tag that image inaccurate and remove that from page? Though update by Levi bernardo makes that relatively better. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Quick reconstruction of C. falconensis for an in-progress overhaul of the page since there are no creative commons images I could find of it. Left a drawing of the skull as preserved (including the elements of the lower jaw), right the reconstruction of the cranium alone, accounting for taphonomic distortion. Armin Reindl ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm very confused about the size of Shringasaurus... the description and described skeletal reconstruction in the paper certainly agrees with the estimate of a total length of 3-4 m, but actually comparing the skeletal elements (skulls and limb bones), it seems that the total length is about 3 m. I don't know if the larger estimation is based on more partial materials. But at least in this image, if the man's height is 175 cm, this looks too big. It looks like it's like just made as "total length" of 4 m (not along the vertebral column) without compared to the skeleton. It looks like a bit larger even compared to the skeletal reconstruction in the paper. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 10:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to run a final accuracy check on this Romerodus reconstruction. I've already talked to some other editors to make sure there aren't any glaring issues, but there might still be something I've messed up on. What do y'all think? Gasmasque ( talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A lot of fish restorations have been posted here lately, and seems we have a lot of experts around, so I thought it was the time to put up a restoration [7] I did of Jydegård Formation fish for a school project years ago, as parts of it might be useful here. I have absolutely no experience drawing fish, let alone prehistoric ones, apart from this image, so either it's unusable, isolated parts of it can be used, parts need modifications, or some of them could get reidentified as related species we don't have restorations of. The fish shown are an unidentified pycnodont based on Gyrodus (left, could be retooled as some related species?), Lepidotes sp. (upper right), Pleuropholis serrata (lower right, looks a bit wonky, we have no restorations of it), and Hybodus sp. (upper left background). Molluscs are Neomiodon (left) and Viviparus (right). They are probably not drawn to accurate scale in relation to each other (was improvised), so the entire image may not be usable. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed issues with these three ichthyosaur restorations, which I've listed above. I haven't restored the latter two taxa, but I do have an uncolored Cymbospondylus petrinus ( [8]) that I could color and touch up, if it's so desired. Of course, the above images could also be edited, though as I'm not that great at editing pencil drawings, I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted to try before I take a stab at it. Feel free to add any other problematic ichthyosaur images that are floating around. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 15:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
So everything but the holotype of Kronosaurus queenslandicus was just moved to new genera [12], Eiectus (awful name for such an iconic animal) and Monquirasaurus, and I've changed their Commons categories and moved images around on Wikipedia accordingly. It leaves us with the problem of what to do with the restorations, though, since while we can be fairly sure most of the are based on what is now Eiectus (the Harvard specimen), some of them show Kronosaurus attacking Woolungasaurus, a plesiosaur which appears to not be known from the Toolebuc Formation, where the K. queenslandicus holotype is from, but from the Wallumbilla Formation, where Eiectus is from. And then there are also a bunch of other restorations that have never been reviewed, so here are they all below for consideration. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up a while ago, but nothing was done about it: this scale diagram depicts Mirarce as at least three times larger than it actually was. The measurements in Atterholt et al. indicate that the tarsometatarsus was only 4.8 centimetres (1.9 in) long, but this depicts the tarsometatarsus as nearly as long as the scale human's foot. I have tagged it as inaccurate, and I am bringing it up here in case anyone wants to modify it. Also, enantiornitheans generally didn't have tail fans like those of modern birds, so I think that's probably inaccurate as well. Ornithopsis ( talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In what might be a first for this process, I feel that it is necessary to un-tag this skeletal reconstruction as inaccurate. Based on my understanding of Tanystropheus anatomy, this appears to be a very good skeletal in basically every respect, it's just labelled with outdated information in the description. The description labels it as T. longobardicus, based on a widespread but recently-debunked interpretation suggesting that the small and large Monte San Giorgio morphotypes are ontogenetic morphs of the same species. The larger morphotypes have been established as a new species, T. hydroides, based on a weird digitally reconstructed skull and histology/ontogeny data. So the skeletal is kind of a hybrid between the two species, which shouldn't be a problem since they're basically identical beyond their size and skull anatomy. It's a great skeletal for T. longobardicus except for the scale bar being labelled as 1 m in the description, and it's great for T. hydroides except for the skull, which has a shape based on smaller specimens. I think it would be wasteful not to incorporate it into the Tanystropheus article (labelled as T. longobardicus), as long as we don't bring attention to the scale given in the description. Alternatively we can crop out the scale bar and/or rewrite the description, but I always feel iffy about doing the latter even when it's obviously incorrect. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 05:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Reconstructions of the three Euthecodon species. Scalebar: 20cm, sources listed in the image description. The dotted line represents tentative sutures based on E. brumpti and grey areas indicate depth and the underline the position of the body outgrowths. Armin Reindl ( talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Added by @ Woodtux: to the article Capromeryx without review. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
At Trilletrollet's Bonacynodon peer review [21], I brought up whether the animal would have pinnae or not, as depicted in the PLOS paper's restoration, and the image was subsequently removed. But I think the image could be used, even if we might have to remove the visible ear. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, I feel that there is a problem with reconstructions of Mawsonia. This reconstruction is based on a skeletal reconstruction of "Mawsonia lavocati" in Japanese museums. According to a pdf released from Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History & Human History, [23] this is based on modern coelacanth and complete specimen of M. brasiliensis. [24] But problem is M. lavocati is later described as Axelrodichthys, at least some of that is belonging to Axelrodichthys. [25] Mawsonia itself should be reconstructed from Axelrodichthys too, but current reconstruction looks like chimera between Axelrodichthys and modern coelacanth (for example large-sized second dorsal fin). This recent paper [26] reconstructs Mawsonia and Trachymetopon based on Axelrodichthys as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I made this size diagram of Herrerasauridae. Do you approve? By the way, I can't delete my old size diagrams, does anyone know how? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I just made this speclative illustration of Kiangyousteus, partially based the skeletal reconstruction in Figure 2 of Zhu and Zhu (2013) ( https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12089) and on the more realistic direction several palaeoartists have recently taken to its much larger relative Dunkleosteus. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. DJK ( talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
So I have this pet peeve about too many illustrations of the same taxa, and I'd like us to have illustrations of as many different species as possible instead of multiple of the same ones. Since I did my old Morganucodon watsoni restoration, Nobu Tamura uploaded one [29] of the same species. Since I didn't really take a particular species into account when I drew it, but just slapped the most well-known species name on it, I wonder if I should just rename it into one of the four other species for the sake of diversity. Any suggestions for which one it would match the best? And on a different note, I've modified the restoration dramatically since the reviewed version [30] to make it more shrew-like and give it a spur, and while it is obviously better, it was never really reviewed in this form, except for when the pinnae were removed... So any thoughts on it in general? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
A skate-like Onchopristis restoration I've done to replace the sawfish-like ones used on the site. The coloration is based on a number of living skates, and the arrangement of the thorny denticles along the back is based on that suggested by Carnoferox. Gasmasque ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Model of Ophiacodon retroversus from Early Permian of Texas and Oklahoma is ready! It's based on skeletals and description by Romer & Price (1940) [Review of the Pelycosauria]. We already have two reconstructions of O. mirus in the article, but this is the first O. retroversus ( Nobu Tamura's old restoration of O. retroversus looks at least too lizard-like). (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov). HFoxii ( talk) 15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a quick life reconstruction I made of Thanatosdrakon, using more quetzalcoatline traits than the papers skeletal, is this good for the article? Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 15:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This image added to the page without review. The user who draw that art and added to the page only worked for that, nothing to do other work at all. Is this reconstruction accurate or not? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Dropped by the page today and was met by this fairly garish image. The mixture of spindly flippers/feet don't track with pretty much any basal eosauropterygian, and certainly not with a new specimen described in a preprint: [32] Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Is the scute pattern on the shell correct? diagram of the dorsal scute pattern for comparison. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's about time we retire this diagram of pterosaur wings. The extremely rounded shape of the wingtips, almost semi-circular, is not accurate to the known shapes of any pterosaur wing and I find it to be rather misleading on what is actually meant by rounded wingtips [33] (an example of which would be what is shown on the Zittel Rhamphorhynchus wing [34]). The phalanges in the distal wing are overly flexed in this diagram, and the trailing edge extends too far back from the tip of the wing finger based on well preserved pterosaur wings. 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I’ve been contributing to Wikipedia and adding some of my paleoart, is it okay if I could add this restoration?
Hi, I drew a reconstruction of Odontogriphus, is it correct?, the references are the supplementary files of this publication.-- Qohelet12 ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Reconstruction by @ Entelognathus:.Yes, I do not deny that it may have looked like that. However, the problem is that when I look at this reconstruction, it's hard to know what group this belongs. This is a placoderm closely related to Bothriolepis. I know that soft tissue like ceratotrichia or skin on osteoderms may not preserved in fossils of Bothriolepis, but you may need to compose it to make it look more like Bothriolepis. For example, how about to add other one with more dorsal view? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I had previously assumed that my uncolored restorations weren't useful until colored, but my Cymbospondylus was nevertheless added to the article, so I've decided to contribute a few more such life restorations. Despite being known from virtually complete skeletons, none of these ichthyosaurs have any life restorations on Commons, so I decided that these would be particularly useful (I'm currently working on Aegirosaurus, not sure if I'll finish it anytime soon...). I just now realize that I never shaded the eye of Suevoleviathan, so I'll probably do that once the next version gets uploaded. Any comments on these four? I'd especially appreciate feedback on the Leptonectes, as I'll probably do another restoration featuring it eventually. I'll also see if I can find time to color my Cymbospondylus and recolor my Mixosaurus this week. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 21:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)