![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 29 |
These 3d renders of various Placoderm fish have all been added to their respective pages without review. There seem to be minor anatomical issues with them, such as potentially the size of the eyes, and the large pelagic Arthrodiran fish differ significantly from the proportions expected based on Amazichthys. A couple of these pages already have perfectly serviceable-looking life restorations as well. I thought it would be worth having y'all look over these to double check, since I'm not too well versed in Placoderms myself. Gasmasque ( talk) 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@ PlacodermReconstructions:, well I appreciate to your contributions of nice reconstructions, but I think probably some needs review, especially Tityosteus. Also images look currently too dark. Want to hear opinions by others, as I see Bungartius and Onychodus are fine but not sure since I am not fish specialist. Though replacing main image on page may problem, probably it will be better to replace fossil image from this CC-licenced paper (prob I will upload images). [5] Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Again @ PlacodermReconstructions:, you SHOULD NOT do drive-by replacing existing restoration without review, aside from that reconstruction is clearly wrong or your reconstruction is well referred according to study. I agree swordfish-like morphology works considering ecology, head shape looks bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 07:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I recently realised that Nobu Tamura's Moropus is depicted erroneously as a knuckle walker like Anisodon. I did a quick basic edit of it & I'm in need of some thoughts & critiques. Might as well bring up the restorations of Moropus up for review. Monsieur X ( talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As suggested by Hemiauchenia, I made a diagram featuring several length estimates for Dunkleosteus terrelli. This was a particularly puzzling diagram because two recent authors use rather different morphologies for their Dunkleosteus. Given that the first authors didn't include reconstructions for this animal in their articles, I went for the outdated Coccosteus-like body, which was very common ( [6] [7] [8]) before Ferrón et al. 2017. I have my personal comments on all this mess, but I'd like others to weigh in. In the meantime I'll be adding cites/references to the file description. PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 00:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
That said, the images themselves are copyrighted - you can't decide to put one in a book, museum display, etc. without licensing them. And while the pose itself can be copied (in fact, please do) the outline of the image cannot be - i.e. if you make your own skeletals please adopt the pose, but you can't cut and paste the outline onto a children's toy without permission.Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Here is my paleoart of Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi, a very fragmentary species of Titanosaurian Sauropods from Maastrichtian of India. Until recently, it would have been considered a nomen dubium, however Pal & Ayyasami have put up strong evidence in support of its validity.
Even then, it's only known from a single limb bone. As such, it is impossible to know what its actual proportions were along with the size. What I have made here, thus, is supposed to represent only a possibility of what Bruhathkayosaurus may have looked like based on a lot of speculation inferred from other Titanosaurs. The limbs are taken directly from the figure provided by Pal & Ayyasami, however. Please review and inform me whether it is accurate to Titanosauria or not, and whether the page for Bruhathkayosaurus even needs a reconstruction given how fragmentary it is. The only reason I made this is because I saw some other unrelated fragmentary species also have paleoart on their pages and thought the Bruhathkayosaurus page could use one too.
Thank you, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I have made some quick edits to my work as per the changes suggested here, I'll acknowledge them briefly here: 1) Removed the neck wattle/speculative display structure. 2) Adjusted the feet to better align with the shadow on the ground. 3) Removed the minor anomaly on the upper right corner of the canvas, as someone pointed out. 4) Made some very minor changes on the proportions of the tail.
Potential problems that may still be present: 1) As mentioned above, due to personal time constraints, this is just a quick edit and this may not look as polished and refined as the original file. If this does not suffice, I will make a more refined version but it'll take a little more time, so putting this up for consideration first. 2) I did not change the elephantine skin texture, which user Lythronaxargestes suggested could be problematic. This is because changing the texture at this point (because I've merged several of the texture layers) will be messy and may result in a lot of work needed to be re-done, again it can be done and if necessary it will be, but if it's not super necessary I'm a bit reluctant to doing it. 3) I'm a bit worried that on removing the wattle I may have made the neck a little too narrow. Some comments on the neck proportions would be appreciated. Thank you for your considerations, have a wonderful day.- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Size chart of the recently described Balaenognathus and a size chart and skull reconstruction of Forfexopterus (pinging Lythronaxargestes who recently expanded the page). If preferred, I can upload the two skulls as separate images, depending on what works best for the article. - SlvrHwk ( talk) 01:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an early sketch of my artwork representing inferred sexual dimorphism in Shringasaurus. I need some comments on the anatomical accuracy before I can go on to colour it and add details. Would really appreciate if someone could help me out with this.
In the famous Shringasaurus bonebed, it was observed that some individuals possessed horns on their frontal bones whereas others lacked horns. This was interpreted by Sengupta et al. as probable sexual dimorphism as is seen in many mammals today like cervids for example but is rarely, if ever, seen in other archosaurs. sengupta et al. <a class="external free" href=" https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08658-8"> -- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
A selection of Coccosteus reconstructions for their review. I also wanted to review the Coccosteus reconstruction by PlacodermReconstructions, but the author in his user profile says not to use it, so I don't know if should use it here. Nevertheless, do you have anything to say about these reconstructions? - JurgenTask ( talk) 03:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
For this time probably good to see other reconstructions by Entelognathus. (excluded Brindabellaspis since it was once reviewed) I think it is pretty reasonable to reconstruct body/fin shape from living fish, but possibly can be extreme considering fin number and anatomy? (e.g. two dorsal fins) Curious points are these:
Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
As I'm currently reworking the page for Odobenocetops, I ended up putting together this diagram for the range of motion of O. leptodon. The basic angles are drawn after the work of Muizon and Domning (see "The anatomy of Odobenocetops (Delphinoidea, Mammalia), the walrus-like dolphin from the Pliocene of Peru and its palaeobiological implications" by Muizon and Domning, 2002) with the body being primarily based on belugas, proportioned to lie between the length estimates given in the 2nd Edition of Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Muizon 2008). Armin Reindl ( talk) 16:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Good day, all! Just finished making this illustration of Endoceras giganteum, the page for it lacks a life restoration last I checked, so I made one. Please comment on the anatomical accuracy, and if it's good, whether I should add it on the page.
All the details about the references used and inferences from phylogenetic bracketing are in the description. Thanks!- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on figure 2 of [17]. @ Fanboyphilosopher: given that you are seemingly the only other editor who cares about Bennettitales, do you have any comment? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A lot of illustrations from a site called DataBase Center for Life Science (which appears to be Japanese) have been uploaded to Commons, and most of them seem to have been made by the artist Kouhei Futaka, and look pretty good. So here they are for review, I have no idea about the circumstances during which they were made, and it's possible there are more on that site. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
FunkMonk ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
First new Commons artwork from DBogdanov in years which needs review. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator may have comments on the eurypterids here. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Stegotyranno ( talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a new restoration was added to the Thalassotitan article that needs review. I do not know much about mosasaur anatomy, but it overall looks very nice. The head seems correct, the counter-shading looks pretty good, and I like how it has lips covering its upper row of teeth. Definitely one of the more accurate mosasaur reconstructions that wikicommons has. Does anyone else have potential criticisms of this piece though?. Fossiladder13 ( talk) 18:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course, we don't know the color of prehistoric creatures in most of case. However, there are no extant green species of crocodiles, and there are relatively few green reptiles with semi-aquatic biology. However, if paleoartist Nobu is making these colors green based on the "popular image of the crocodile", it would need to be corrected. Maybe it is fine for land-living, relatively small sized ones though. (for Proterochampsa, as I mentioned before, has anatomical issues.) Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Going to throw some of my paleoart in here. Most of these are old pieces, so I'm not looking to do revisions on them - if they aren't up to snuff, that's fine. For the size charts, I am able to make images of each individual animal upon request.
Ddinodan ( talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Ddinodan ( talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been reworking the article for Niolamia recently and put together these two images to be used in said article. First pic is simple enough, comparing Crossochelys (now considered a juvenile Niolamia) with the Neotype (based on the figures given in the redescription), with the important scale areas highlighted.
Second one is simply a sideview of the skull with the mandible, again based on the fossil illustrations and identified scale areas of the redescription (Sterli and de la Fuente 2011), which show the skull being a bit flatter than how it was illustrated by Woodward in 1901 (the image currently used in the article). Armin Reindl ( talk) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of overhauling my Leptonectes life restoration. I initially based it on primarily on the neotype, as I was unaware at the time that this specimen was actually a probable composite, thus giving it unusual proportions. I also used NHMUK R498 to restore the forefins, but this specimen is known to be at least partially reconstructed as well, and its forefins are rather unusual too. I have thus decided to redo the entire thing from scratch, based primarily on OUMNH J.10305, a good specimen known to be genuine that has measurements reported in McGowan (1990) (though unfortunately much of the postcranium has not been figured). The "Leaping Leptonectes" and the holotype of the preoccupied Ichthyosaurus "longirostris" were used to help restore the postcranium, in addition to SCM 8372 and NHMUK R1127 for the forefins. The tail bend angle is based on McGowan (1989) with the soft tissues based on a combination of Hauffiopteryx and juvenile Stenopterygius. Here's a link to the current WIP (still only a silhouette): [27], how does it look? Please let me know if I missed anything. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 18:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Here I go again, currently revamping the page for Meiolania itself now so here's two illustrations to go along with the already present image material available on Wikimedia. First is a very simple skull reconstruction based on the material figured by Megirian (1992) for M. brevicollis. I followed the overall skull proportions of their reconstruction for the distance between preserved elements, but based it purely on the material that is actually figured in lateral view (thus the holotype and the rostral fragment) + only showing the surface of the bone, rather than including areas revealed by breakage and such.
Second is a more simplified diagramm showing variation in horn shape, first two are different Meiolania specimens, after two skulls figured in Gaffney 1983, second the Wyandotte species, rostral proportions also based on Meiolania, A-horns after Gaffney 1996 (although they are unknown and their form is unknown), finally M. brevicollis, rostrum and horns shape after Megirian, gaps filled with M. platyceps and horn orientation based on Gaffney 1996 (more splaying than in Megirian's initial interpretation). Armin Reindl ( talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This user added multiple bird images to article without review, even through Kelenken was reverted as unreviewed, this user continued to add images. Some images look like too cartoony? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A reconstruction of Dentaneosuchus based on the various referred materials from the recent paper. This includes MHNT.PAL.2011.20.1, MHNT PAL 2012.14.23, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.21 and MHNT.PAL.2012.14.1 (Skull elements of a single individual) and the postcranial bones MHNT.PAL.2012.14.2, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.3 & MHNT.PAL.2012.14.24. The silhouette is based on the proportions of Sebecus, the most complete relative of this species. Armin Reindl ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The current wikipedia page for riojasuchus has an image which does not match the fossil evidence, especially with the skull. I have made a new picture which I think is closer to current understanding. Titanichamster ( talk) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not expecting Mr. Fink to fix this restoration he made 17 years ago, but it does have a number of inaccuracies. Notably the angle of the antlers is too narrow, as can be seen in this composite skeleton. To be fair to Mr. Fink, this does seem to have been the way the animal was restored 17 years ago, as the restoration here is very similar to the one given in this 2006 paper [34]. I would be interested in seeing a more accurate life restoration if anybody wants to draw that. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a digital life reconstruction of Campinasuchus dinzi that I'd like to put into the animal's article, given that it lacks any life reconstructions as of right now.
Integument based off this paper: [37]
EnnieNovachrono ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Found in Commons, and currently only used in French Wikipedia. Looks like traced after Nobu Tamura's noncommercial work. [38] Its affinity as insect [39] is actually not solid, since response paper found that additional leg-like structures are visible. [40] This is replied by original authors and this shows just internal structures. [41] With bad preservation, it may be hard to decide affinity of that fossil, maybe diagram showing both interpretation may better to have in article? I may try something later but not sure. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 15:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
A new paper has produced a 3D skull reconstruction of this taxon that gives it a flatter shape, bringing it more in line with other stem-tetrapod skulls: [42] This means that all of our reconstructions with a bulldog-like snout are wrong. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Finally got around to uploading this reconstruction of Orthocormus cornutus to replace the one currently on the page, which does not represent the preserved material particularly well. I largely referenced the holotype (SMP 1863) as described in Lambers (1992), and some other specimens referred to the genus, and filled in some of the missing or otherwise obscured material with O. roeperi as figured here [50]. Coloration and soft tissue is largely inferred from modern pelagic fishes and Elops and other basal teleosts. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I will probably need some help navigating the editing process.
Orthocormus ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right page for this to be reviewed in, but I've made a life restoration for the extinct Palm Palaeoraphe dominicana. Thoughts? SpinoDragon145 ( talk) 04:50, 11 April 2023 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 29 |
These 3d renders of various Placoderm fish have all been added to their respective pages without review. There seem to be minor anatomical issues with them, such as potentially the size of the eyes, and the large pelagic Arthrodiran fish differ significantly from the proportions expected based on Amazichthys. A couple of these pages already have perfectly serviceable-looking life restorations as well. I thought it would be worth having y'all look over these to double check, since I'm not too well versed in Placoderms myself. Gasmasque ( talk) 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@ PlacodermReconstructions:, well I appreciate to your contributions of nice reconstructions, but I think probably some needs review, especially Tityosteus. Also images look currently too dark. Want to hear opinions by others, as I see Bungartius and Onychodus are fine but not sure since I am not fish specialist. Though replacing main image on page may problem, probably it will be better to replace fossil image from this CC-licenced paper (prob I will upload images). [5] Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Again @ PlacodermReconstructions:, you SHOULD NOT do drive-by replacing existing restoration without review, aside from that reconstruction is clearly wrong or your reconstruction is well referred according to study. I agree swordfish-like morphology works considering ecology, head shape looks bit rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 07:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I recently realised that Nobu Tamura's Moropus is depicted erroneously as a knuckle walker like Anisodon. I did a quick basic edit of it & I'm in need of some thoughts & critiques. Might as well bring up the restorations of Moropus up for review. Monsieur X ( talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
As suggested by Hemiauchenia, I made a diagram featuring several length estimates for Dunkleosteus terrelli. This was a particularly puzzling diagram because two recent authors use rather different morphologies for their Dunkleosteus. Given that the first authors didn't include reconstructions for this animal in their articles, I went for the outdated Coccosteus-like body, which was very common ( [6] [7] [8]) before Ferrón et al. 2017. I have my personal comments on all this mess, but I'd like others to weigh in. In the meantime I'll be adding cites/references to the file description. PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 00:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
That said, the images themselves are copyrighted - you can't decide to put one in a book, museum display, etc. without licensing them. And while the pose itself can be copied (in fact, please do) the outline of the image cannot be - i.e. if you make your own skeletals please adopt the pose, but you can't cut and paste the outline onto a children's toy without permission.Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Here is my paleoart of Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi, a very fragmentary species of Titanosaurian Sauropods from Maastrichtian of India. Until recently, it would have been considered a nomen dubium, however Pal & Ayyasami have put up strong evidence in support of its validity.
Even then, it's only known from a single limb bone. As such, it is impossible to know what its actual proportions were along with the size. What I have made here, thus, is supposed to represent only a possibility of what Bruhathkayosaurus may have looked like based on a lot of speculation inferred from other Titanosaurs. The limbs are taken directly from the figure provided by Pal & Ayyasami, however. Please review and inform me whether it is accurate to Titanosauria or not, and whether the page for Bruhathkayosaurus even needs a reconstruction given how fragmentary it is. The only reason I made this is because I saw some other unrelated fragmentary species also have paleoart on their pages and thought the Bruhathkayosaurus page could use one too.
Thank you, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I have made some quick edits to my work as per the changes suggested here, I'll acknowledge them briefly here: 1) Removed the neck wattle/speculative display structure. 2) Adjusted the feet to better align with the shadow on the ground. 3) Removed the minor anomaly on the upper right corner of the canvas, as someone pointed out. 4) Made some very minor changes on the proportions of the tail.
Potential problems that may still be present: 1) As mentioned above, due to personal time constraints, this is just a quick edit and this may not look as polished and refined as the original file. If this does not suffice, I will make a more refined version but it'll take a little more time, so putting this up for consideration first. 2) I did not change the elephantine skin texture, which user Lythronaxargestes suggested could be problematic. This is because changing the texture at this point (because I've merged several of the texture layers) will be messy and may result in a lot of work needed to be re-done, again it can be done and if necessary it will be, but if it's not super necessary I'm a bit reluctant to doing it. 3) I'm a bit worried that on removing the wattle I may have made the neck a little too narrow. Some comments on the neck proportions would be appreciated. Thank you for your considerations, have a wonderful day.- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Size chart of the recently described Balaenognathus and a size chart and skull reconstruction of Forfexopterus (pinging Lythronaxargestes who recently expanded the page). If preferred, I can upload the two skulls as separate images, depending on what works best for the article. - SlvrHwk ( talk) 01:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an early sketch of my artwork representing inferred sexual dimorphism in Shringasaurus. I need some comments on the anatomical accuracy before I can go on to colour it and add details. Would really appreciate if someone could help me out with this.
In the famous Shringasaurus bonebed, it was observed that some individuals possessed horns on their frontal bones whereas others lacked horns. This was interpreted by Sengupta et al. as probable sexual dimorphism as is seen in many mammals today like cervids for example but is rarely, if ever, seen in other archosaurs. sengupta et al. <a class="external free" href=" https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08658-8"> -- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
A selection of Coccosteus reconstructions for their review. I also wanted to review the Coccosteus reconstruction by PlacodermReconstructions, but the author in his user profile says not to use it, so I don't know if should use it here. Nevertheless, do you have anything to say about these reconstructions? - JurgenTask ( talk) 03:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
For this time probably good to see other reconstructions by Entelognathus. (excluded Brindabellaspis since it was once reviewed) I think it is pretty reasonable to reconstruct body/fin shape from living fish, but possibly can be extreme considering fin number and anatomy? (e.g. two dorsal fins) Curious points are these:
Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 04:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
As I'm currently reworking the page for Odobenocetops, I ended up putting together this diagram for the range of motion of O. leptodon. The basic angles are drawn after the work of Muizon and Domning (see "The anatomy of Odobenocetops (Delphinoidea, Mammalia), the walrus-like dolphin from the Pliocene of Peru and its palaeobiological implications" by Muizon and Domning, 2002) with the body being primarily based on belugas, proportioned to lie between the length estimates given in the 2nd Edition of Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Muizon 2008). Armin Reindl ( talk) 16:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Good day, all! Just finished making this illustration of Endoceras giganteum, the page for it lacks a life restoration last I checked, so I made one. Please comment on the anatomical accuracy, and if it's good, whether I should add it on the page.
All the details about the references used and inferences from phylogenetic bracketing are in the description. Thanks!- Ansh Saxena 7163 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on figure 2 of [17]. @ Fanboyphilosopher: given that you are seemingly the only other editor who cares about Bennettitales, do you have any comment? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A lot of illustrations from a site called DataBase Center for Life Science (which appears to be Japanese) have been uploaded to Commons, and most of them seem to have been made by the artist Kouhei Futaka, and look pretty good. So here they are for review, I have no idea about the circumstances during which they were made, and it's possible there are more on that site. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
FunkMonk ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
First new Commons artwork from DBogdanov in years which needs review. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator may have comments on the eurypterids here. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Stegotyranno ( talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a new restoration was added to the Thalassotitan article that needs review. I do not know much about mosasaur anatomy, but it overall looks very nice. The head seems correct, the counter-shading looks pretty good, and I like how it has lips covering its upper row of teeth. Definitely one of the more accurate mosasaur reconstructions that wikicommons has. Does anyone else have potential criticisms of this piece though?. Fossiladder13 ( talk) 18:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course, we don't know the color of prehistoric creatures in most of case. However, there are no extant green species of crocodiles, and there are relatively few green reptiles with semi-aquatic biology. However, if paleoartist Nobu is making these colors green based on the "popular image of the crocodile", it would need to be corrected. Maybe it is fine for land-living, relatively small sized ones though. (for Proterochampsa, as I mentioned before, has anatomical issues.) Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Going to throw some of my paleoart in here. Most of these are old pieces, so I'm not looking to do revisions on them - if they aren't up to snuff, that's fine. For the size charts, I am able to make images of each individual animal upon request.
Ddinodan ( talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Ddinodan ( talk) 07:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been reworking the article for Niolamia recently and put together these two images to be used in said article. First pic is simple enough, comparing Crossochelys (now considered a juvenile Niolamia) with the Neotype (based on the figures given in the redescription), with the important scale areas highlighted.
Second one is simply a sideview of the skull with the mandible, again based on the fossil illustrations and identified scale areas of the redescription (Sterli and de la Fuente 2011), which show the skull being a bit flatter than how it was illustrated by Woodward in 1901 (the image currently used in the article). Armin Reindl ( talk) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of overhauling my Leptonectes life restoration. I initially based it on primarily on the neotype, as I was unaware at the time that this specimen was actually a probable composite, thus giving it unusual proportions. I also used NHMUK R498 to restore the forefins, but this specimen is known to be at least partially reconstructed as well, and its forefins are rather unusual too. I have thus decided to redo the entire thing from scratch, based primarily on OUMNH J.10305, a good specimen known to be genuine that has measurements reported in McGowan (1990) (though unfortunately much of the postcranium has not been figured). The "Leaping Leptonectes" and the holotype of the preoccupied Ichthyosaurus "longirostris" were used to help restore the postcranium, in addition to SCM 8372 and NHMUK R1127 for the forefins. The tail bend angle is based on McGowan (1989) with the soft tissues based on a combination of Hauffiopteryx and juvenile Stenopterygius. Here's a link to the current WIP (still only a silhouette): [27], how does it look? Please let me know if I missed anything. -- Slate Weasel [ Talk - Contribs 18:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Here I go again, currently revamping the page for Meiolania itself now so here's two illustrations to go along with the already present image material available on Wikimedia. First is a very simple skull reconstruction based on the material figured by Megirian (1992) for M. brevicollis. I followed the overall skull proportions of their reconstruction for the distance between preserved elements, but based it purely on the material that is actually figured in lateral view (thus the holotype and the rostral fragment) + only showing the surface of the bone, rather than including areas revealed by breakage and such.
Second is a more simplified diagramm showing variation in horn shape, first two are different Meiolania specimens, after two skulls figured in Gaffney 1983, second the Wyandotte species, rostral proportions also based on Meiolania, A-horns after Gaffney 1996 (although they are unknown and their form is unknown), finally M. brevicollis, rostrum and horns shape after Megirian, gaps filled with M. platyceps and horn orientation based on Gaffney 1996 (more splaying than in Megirian's initial interpretation). Armin Reindl ( talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This user added multiple bird images to article without review, even through Kelenken was reverted as unreviewed, this user continued to add images. Some images look like too cartoony? Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A reconstruction of Dentaneosuchus based on the various referred materials from the recent paper. This includes MHNT.PAL.2011.20.1, MHNT PAL 2012.14.23, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.21 and MHNT.PAL.2012.14.1 (Skull elements of a single individual) and the postcranial bones MHNT.PAL.2012.14.2, MHNT.PAL.2012.14.3 & MHNT.PAL.2012.14.24. The silhouette is based on the proportions of Sebecus, the most complete relative of this species. Armin Reindl ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The current wikipedia page for riojasuchus has an image which does not match the fossil evidence, especially with the skull. I have made a new picture which I think is closer to current understanding. Titanichamster ( talk) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not expecting Mr. Fink to fix this restoration he made 17 years ago, but it does have a number of inaccuracies. Notably the angle of the antlers is too narrow, as can be seen in this composite skeleton. To be fair to Mr. Fink, this does seem to have been the way the animal was restored 17 years ago, as the restoration here is very similar to the one given in this 2006 paper [34]. I would be interested in seeing a more accurate life restoration if anybody wants to draw that. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a digital life reconstruction of Campinasuchus dinzi that I'd like to put into the animal's article, given that it lacks any life reconstructions as of right now.
Integument based off this paper: [37]
EnnieNovachrono ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Found in Commons, and currently only used in French Wikipedia. Looks like traced after Nobu Tamura's noncommercial work. [38] Its affinity as insect [39] is actually not solid, since response paper found that additional leg-like structures are visible. [40] This is replied by original authors and this shows just internal structures. [41] With bad preservation, it may be hard to decide affinity of that fossil, maybe diagram showing both interpretation may better to have in article? I may try something later but not sure. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk) 15:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
A new paper has produced a 3D skull reconstruction of this taxon that gives it a flatter shape, bringing it more in line with other stem-tetrapod skulls: [42] This means that all of our reconstructions with a bulldog-like snout are wrong. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Finally got around to uploading this reconstruction of Orthocormus cornutus to replace the one currently on the page, which does not represent the preserved material particularly well. I largely referenced the holotype (SMP 1863) as described in Lambers (1992), and some other specimens referred to the genus, and filled in some of the missing or otherwise obscured material with O. roeperi as figured here [50]. Coloration and soft tissue is largely inferred from modern pelagic fishes and Elops and other basal teleosts. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I will probably need some help navigating the editing process.
Orthocormus ( talk) 08:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right page for this to be reviewed in, but I've made a life restoration for the extinct Palm Palaeoraphe dominicana. Thoughts? SpinoDragon145 ( talk) 04:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)