:oops, I'll add scales on the other toes as well! didn't realize I forgot them until now. [[User:Audrey.m.horn|Audrey.m.horn]] ([[User talk:Audrey.m.horn|talk]]) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:oops, I'll add scales on the other toes as well! didn't realize I forgot them until now. [[User:Audrey.m.horn|Audrey.m.horn]] ([[User talk:Audrey.m.horn|talk]]) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::Hard to say, it's a small one... If fuzz is primitive for its wider clade, as indicated by ''[[Kulindadromeus]]'' and ''[[Tianyulong]]'', I don't think it's a problem here. Seems you might have a claw on the fourth finger, the fourth and fifth fingers were probably clawless in all dinosaurs... The first toe also seems really long, and perhaps that foot is splayed too outwards? [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 20:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::Hard to say, it's a small one... If fuzz is primitive for its wider clade, as indicated by ''[[Kulindadromeus]]'' and ''[[Tianyulong]]'', I don't think it's a problem here. Seems you might have a claw on the fourth finger, the fourth and fifth fingers were probably clawless in all dinosaurs... The first toe also seems really long, and perhaps that foot is splayed too outwards? [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 20:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::okay, fixed the foot and fingers [[User:Audrey.m.horn|Audrey.m.horn]] ([[User talk:Audrey.m.horn|talk]]) 21:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:::okay, fixed the foot and fingers [[User:Audrey.m.horn|Audrey.m.horn]] ([[User talk:Audrey.m.horn|talk]]) 21:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Wow, wow, wow Let me congratulate you all, you have done a great and beautiful job all these years.The reason for my partial inactivity is because of the school, I am barely on vacation from university and I have given myself a break to return. Well, after so much idle time. I return with 2 of the drawings I left pending. The first is perhaps one that waited too long. In these years many articles of the Saturnaliinae family were seen and I did not go unnoticed, I still have not finished reading them and seeing everything, but I feel that both the articles and the images of all the taxa require attention, expansion and improvements. Well, I show you a preview of the Buriolestes profile [1] illustration, I have started from scratch and I have attended to the errors and anatomical issues that had to be corrected. In addition to this I would like to revisit the fantastic restoration of User:Audrey.m.horn in general is impeccable and very good in every aspect, I think that Buriolestes from the beginning needed an illustration of the whole body. I think the placement of the ear is too far in the skull, just that. [2] Any comment? --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the compliment on my restoration! i'm afraid i'm not completely sure what you mean about the ear - is it too far forward, or too far backwards? as for your skull restoration, i think it's great! i would point out though that the skull fenestrae wouldn't be quite so visible on the living animal, maybe tone down the shading a little bit! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This usually happens. True, don't worry, it's just the lines coming out to become shadow and textures. Fenestrae will be covered, and Thanks for your attention. --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with your new head drawing as it stands, the proportions match up completely and soft tissue fits what we expect. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, much better. By the way I show you a progress in the illustration in which I look a little confused. Isn't Buriolestes supposed to be a relative of Eoraptor? Well, I see that it would be right to stretch the image up to make it look more like Eoraptor. Both skulls are deformed, but I think it would be better to do it more like the last image of these [3] I would like to know your opinions before continuing. --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think both interpretations of the skull are accurate within our known information, since some taxa just outside dinosauria have elongate snouts (lewisuchus etc) and some basal theropods do as well (coelophysids). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the philosophy that Buriolestes and Eoraptor must have similar skull proportions if they are closely related. Both of their descriptions included skull diagrams which had already been corrected for taphonomic deformation. Buriolestes simply had a longer and lower skull than Eoraptor. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Head restoration.
Looks good, but the finger tip "pad" morphology of the two hands differ in their perspective: the hand closest to the viewer would indicate that the pads would overlap the underside of the claws, while the claws further back are free. A bit hard to explain, I can draw on top of it is unclear. But you can see what I'm getting at in for example Fred's Allosaurus image:[4]FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have been a little stuck with this illustration, especially because it encourages me to make scales, I hope soon to make the neck and edit the final image to give texture to the drawing. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally the version of the head is corrected, well, I think the illustration no longer fits on the Buriolestes page, I think that in the future it could be expanded and fit, but for now I think it could have a better place in the Sauropodomorpha article in the Paleobiology section. I will continue editing the image in the following weeks, it still does not end at all. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patagotitan
Terrible skull and a questionable neck
Well, now and after many requests from both here, Facebook and DA I have the obligation (Because it was used in newspaper notes, even when it was terribly done) to correct and redo the illustration of Patagotitan, right now I am working with a silhouette drawing based on the Scott Hartman diagram, and also on a model for that serves as a basis for a drawing of the paleoenvironment. At the moment I only show photos of the model [5], any comments or suggestions? --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proportions look to match what we know, width is about right, it looks a little unfinished for some finer details but thats because it is. Welcome back. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK well. Yes, exactly because it is unfinished. I based on the model of the supplementary information and photos that are available on the web and here for tail and neck thicknesses and shapes. Thank you very much. --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just noticed this got uploaded to the Berberosaurus page by Mariolanzas without review. One of the first things I noticed is that the right foot is more fatty and has shorter metatarsals than than the left foot, and also gets thinner towards the ankle. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼15:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's also one weird head. Some kind of dilophosaur (the kinked snout) abelisaur hybrid, reflecting its various classifications? He also has a lot of other unreviewed restorations which could maybe be discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've gotten my laptop fixed, I'm back to uploading paleoart here! To start off, here's an early sketch of a Baryonyx restoration I've started to work on. I know the animal's page already has one. But since I've been requested to draw this animal many times, and it's also being created for a spinosaurid size chart I'm working on, I thought I might as well give it a go on Wikipedia as well, and see if I can give the effort to make as best of a reconstruction as my abilities will allow. Any suggestions for this sketch so far? (Mind the tip of the dentary being incorrect, still working on the skull). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since we already have many good ones, why not make an image that shows some kind of hypothesised spinosaur behaviour we don't have illustrated? Or maybe a higher res skeletal than the Headden one? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree, but the other projects I'm making this illustration for require a plain depiction of the animal. I was just taking the chance to see if It'd be of any use to Wikipedia as well; in any case, more avaliable restorations isn't necessarily a bad thing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up some things with the skull, neck, and feet, added the nostril, eye, and ear, corrected the lengths of the pubis and ischium, and made the right arm visible. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on the head scales and extended the nasal crest with some keratin (let me know if it's too much). My mistake on the lacrimal crest, must've misinterpreted the skull. Removed now. There was a little bump on the dorsal surface of the lacrimals though, which I've now added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The foot placement makes it look off balance, like it would fall over. I wonder what else we could do to make it more unique/usable, because as for now, there's not much room or need for an additional, similar restoration in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the feet. As for possible uses, when I finish drawing the animal, perhaps I could illustrate a scene of its environment around it? Which could be used in place of this[6] image in the palaeoecology section, as the Baryonyx in it is somewhat low resolution anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arguing over this image with FunkMonk on the species talk page, so I thought I'd put it here for discussion. I personally think the area of feather covering and the transition to scales is really jarring. I think in particular the feathers only covering the dorsal section of the tail is just odd looking. Also as feathers transition to scales in birds they usually get shorter as can be seen on a chicken foot, the feathers in the image are of a totally uniform length so it looks like the feathers have been stuck on with glue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally in the camp that tyrannosaurids should be depicted as scaly most of the time. Dryptosaurus, as a more basal species of similar mass to Yutyrannus, is a borderline case where I would personally lean towards scaly as well. However, while I find the 'feather cape' look to be visually unappealing, it does resemble the condition in ostriches so it's plausible. My biggest concern looking at this, though, is with the hands! They look much too large, and wouldn't something as close to tyrannosaurids as Dryptosaurus be likely to show some reduction of the third digit? The body-tail transition is also problematic and the large, visible scales are inaccurate given what is known of tyrannosaurid integument. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main complaint with the tail is that the lateral sides of the tail should also be covered with feathers, rather than just the top. I agree that on closer inspection the caudofemoralis appears to be lacking and looks pretty odd. I don't think any of the third digit is preserved in drypto, though other digits of the hand are as can be seen in this reconstruction Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment, I think the upward bend of the tail end is also pretty extreme, almost like one of Dollo's tail-breaking Iguanodon mounts, unless there's something I'm missing about the perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the tail, but I'm not sure how far into wrong it is. I also note that the shoulder region also looks a bit messed up. Finally, what about lips? It seems to be the consensus here to have lips, and this doesn't have them. Given that this image probably should be heavily edited or replaced, the question of "what kind of integument do we want it to have?" becomes more relevant. Regarding the tail, is there any reason to think it would be any more fully feathered than the body? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The size/shape of the forelimbs and teeth hanging out of lips for sure need to be fixed. Other stuff I don't know can be chalked up to scientific rahter than aesthetic complaints. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The base of the tail also definitely needs to be fixed. The ischium is missing! There are also plenty of animals with less fluff on their tail than their body, such as rats and Kulindadromeus, so I don't see any good reason to think a more feathered tail is necessarily preferable. There are enough problems in need of fixing here, though, that I think it's worth asking if it's worth starting over and making a new image that also avoids some of the more minor concerns with this image, such as integument distribution and aesthetic concerns. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like we have the man power to get many of these fixes done anymore? I don't have as much time as I used to myself. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok once again, I'll see what I can do. But tomorrow will be the last day I'll have free so if I can't get it done then, that might be it. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't have time, Tomopteryx? If nobody else is up for it, I can try and do a new Dryptosaurus reconstruction. What's the preferred feather distribution? I'm personally inclined to make it fully scaly, but I'm open to the feather cape or full feathering if y'all disagree. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would do full feathering but for conservativism sake partial feathered is probably best, whether it be cape, arm, tail or some combination thereof. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a rather philosophical matter, but I would hardly consider partial feathering the most conservative approach. In fact, I would consider it the most speculative approach of the three, given the lack of examples for such a feather distribution. Ostriches are the closest example, but there are plenty of reasons to question how good of an analogy they are for a rhinoceros-sized dinosaur. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're also the smallest rhinos, the only ones generally under one ton. It's perhaps not surprising that they'd be the hairiest on those grounds. Are you saying you think ostriches should be the model for Dryptosaurus or that you'd prefer fuller feathering than that? Ornithopsis (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was more to show that partial covering does exist, not related to size. Well, if I was to restore a large theropod myself today, I'd do something like this Tyrannosaurus autopsy model:[7]FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that amount of feathering, that was closer to what I was meaning by saying "partial" than the current dense partial feathering on the restoration. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally concerned that a sparse distribution of feathers, a la T. rex Autopsy, is not really supported by what's known in dinosaurs. All large dinosaurs with known integument appear to have had fully scaly skin, or seemingly densely feathered in the case of Yutyrannus. Ostriches have a "feather cape"-esque distribution, but it's unclear if that can be extrapolated to a much larger animal without pennaceous feathers. However, if you all agree that a sparse feather distribution is best I won't argue further. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus as to what those few patches of scales in large theropods mean, though. Darren Naish and others still say they could be taphonomic artifacts, and see Andrea Cau's recent FB posts:[8][9]FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I specified "all large dinosaurs". If feathers were ancestrally present in ornithodirans, as suggested by Kulindadromeus, the various scaly large herbivorous dinosaurs represent our best model for what reduced feather covering in a large dinosaur looks like. Also, when it comes to reliable sources, there's a published paper saying that tyrannosaurids were scaly versus speculation on social media saying otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to tyrannosaurs, what publications do we have, though? We have a single paper reporting tiny patches of skin (not counting Carr's "crocodile-scale" paper which was critisised), so it just seems way too early to make such definitive rules based on something that hasn't even been evaluated by other researchers. Likewise, we have two camps when it comes to theropod lips, but we shouldn't really be taking sides. By the way, there is now a Laelaps blog-post write up on the pebbly penguin-skin issue:[10] Not that we should use it is a source, but it shows there are different camps. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the only peer-reviewed article I'm aware of that comments on the issue at all indicates they have scales. Mark Witton has argued on Twitter [11] that the resemblance between the Palaeeudyptes skin and dinosaur 'scales' is only superficial, and that the dinosaur 'scales' show none of the indications of feathering present in the Palaeeudyptes skin. Ergo, tyrannosaurids were probably scaly in the regions with preserved skin. Not that that's decisive evidence re: Dryptosaurus. I'll post my Dryptosaurus reconstruction here one I'm done, hopefully within the next couple days. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have made several fairly simple drawings of different dinosaurs, the vast majority have not really been illustrated here for the reason that there are very few known remains of each taxon, besides they have been described and named recently. I give reasons for the fact that of certain details in the drawings, and of my project in my user sandbox. Finally, only some have managed to give enough finish, and others lack many details especially Acantholipan, Adynomosaurus and Ahshislepelta. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aegyptosaurus is the one I can say the most about, but it actually looks quite nice. The narrowness of the limbs matches with the known limb fossils, which are quite gracile. And the small osteoderms is good for a probable basal lithostrotian. Acanthopholipan and Adelolophus also look good to me, I can't see anything in them that pops out at me as wrong. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, finally here is the updated skeletal for Alectrosaurus. I have fixed the femur and almost every bone, in terms of structure and length, any comments? By the way, I'll start to work on the Bayan Shireh faunal diagram. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reasoning behind removing the scapula and skull material? It would be nice to have those illustrated in the article, currently we only have an image of the leg bones. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronaxargestes got it right, this skeletal is based on AMNH 6554, the most important specimen. I wasn't able to find the accurate measurements for specimens AMNH 6556, IGM 50 and 51, so, they were adjusted to match the size of AMNH 6554. In the previous version I just mixed everything with some fatal measurements. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saving the best till last. None of these images have an inaccurate tag on commons. While working on improving the Iguanodon article, I came to realise that we do not have a high-quality Iguanodon restoration on wikicommons. While obviously the 19th century images and the Azerbaijan stamp are hilariously inaccurate and need commons tags, I would also like to hear comments on Nobu Tamura's images, I know that these are under deletion discussion anyway, but they look proportionally a bit off to me. The Dinosaur isle model also looks to have an odd angle for the tail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think NT's images are fine (see DR discussion). As for the first image, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be "Dollodon". By the way, probably best for saving space if the images are put in a gallery.FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KoprX both images look nice, my one comment would be that the baby Spinosaurus should probably have slightly different proportions (longer skull, shorter sail) based on other theropods growth, but that is it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KoprX, sorry to bring this up so late in the game, but I think that Dropzink's Diplodocus is a trace over a copyrighted Hartman skeletal. Hartman's newer silhouette is available under CC BY 3.0, though: [12]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I already modified Dropzink's Diplodocus so it looks more like Hartman's skeletal silhouette. Both of artist are credited.KoprX (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restorations by Mariolanzas (was "Vallibonavenatrix restoration")
As far as the sauropodomorphs go, the Thecodonto is excellent, and the Melanorosaurus is also great, and both display the weird features of the two taxa (proportions, hands etc). The Patagotitan looks alright we can't yet tell whether it would've lacked the thumb claw, although the torso may be a bit deep, I can't quite tell. The Turiasaurus also looks good but there may be two hand claws? There should only be one but I can't tell from the resolution whether theres a second or just a shading artifact. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen him on Instagram and he appears to be more active there than on other platforms, gonna try messaging him. He's responded to me before so there's no way he won't see it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is something odd about the perspective in the Saurophaganax's lacrimal horns. They should run in parallel (as in other allosaurs), but here it looks like they are somehow "flaring" to the sides, kind of like the crest of Cryolophosaurus. And speaking of Cryo, the image of its head here also seems way too speculative to use, we are not supposed to show our own extreme ideas not reflected in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Below unsigned comment from Mariolanzas]
It seems that some of the issues ¨reviewed¨ on this page are in many cases just minor details open for interpretation and treated here as an excuse for the editors as to decide which pieces to keep or reject mostly based on their personal perceptions.
Mariolanzas, while your artwork is very nice, due process exists here for a reason. This is not DeviantArt, but an encyclopedia where verifiability and accuracy are important factors. Images need to adhere closely to sources and not present unpublished ideas to avoid falling under original research. That means that they need to be sourced and reviewed, neither of which is happening with your images. Indeed, this page exists because of a historical precedent. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though the images are mostly good, some of the speculation goes outside the bounds of what is supported by even the "All Yesterdays" books. But Wikipedia is even stricter when it comes to novel interpretations, and we need to reflect published sources. For example, no spinosaurids are known to have had downturned snouts, therefore the Vallibonavenatrix image fails the criteria established by phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mariolanzas I understand how frustrating it must be to pour hours into a piece of artwork only to have others tear it down for minor details. However this is to be expected in Paleoart, if you were doing commercial work for a museum for instance you'd expect similar feedback. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we are required to go through this strict review process, otherwise we could be shut down by the rest of Wikipedia, and usermade paleoart wouldn't even be allowed. And trust me, there have been several attempts at that. So this is a small price to pay. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Bob Nicholls talking about this, saying the scrutiny is much stronger than for normal artwork and quite off putting initially, and you have to get used to it.FunkMonk, can you link to the attempts to shutdown this process? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were some more aggressive attempts too, but I only kept the links hat lead to our policy of being more rigorous with sourcing. I'll see if I can dig one of the other cases up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: While the osteoderm distribution in titanosaurs is not known for sure, the Patagotitan reconstruction does not resemble any of the suggested distributions discussed in the literature and is at odds with the consensus that titanosaurs had few osteoderms. The tail of the Patagotitan also looks unreasonably thick at the base. The Inostrancevia reconstruction appears to be good in terms of all of the frequent mistakes I'm a stickler about. Agreed that the Cryolophosaurus is too speculative to use as is. As I am wont to say, remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just added another one, Pelicanimimus this time. Mariolanzas, you know about the review page, yet continue to add images to articles without dropping them off here first, and fixing any potential inaccuracies/errors. We very much appreciate and welcome the contributions you're making, but as stated above, there are some rules for this and they exist for a reason. And that reason is pretty much the same as why you wouldn't just put your artwork into a scientific paper/journal or museum exhibit without consultation or peer review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼11:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, well I have uploaded a couple of images to commons, the one from Mosaiceratops had already been revised, but I had never uploaded it, Boreonykus was a quick drawing that never came up because it was possibly a chimera, but now I pass here to see if they have anything to modify. Please any comment is useful. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
I have cut and edited the illustration of Thomas Wright's Oplosaurus tooth to add it to commons. Any necessary changes? I think I can still see some letters and words on the other side of the page in the drawing. In addition I have redrawn the photograph of Nesbitt Ezcurra 2011 of "Teyuwasu". Any comment? --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I came across this image by change, by Fanboyphilosopher and theres a bit of an issue. It is almost exactly the skull in Nesbitt et al. 2019, which is a bit of a copyright issue. While the bones can't be copyrighted the skull restoration certainly can, and it's not so complete as to have every skull image be the same. As well, the posterior end of the dentary shown as known in the published diagram is unknown here, and the colours are so similar for some bones as to be confusing. I would suggest removing the colour altogether because of the confusion and lack of reproducibility (unusable in other wikis), individual bones should be understandable enough from the description, a basic sense of anatomy, or following the links in text. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid Many images in papers say "redrawn from" another image to get around copyright, so I don't understand why this would be an issue (I have changed the description on commons to "redrawn from"). I did this with my Concavenator skull which was (sloppily) traced from an image of a 3d model. A skull is a natural object and thus a technical drawing of it from lateral view is not copyrightable. The colouration makes it distinct from the original black and white drawing. I admit that I find the nature of the dotted lines confusing and they don't serve to locate the preserved portions of bone particularly well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this is it is not the natural object that is being reproduced. The skull of Asilisaurus is too incomplete for a single definitive restoration (which is different from Concavenator or Massospondylus or Tyrannosaurus or Herrerasaurus) which means this is copying the authors *interpretations* (the copyrightable bit). Publications that redraw from previous studies don't actually get around the copyright, we aren't able to host redrawn images if the original isn't also in a freely licensed paper. Publications are allowed to use originals or redrawings because of the mandatory reproducibility of science, but the copyright of a redrawn image is no different from the image it is redrawn from. That's one of the reasons we aren't allowed to use Scott Hartman skeletal redrawings or reposes, because they take the artists interpretations of the fossil material, and while the fossils aren't copyrighted, the interpretations are. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: If that was the case, we would have to remove the image of Asfaltovenator, as the base of the image was blatantly copied from an old allosaurus reconstruction by him without permission (it's clearly visible in the torso). The image in the paper with restored sections in red shows that the skull is substantially complete, so I think it's ok. I personally think the image will be fine if the jaw is rotated by about 30 degrees or so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for my decisions surrounding this diagram are a bit complicated. Most of my diagram is traced over the one from the paper, I fully admit that. I was stuck in a situation where I could either go with the interpretation of a much more talented skeletal artist (S.H.), or offer my own interpetation, which would likely have a bit of original research. The skull is actually fairly complete, so I was confident that S.H.'s interpretation was very close to the actual anatomy. It also resembles the skull of the FMNH mount, which was based on scans of the original fossils if I recall correctly. In the end I decided to trace over the original diagram. If most of the skull was missing, I would probably not have taken the chance. I did make slight changes wherever I could see differences between the diagram and the fossils. One example would be the antorbital fossa, which looked too narrow in the original diagram compared to the photos and description in the rest of the paper. Another example would be the rear of the dentary being shaded as if it was present, even though it was not described in the paper at all. I could have made more changes so that my estimates of the missing bones are not identical to Hartman's, but I have no reason to think his are wrong and adding my own speculative outlines would edge on original research. For example, I slightly increased the height of the surangular to bring it in line with other herbivory-trending dinosauromorphs, and I'm not sure if I should go further. I'm basically walking a tightrope between possible copyright infringement and original research, and I have tried my best not to lean too far in either direction. My color-coding preferences are a whole other can of worms, but on a fundamental level they are identical to those of the Dromaeosaurus skull diagram created by AS. That diagram is currently in use on the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy and no one has objected to it. Overall, while I have basically created a derivative work, it is transformative, important for context, and unlikely to adversely affect the income received through the original work (a 61 page scientific monograph, in which the skull diagram takes up less than 1/4 of a page). The line at which it crosses into fair use is a bit fuzzy in this situation thanks to the numerous variables, but I think it's safe. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia I honestly think the Asfalto image should be removed, but I'm going to leave that up to others because I could also see the rationale of the silhouette being de minimis, and without the silhouette is would be much harder to immediately identify it as Hartman's. With regards to the image itself, a few things appear to me. The premaxilla as traced is a bit *too* perfect, in the fossil the anterior end is a lot more flattened, the nasal fossa is less distinct, and the foramen is more prominent. The posterior mandible is more complete than in the published diagram, it is visible in fig. 19 labeled as "D". The anterior tip of the dentary is similarly "perfected" in the diagram, in all the known fossils the anteriormost tip is mid-height or below, yet Hartman's drawing places it noticeably above mid-height. The frontal would be flatted, the squamosal more dorsally convex and with a shallowed posterior process, and the quadratojugal more preserved and less acute based on the fossils. The upside is the image is probably easily adjusted to fix these, but the downside is that such changes were necessary in the first place based on the use of the papers "perfected" diagram. I would have no objections to the use of the diagram as a base for which to determine articulations and angles, but using their drawings of the bones instead of your own causes the issue of potential copyright issues. add on Additionally with the Asfaltovenator, the bones themselves have been modified in the skeletal, the humerus for example is completely new, so the use of Hartman's skeletal as a base from which the new bones were placed also means it is less a copy and more a derivative (though the paper should have attributed him still). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJReid I have had trouble interpreting figure 19, but the text does note that it depicts part of the posterior dentary, so I can make that change. I also agree with your observation that the tip of the dentary should be positioned more ventrally. I disagree with your argument that the squamosal should have a shallower posterior process and convex dorsal surface, as neither of those are apparent in the fossil (fig. 11). The outline and orientation of the quadratojugal is unclear where pictured (fig. 5), and the text notes that it is "only represented by a small fragment still in articulation with the quadrate". I'm not sure what you mean by making the frontal flatter, S.H. (and by extension myself) compromised in shape between fig. 10B and 10E, though I could chosen the latter in hindsight. The text says "Its dorsal surface is nearly flat anteriorly, dorsally expanded in the lateral portion across the orbital margin, and ventrally depressed in the posterior third of the element." Finally, S.H.'s depiction of the premaxilla is extremely close to the actual fossil, so I barely changed it. I can definitely revise the diagram when I have time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The premaxilla, quadratojugal and posterior dentary are fine then, this is your diagram so it should probably be how you see the fossils. However, the squamosal posterior process, if the height is correct, has the quadrate articulation too centered, in fig 11 the quadrate head articulated directly into the flange labelled, which is maybe 1/4 up the fossil, and this change would likely also raise the parietal and posterior postorbital process unless you rotated it a bit counterclockwise. Using the known fossils certainly isn't OR, and changes to the unknown material in order to better articulate the known bones shouldn't be either because tha anatomy is already quite conservative. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as the postorbital process being depicted as too narrow, and I will revise it once I look over the text to make sure that my suspicions are justified. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complicate issue, and this is not the first skeletal drawn after one in a paper. Maybe the issue should be up at one of the copyright fora at Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what the policy is in these kinds of situations. I've created a fairly transformative tracing of a skull diagram originally published as a small component of a copyrighted scientific monograph. I don't know whether the copyright is owned by the artist or the authors who commissioned his work, though I know the main author IRL so I may get some answers that way. It seemingly meets most of the fair use criteria apart from minimal usage (as I replicated some artistic license such as the shape of the postorbital). At that point the problem is whether changing the outline in those situations would infringe on original research policies. I am of the opinion that S.H. would do a better job estimating the true anatomy than I would, so I wouldn't want to alter it in those areas anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I think the main issue is whether any derivative image is likely to cause issues with the author of the original work. For example for the Kamuysaurus issue, we have had an explicit request (presumably from the artist) to remove the image (admittedly only in the very weak form of removing it from the article and leaving a message on their user page). Yet the image is still on commons and in the article. Would the authors of the paper object to having their image traced to be used in a diagram on wikipedia? A lot of this is a bit touch and go depending on individual whims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely remove it if Scott Hartman expressed an issue with it being too close to his work. The Kamuysaurus issue is not really related to this discussion, as that artwork was supplied through a paper with a free license while the Asilisaurus monograph is under more restrictive copyright. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference is that life restorations like that are of undisputed artistic nature. But a skull diagram like this has choices based on a scientific rather than artistic basis. So it is a bit of a fringe issue and again I think the easiest solution is to bring it up at Commons, for example here:[14] Fair use is only for fair use images, by the way, which are not allowed on Commons. But if we wanted to keep it under fair use, we could just as well use the original. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the original has issues (as listed by IJReid), then we should not use it. Moreover, from what I know of fair use images, reducing the resolution may be necessary if it was classified as one. I think the debate at this point is whether my image is derivative enough to be classified as a derivative work. What would we make of it if I edit it to the point that the only aspects it shares with the original are the outlines of the preserved bones, which cannot be copyrighted. Would it be a derivative work at that point? Truth be told I'm worried about bringing this up at Commons, because I don't know how to properly state how I only traced over S.H.'s image because I considered it the most accurate depiction of Asilisaurus's skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made sveral edits as suggested by IJReid. The squamosal, dentary, and frontal now have shapes more similar to the photos in the source and the jaw is rotated as per Hemiauchenia's suggestion. The middle of the jaw has also been altered after comparisons with Silesaurus, Kwanasaurus, and Lewisuchus, though it is still very speculative. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its been a while, I have been working on a page expansion for Erlikosaurus (already expanded) and an updated skeletal for it. Nothing much to say really, the only thing that bothers me is the 30 cm long humerus, which is massive compared to the skull, comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reasoning behind the unknown elements? They seem extremely arbitrary to me. In particular, I am surprised the (unpreserved) manus is included while the (actually preserved) cervical vertebrae are not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say include a full grey unpreserved skeleton or remove it all. Also, the greyed hand unguals seem incredibly long and curved. Not sure which other therizinosaur shave such morphology. Either they are very long and relatively straighter, like Therizinosaurus, or they are very curved and relatively shorter, like Nothronychus. Cool with the article expansion, but I wonder why you have uploaded these image under CC licences:[16][17] As far as I can see, they are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think that the pectoral girdle could be left in the skeletal, since the humerus may confuse some readers. The claws were based on Nothronychus, as you pointed. Lythronaxargestes The cervicals are not illustraded and the quantity is unknown, therefore I omitted those remains. As for the images, I thought that the skull file was allowed? and for the foot image, I wasn't sure of the permissions surrounding it, and to find the permissions. I thought that it could supply the article but apparenly it needs to be removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that paper itself does not seem to have any free licence attached to it. Their terms of use makes clear that there is no one overall licence, as some journals have. Which makes sense, since Taylor and Francis is not a journal, but a company that owns various journals. As for the claws, the unguals of Nothro[18] don't seem nearly as long relatively, so I think they need to be shorter in the diagram. Also, which I somehow overlooked, Erliko seems very small? Greg Paul gives an estimate of 6 metres, and though I see Holtz gives 3.4 metres, how do you end up at 2.4 metres? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurrent topic in dinosaurs and skeletals, most authors give length and measurements without taking into account the actual remains. The skull of Erlikosaurus is 25-26 cm, how in the world will an animal with such small head reach 6 m? 3.4 m seems more reasonable, however in order to reach that, the remains would need to be scaled-up, very unnatural and inaccurate. They do estimates yes, but these estimates could be applied to the genus, very unlikely for the particular specimen (at least the estimate fits the preserved remains reasonably). My skeletals are oriented to particular specimens, the representative ones. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if you say this is your own personal estimate, we have a problem with WP:original research, which is not allowed (not saying your estimate is right or wrong). At the least, you should use the smallest published estimate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the scale bar 2.4m long or is the Erlikosaurus 2.4m long? I'd reccommend removing the 2.4m scale bar, as it's rather confusing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think what added to the confusion is that you had a different length written on the image. It made it seem like you were going for that unpublished length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The actual axial length of this reconstruction is approximately 3.7 meters. Also, the skull looks a little small—the basal skull length in this reconstruction is only around 23 cm, whereas the Theropod Database lists it as 23.7 cm. Sure, that's only a 3% difference, but it's something, and might help explain a portion of why it seems undersized. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With Allosaurus jimmadseni finally being named it would make sense to update the size diagram, which can be seen here: [19]. In this version, I've added the type specimens of all 3 species and separated them into their own columns. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: I feel like it might be slightly misleading as presented, as both depicted specimens of A. jimmadseni are immature. It could give the impression that A. fragilis was substantially larger than A. jimmadseni, but I don't think that's the case. I don't know the ontogenetic status of any of the other specimens depicted here. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to have them ordered by size again, maybe in a line, but this would mean the species would be jumbled up together which might be confusing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding paper also find SMA 005 to be a. jimmadseni its definitely bigger than two immature specimens maybe you could include it? KoprX (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into SMA 0005, there's the skeletal from Froth et al. and there are decent side views of a mount available, according to the paper it's about 12% larger than MOR693 at about 7.5m but I would like some specific measurements (like a femur measurement) to verify that. Looking at Chure & Loewen 2020 it seems like there are specimens reaching comparable sizes to other A. fraglis specimens and clearly larger than MOR 690 and SMA 0005 (looking at the jugals in fig 12.). Part of the issue is citability and avoiding OR. I could try and estimate based on the size of those jugals, but it could be original research. I've spent several hours researching (ugh) trying to find claims of adulthood etc. I have so far found adult claims for AMNH 4734, MOR 680, subadult claims for Big al, DINO 11541; I have yet to find any claim of maturity for DINO 2560 (aka. UUVP 6000) which is weird considering it's one of the most well-known individuals, I must be missing something obvious. It doesn't seem like A.europaeus has been described in detail yet, I haven't currently found any sources that state the maturity of the specimen. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a version that includes Big Al 2 SMA 0005. [20] Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete (just missing a few bits near the tip fo the tail, assuming the info here is correct [21]) and seems to have a very short tail. Maybe this is the norm for the species (Big Al only preserves 2 and the type is incomplete) but it looks very different from the other silhouettes. Scaling is slightly questionable; I couldn't find any measurements for this specimen other than, 'it's about 12% larger than Big Al at about 7.6m long. I took the images of the lower jaw, ischium, and a vertebra from Foth et al., which don't' have measurements but have scale bars, scaled them into the skeletal reconstruction; that gave me a total length of ~7.6m... so I assume it's scaled somewhat correctly? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram by Marmelad may have to be updated because the allosaurid specimen NMMNH P-26083 has been mentioned in the literature as being about the size of the Epanterias holotype and Saurophaganax, and given that the second edition of Greg Paul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs puts the size of Saurophaganax at 35 feet long, the Epanterias holotype might be a bit smaller (like, say, 34-36 feet) than estimated in the diagram. Therefore, it could be prudent to add NMMNH P-26083 to the diagram but also the holotype of Allosaurus lucasi (YPM VP 57589) because super-large allosaur specimens are rare compared with normally-sized Allosaurus skeletons, and the Epanterias silhouette could be shrunken a bit.70.175.133.224 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
The original idea was that File:Allosaurus size comparison.svg was supposed to replace Marmelad's version. At some point, we removed Epanterias because of the limited material and to focus on clear Allosaurus specimens. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having just uploaded the update, I re-read the theropod database and a couple papers and saw the location info for AMNH 680 is Bone Cabin Quarry, Salt Wash Member. In Chure 2020, Salt Wash Member is where the type of A.jimmadseni and both Big Als' are from. Does that mean that AMNH 680 is probably A.jimmadseni? I'm probably going to remove it in case it is. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly indicates it is A. jimmadseni but we cant be sure it doesn't preserve jugal. What would be the biggest definitive A. fragilis AMNH 290, NMMNH P-26083?KoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steveoc 86Actually Theropod database states that AMNH 680, 290 and 275 all comes from Salt Wash member so that indicates that either all big allosaurus specimens are A. jimmadseni or both A. fragilis and A. jimmadseni live in Salt WashKoprX (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to look into that at this point, I'm going to remove AMNH 680 for the time being. It doesn't sound like NMMNH P-26083 has been officially referred to A.fragiis; also, are NMMNH 26083 and NMMNH P 26083 the same specimen? Both are large, from Brushy Basin Member, New Mexico? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AMNH 275 is a femur only, AMNH 290 is composed of hindlimb, metacarpal, and foot bones only, while AMNH 680 is a partial postcranial skeleton. AMNH 275 might also belong to a non-allosaurid tetanuran, while the lack of cranial material for AMNH 680 makes in hard to say for sure if that specimen is Allosaurus fragilis, A. jimmadseni or similar to "Camptonotus" amplus, because even though the stratigraphic locations of the fossil sites from which YPM 1879 and AMNH 680 were collected fall within the stratigraphic range for A. jimmadseni (see Turner and Peterson 1999; figure 7), the uppermost end of the stratigraphic range for jimmadseni partly overlaps with the lower end of the A. fragilis stratigraphic range.70.175.133.224 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Talking about Allosaurus has reminded me of this old size chart of mine, and how badly it needs updating. I'm wondering what to do about it - shuld I include multiple specimens (probably the humerus for a big Saurophaganax and the femur for a smaller one)? Which skeletal should I use? Also, I'm wondering if I should throw a big Allosaurus and "Epanterias" in there as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the size comparison - what do people think? Big Al was removed for arbitrarily showing a small, immature Allosaurus and the great variability of Allosaurus' size. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you use the Saurophaganax skeletal of Franoys for the Saurophaganax size comparison update?
Are you sure about that head shape for Big Al 2? Seems very different from all the other specimens in the image, jimmadseni or otherwise... :/ Also, do you think it would be a good idea to add A. maximus? --TKWTH (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The head is very close to the skeletal, Big Al 2 seems to have a somewhat bulbous snout and strongly defined lacrimal horns. Big Al 2 is supposedly very complete and has a very short tail, assuming it's restored correctly. Considering that both Big Al and the type don't have complete tails it could be they also would have had shorter tails as well. A maximus isn't always considered a valid Allosaurus species so I'm reluctant to add it in just yet. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion on the Erilikosaurus skeletal reminded me that I have some concerns with Vallibonavenatrix's inclusion in this size chart. When I mentioned to Eotyrannu5 that there aren't any published estimates for it, he said that he based its length on measurements of the known fossils from its description paper. However, that means he's still the one deciding how to apply those measurements and extrapolate the animal's possible length (presumably based on related taxa to fill in the gaps), which definitely crosses the WP:OR boundary. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all length estimates are specimen specific and approximate? As long as there is a note saying that the length is approximate and the length isn't considered defintive, I don't think it's a violation of OR. Ultimately something has to give, otherwise we just end up in a quagmire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main difference here is that we do have length estimates for Erliko, therefore making them up ourselves isn't justified. I guess there are no published estimates for this dinosaur, but if we make up an estimate, we should state this clearly, and what other genus the proportions are based on. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something else I just noticed, Irritator and Vallibonavenatrix appear to be traced from the spinosaurine silhouettes by Aureliano et al. (2019)[22], which is not a free paper.[23] Though perhaps with Irritator it's not too big a concern since it uses a different pose. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Spinosaurus is very similar to Franoy's silhouette as well, something I brought up the previous time around. Eotyrannu5 excused it as being a difficult taxon to pose convincingly, but surely the animal could be easily depicted at a different point in the walk cycle, with the neck more extended, the jaws opened/closed further, the arm more forewards, the tail posed differently, etc.? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is true, and I am also certain we have discussed the silhouettes before and came to the conclusion they were not copyvios. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Vallibonavenatrix one is definitely an exact trace though (again from a non-free paper), so it should at least use a different pose. The comment by FunkMonk above also makes me wonder about the implications, does this mean we're allowed to extrapolate our own size estimates now for scale diagrams if there aren't any? As long as we clearly state what we based them on, like with the life restorations? Seems like a bit of a slippery slope... But then again, one could argue that similar issues may apply to user-made skeletals, which are similarly technical and often involve reconstructing missing bones based on relatives. So as long as the references used are clearly stated, I guess it shouldn't be a problem. However, it should probably be clarified in the diagram that the estimate pertains to that particular specimen. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, there are some noticable differences between the one hera and the papers. The back is almost sail-less, the arm is retissued while still in the same pose, the tail is lengthened and the neck is more natural. I can't tell if the leg has been modified, and the lack of change for the skull makes sense because of its completeness, so it would be quite hard to tell whether it is a unique silhouette in the same pose or the old silhouette but with several tissue changes. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about size estimates certainly isn't any kind of guideline (was more like saying it's better to base on related animals than contradicting published estimates), I think we should actually have a talk page discussion about this; what to do with size comparisons and skeletal diagrams when such haven't been published for a given animal before... And then work out a policy we can add to the top of the page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've seen Eotyrannu5 being accused of plagiarizing skeletals, but I know that he's under the names of AlternatePrehistory and BritishPaleontology on Deviantart, and he makes skeletals and uploads them there, so I've (I think reasonably) assumed that his Carcharodontosauridae and Spinosauridae skeletals were based on his own, yet unpublished skeletals, escepially because I've seen noticeable differences compared to the skeletals of Francisco Bruňén (Franoys), Henrique Paes (randomdinos) and Scott Hartman when looking at the silhouettes of his Carcharodontosauridae size comparison, and less so, but still noticeable differences when looking at the silhouettes of his Spinosauridae size comparison.
Right, at this point you may as well remove the image, I've lost the original file when my hard drive was corrupted and I'm not willing to make another as I have other priorities outside of wikipedia and having much of an online presence. Also seems that this whole thread has been accusing me of plagiarism (of my own skeletals with some) and I don't have the time to deal with any of this right now. I suggest using another Spinosaurid chart, because I do not have the time or patience to go through with making another. Eotyrannu5-2 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's fine because we don't really know if the teeth were covered with lips or whether the naked skin had scales. But many would probably find it unlikely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that we don't have enough evidence for lips. I also tried to make cracked ceratin rather than scales like in crocks.ARSDRACO (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cracked keratin of crocodilians was a very specialized structure correlated with heavily texture bones. Dinosaurs don't have those kinds of bones, and instead had bone texture correlated with lizard-like facial covering. Otherwise it looks very nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not settled, sure. While most paleontologists are leaning towards lips on the basis of bone structure (Witton, Hone, Headden), there are a few dissenters (Carr) who use phylogenetic bracketing to argue that dinosaurs were lipless because they lie between crocodilians and birds. I would recommend reading up on some of Mark Witton's work (like here[25]) if you have not already. At the very least we should avoid crocodilian-style cracked keratinous skin in troodontids. That is excessive speculation unsupported by both bone structure and phylogenetic bracketing (since it's absent in birds). Also, ARSDRACO, can you please sign your replies with four tildes? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lips are far less up for debate than many people here seem to think. Lips are the default for tetrapods, and are only absent in particularly specialised animals. Liplessness is the exception, not the rule. Crocs and birds are both very specialised, we just got unlucky that they're both the closest living relatives to dinosaurs. While yes, there are no papers explicitly supporting lips, they are the parsimonious option, and should be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It's common sense. --TKWTH (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but parsimony could just as easily be used to argue for liplessness as Carr has done. And Wikipedia cannot possibly cite the common sense among specialist practitioners. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Carr has only argued for liplessness in tyrannosaurs, Daspletosaurus specifically, and even that has been said to be less than airtight. No such evidence exists for paravians. I struggle to understand why so many people are grasping at straws to justify liplessness in the face of its sheer unlikeliness. --TKWTH (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what Lythronax is saying is that for our purposes, where everything has to be backed up with reliable sources, there isn't really much that has been published in defence of lips either. And what we as editors think is common sense is irrelevant if we can't back it up with citations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but... I dunno, man, it really comes down to a case of likelihood. There's simply a lot more reason to believe dromaeosaurs and their kin had lips than reason to believe they didn't, and with all the misinformation and reaches and fanboy wishful thinking floating around about the subject, I'll admit I find it a little... irresponsible to depict this animal without lips when there's simply no reason to believe that's the case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. While it's true that we don't really have any hard evidence either way, lips seem to be the default state for all tetrapods, and while that's tenuous, admittedly, tenuous evidence is still more reliable than no evidence, at least if you ask me. And liplessness in paravians simply has no evidence.
Also let's be honest lips are just so much easier to draw and including them saves a lot of work lmao but i suppose that's neither here nor there. My initial point still stands. --TKWTH (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree it is more likely, recommend it, and try to follow it, yes, but I don't think there is strong enough evidence for us removing images that show exposed teeth if we encounter them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more serious issue I just noticed, the image gives it quite a bit of an underbite, unlike what's shown in the skeletal:[26] Lower jaw should be much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the depth of the front of the upper and lower jaws; your drawing shows the lower jaw as deep as the upper jaw there. The skeletal shows the lower jaw much less deep. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this has had an inaccuracy tag on it for some time because of issues with the leg musculature, which I think I've fixed. do the hind legs look okay? (that's the only thing up for debate, everything else is fine as is).Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything, I added those tags during the process of archival because points from earlier discussion hadn't been resolved. I think both are fine now. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patagotitan 2
A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.
Yes AFAIK. I don't have the source for it though, but maybe someone else does.
Lognkosaurs had them by way of phylogenetic bracketing with Malawisaurus and Mendozasaurus, so I have no issue with their presence. The arrangement is also fine they are sparse on the torso and tail. The neck is a bit fat for my preference but theres also the idea that sauropods had thicker necks so its within the realm of possibility. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Osteoderms are fine. Alamosaurus could reach similar sizes to Patagotitan and had osteoderms, and as IJReid said phylogenetic bracketing suggests they were present or at least possible. Better to have them than not, though either option is within the realm of possibility IMO. I personally think that the "horn-like" osteoderms are a bit of an art meme, though, FWIW. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the thickness of the neck, generally it's fine, but it looks implausibly thick under the jaw. Looks like it would have trouble rotating its head up or down. It would need to taper a bit more, unless it is supposed to represent some sort of dewlap, which seems implausible because the shading indicates the lower margin of the neck just keeps its width throughout too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough information on osteoderms to be sure. Mendozasaurus is the only definite colossosaur with preserved osteoderms, so we can't be sure whether that osteoderm anatomy is unique to Mendozasaurus or a general feature of colossosaurs. I suspect that there's more variation in the osteoderm appearance than the current nearly universally spiky trend, though. Agreed with FunkMonk on the neck. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Size charts and missing attribution and/or copyvio
One thing that I've always attempted to do when making size charts is to make original silhouettes (except that one time when I used a PD silhouette for Anchiceratops). I know that not everyone does this, and it is rather common for the silhouettes of others to be used in these sorts of diagrams. This is perfectly okay as long as the silhouettes are correctly licensed and properly attributed. However, this is not always the case, so I thought that it would be good to bring up some cases of size charts that are missing attribution or contain copyvio. I appologize in advance if I've made any errors here. Also, I'm sure that these are not the only ones. Feel free to add any more that you find. Also note that many of these size charts have multiple iterations uploaded as different files. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just noticed this secrtion,and fixed the Triceratops description. The others might be more complicated, since they are not all based on free images... FunkMonk (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tail tip seems undermuscled and I think that the tail may be too short. The legs, head & neck look like they were just taken from the Hartman skeletal, so their posture should be changed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the tail may actually be a little too long now. Also, Stegosaurus had a huge number of tiny osteoderms on the underside of its neck. These seem to have formed a sort of shallow dewlap, so there should probably be more flesh under the jaw. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on some Stegosaurus silhouettes myself, and I discovered that S. ungulatus apparently had considerably longer hindlimbs than S. stenops. For plate arrangement, I followed Paul's skeletal for plate shape and rearranged them so the corresponding plates were in the same positions as S. stenops. The elbows of both could do with being a bit more flexed as well, right now they're uncomfortably ramrod straight. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also find S.ungulatus to have longer hindlimbs but i didn't know exactly how much longer. I did this feature more prominent. For plate shape i used GetAwayTrike's skeletal but it seems that he uses Paul's too so I think it looks fine. I rearranged plates to correspond with stenops. Finally elbows fixed.KoprX (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure, but S. ungulatus does preserve considerable amounts of hindlimb material, in addition to vertebrae, so I think that this trait is probably genuine, at least to some extent. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgosaurus
A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.
That high nasal ridge seems like too much speculation. And the fact that it is almost just a black silhouette and has no details makes it useless compared to images we have already. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're watching it on a phone, put the brightness to the max. You can see that it's partly dark blue instead of being completely black then. Also, the brown restoration cureently used in the Gorgosaurus article has a too extensive feather coat.
Our current Ankylosaurus size chart showing the maximum size of the largest specimen is looking a little... small. I've created a new version showing the two most complete specimens, with CMN 8880 matching the 8m length estimate. Comments? Also, the new version of PhyloCode comes out tomorrow! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are they scaled to their skull lengths here (55.5 and 64.5 cm in length)?
Hmm... looks like the GAT skeletal may have had too big a head. I'll have to fix that. The femoral length should be correct (I measured it before and it matched up w/ the published length). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the proportions of his skeletal give a length of 7 m for CMN 8880. It's even mentioned in the comments on Deviantart.
It looks a bit confusing with the many different coloured legs, because it is hard to see at a glance which attaches where. Maybe it would be best to simplify it so each dinosaur has a single colour? Or make their colours even more different, so they aren't both green.FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going to start working on a skeletal and life restoration for Angolatitan, since it's the only dinosaur known from Angola so far and the article has no images. What should I base the reconstruction on? I'm rather unfamiliar with sauropods, but from what I'm getting from the article it should be something between the likes of Brachiosaurus and Euhelopus? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's closely related to Chubutisaurus, and Asier Larramendi's skeletal of Chubutisaurus doesn't seem too problematic at a glance [27]. Andesaurus, Ligabuesaurus, and Sauroposeidon are also probably fairly close relatives. Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan is also worth referencing, but I'd be cautious about basing it off of Euhelopus, because some studies find it to be a basal macronarian and there was an SVP abstract recently indicating it may be a mamenchisaurid. I'm not sure what you should base the head on. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most phylogenetically appropriate skull would probably be Sarmientosaurus regardless of its taxonomic position, because of its largely intermediate morphology between brachiosaurs and other titanosaurs. It still has the nasal projection and a flat maxillary ventral edge, and the skull isn't controversial like Malawisaurus. Otherwise the best bet would be an edit of either Euhelopus or Brachiosaurus to fit the maxilla of "Paluxysaurus" and the posterior skull of Phuwiangosaurus. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankylosaurus, Edmontonia and Suaropelta
So an IP has brought these to our attention, and I thnk they look quite nice. The only real issue is that the Ankylosaurus tail may be too short since it looks to be based on the old Carpenter skeletal, but perhaps someone else knows better whether it is actually wrong. The Edmontonia can probably be cropped to remove some whitespace easily. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that up, I was halfway through formulating a far more verbose response with exactly the same message. I'm not too upset personally as it's not like this damages me from a career or reputation perspective, but it is still pretty blatant plagiarism, which I'm sure none of us are exactly fond of. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's similar, but it's not completely the same.
I guess technically they're right. It's not completely the same. But I'm confident enough in the judgement of most of the users involved in this project that no argument needs to be had regarding the obvious degree of similarity. The question becomes whether or not it's acceptable. I'd rather they were changed as a matter of principle - I'd not be happy if another artist's work had been used like this without expressed permission. Ultimately though I don't care enough to argue over it, so if the majority opinion opposes my own then I won't lose any sleep. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the uploader will bother responding here, but one thing we could do easily is to change the colours in Photoshop with the hue options. Changing the pattern would be major work, though. The reds are obviously based on Borealopelta, but there is no reason to believe all ankylosaurs would necessarily be reddish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple licenses are allowed as long as the artist has decided them. But yeah, though unlikely, it could be a fake account. In any case, I think we should try to get the uploader to respond here, some of their other works have also been reviewed, and some anatomical issues have been pointed out that should be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I uploaded the originals initially to use as examples in response to this post but DrawingDinosaurs responded faster than I could. Truthfully I forgot to take them down but seeing as I lack the time to follow up on the plagiarism I figure I might as well leave them on commons.--Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About fourteen months ago (fourteen?!), I created new size comparisons for Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus since the previous ones had the postcranium of Tyrannosaurus instead of their actual proportions (and to show another Gorgosaurus specimen). I overlooked the albertosaurine comparison at the time, but after completely redoing my albertosaurines again, I went ahead and made a new version of our current chart. Interestingly, this time Gorgosaurus was found to be bigger. Any comments on either version? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice update. Wouldn't these and their separate size comparisons need an update though? If I remember well, you made these when the skeletals of Henrique were 8.8 m for Albertosaurus and 9 m for Gorgosaurus, but now it's 9 m for Albertosaurus and 9.3 m for Gorgosaurus, and the proportions are a bit different. Maybe I'm wrong though, and they're already that long here in a way (there are different ways to measure a dinosaur AFAIK).
They are already that way: Albertosaurus was updated last month and Gorgosaurus yesterday, and randomdinos had alreadt updated his skeletals by then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a size comparison showing multiple Irritator specimens, in "honor" of the irritation of Huinculsaurus being published behind a paywall and thus rendering my Huincul size chart inaccurate. If anyone can give me some vertebral lengths for this taxon, it would be much appreciated. Anyways, how does this size chart look accuracy-wise? Should I add any more specimens? Also, are there any old size charts of mine that you'd like to see overhauled? I can't guarantee anything immediately but it would help to give me an idea of what to work on. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely zero measurements for the non-caudal material, which is featured only in a single publication (and irritated me when I made a skeletal). It was some 2005 paper with Kellner as an author than the lead author having a last initial M, thats all I can recall. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really nice! Accuracy and stylistically-wise. Elaine Machado gives an estimate of 5-6 metres for the undescribed possible Angaturama skeleton[Contribuições à paleontologia de Terópodes não-avianos do Mesocretáceo do Nordeste do Brasil], which I believe is the publication IJReid is referring to. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼07:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that a skeletal for this guy did exist, so I did the scaling based on it. Once approved, I'll add this to my Huincul faunal chart. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while. I have been working on Enigmosaurus page, and well, a skeletal for it was required. The bar represents 5 solid meters, any comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the pelvis is mainly based on the photo in Zanno's article? Also relevant, the restoration used in the article[33] needs some updates, it's belly is too small, and the fingers too thin, probably other issues too (feathering, foot pads lacking). FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially odd about the fingers in that restoration is that those of the left Enigmosaurus seem to be completely lacking in soft tissue and are literally just bare bones, either by mistake or the way they're drawn. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so the only photos we're allowed to use have big watermarks on them, is that okay? also, there's one of the full skeleton and then a few details of the skull and sickle claws. do we want those too? if the watermarks are an issue I can take pictures myself but I don't have a good camera so they won't be as nice. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more pressing concern is if those watermarked images can be released under a CC license. Some confirmation on that would be good. Either way, taking new photos would probably be a good backup plan. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, sorry for the wait. got all the permissions and info, here's the main picture. do we want some of the detail shots too (skull, pedal unguals)? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Straight for the infobox. Yeah, any other shots would be great, but I'd say with emphasis on "known" elements, if we can even be sure yet. The skull in profile maybe? Also, since you are not the photographer, it may be necessary to get email permission confirmation through OTRS:[38]FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I know that they are very strict about such permissions on Commons, though. Just so you are prepared for what to do if it becomes an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As one of my main projects for this year, I've started work on an illustrated size chart featuring the most completely-known tyrannosaurid species, in a similar format to the one Fred Wierum made for the dromaeosauridae article[39], since I figured I'd be nice to have a good comparison of the "main" tyrannosaur taxa to highlight their differences in size and morphology. And also because I'd like to make up for ditching my attempted vector chart from 2018[40], which I may also revitalise work on. Anyways, here's the first batch of sketches I've got so far! They were made relatively quickly, so let me know if they're up to scratch before I start detailing and colouring them in.
As for which animals I'll be including in the final chart, here's the list I've worked up:
It would be the best to base as many on the skeletals of Franoys and randomdinos as possible (T. rex, Tarbosaurus and Daspletosaurus based on Franoys, Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus based on randomdinos), unlike how it is now.
If you're referring to my old vector chart, only the Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus are based on GetAwayTrike, which I'll agree is not the most reliable source for skeletals (he tends to not account for taphonomic distorsion very well). The rest are all based on Franoys, except for the T. rex, which is based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Anyways, I've taken that chart off the gallery and linked it instead, since it's not the focus of this section. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there's anything wrong with basing the Tyrannosaurus (or Daspletosaurus, for that matter) on Hartman's skeletal (the former, after all, was published in a peer-reviewed paper and is currently in the Tyrannosaurus article). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not sure. No green feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are known thus far in the fossil record, but I'm not sure if it's impossible. We'll need input from someone more familiar with the matter, since I'm not having much luck finding articles/papers about it so I'm probably not looking in the right place. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼02:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, structural coloration like iridescence in the feathers of birds is a product of the barbs and barbules on the feathers. On the basis of bracketing, this would not be possible for "stage 1" protofeathers that lack this structure (and melanosomes alone cannot produce a green colour), but I don't know if there are further physical constraints that rule out iridescence completely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I changed the colours for a more plausible brown and yellow to avoid anything contentious. I'll add this to the article if there's no further comment. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼09:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, but I wonder whether some of these might have the same issue as mentioned for Chilantaisaurus above, that the femur couldn't rotate backwards past a 90 degree angle? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeouch, apparently so. Good to know that! I'll definitely keep an eye for it in my reconstructions from now on. It'll be rather tedious adjusting the left leg on the Qianzhousaurus, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, was kinda lazy with this for a while but finally fixed the pose on Qianzhousarus (might need to clear cache to see the change since it's a heavy image), lemme know if it looks good. Will start work on Alioramus tomorrow. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good reference, there's a skeletal reconstruction in the paper, and I'm pretty sure the images there are CC licensed and can be used here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! The hind feet look pretty odd, don't they? Should the toes and metatarsals be as flat on the ground, or rather be raised by foot pads? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should probably be more upright and pad-bearing indeed. In addition, the manus look much too small to me and some of the overall posture looks a bit wonky. The skeletal could definitely do with some significant adjustments or replacement if anyone's up for doing the work. I might try doing a life reconstruction, but apropos of my artist's block on that Dryptosaurus and a bad cold I make no promises. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I began to work on some skeletal diagrams for Dicraeosaurus hansemanni and D. sattleri, mainly because I didn't think that there would be enough rebbachisaurs left for the month (I was wrong, though, there's still Cathartesaura, Comahuesaurus, Rebbachisaurus, and Zapalasaurus at least, so some of these may pop up eventually). Currently for D. hansemanni I've drawn all the presacrals except for the atlas, the sacrum, 31 caudals, 20 chevrons, the humerus, the pelvis, both tibiae, and the fibula. For D. sattleri I've completed the sacrum, two caudals, the ilium, the tibia, and the fibula. Janensch (1929) & Janensch (1961) have been my resources so far (it's fortunate that Paleoglot exists seeing that I don't speak German. However, I think that I may need to reference Janensch's 1936 paper (Ein aufgestelltes Skelett von Dicraeosaurus Hansemann), since I think that there's a illustration of the mounted skeleton in there. Does anyone have this paper or an image of the said illustration? Another thing that I've been considering is what to do with the skull - I suppose that Bajadasaurus might be a good filler? Any comments on this project so far? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of Janensch 1936. Bajadasaurus has the most complete skull of any dicraeosaurid. However, the skull of Dicraeosaurus hansemanni is by no means poorly known itself and there's an illustrated abstract by Schwarz-Wings with a reconstruction of the skull. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've scaled some parts of Skelett m to get this: [41]. It is pretty obvious that my old Dicraeosaurus silhouette's outdated. I found another useful paper: [42]. I think that I should be capable of getting the astragalus and a few costae from this. However, I still lack a reference for Dicraeosaurus' atlas. As for the skull, I've yet to draw any of it, although I really should. Any comments on the WIP? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the clear points of adjusting the silhouette the material seems to be properly sized and I see no issue with your plans to proceed either. If it is necessary the atlas can be taken from a relative, there is minimal variation anyways. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to take the atlas from Amargasaurus. The unknown regions of the two skull reconstructions aren't very detailed, so I'll have to rely on Bajadasaurus for the unknown bits. I tried scaling the dorsal ribs, but they wouldn't articulate with the dorsals, so I think that I'll have to wait for Janensch (1936) for them. I suppose that I could also use the Wilson skeletal for some parts. I've scaled the coracoid and humerus, and it would appear that Dicraeosaurus has rather longer arms than often depicted... I'll try and post a link to my progress sometime soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What specimen(s) did you base your limb measurements off of? In my collection of sauropod measurements gleaned from the literature, the only Dicraeosaurus specimen with an associated humerus and femur (skeleton O of D. sattleri) has a h:f ratio of 0.61, which is actually lower than the ratio depicted in the Wilson skeletal (0.66). The atlas of D. hansemanni is figured in Fig. 6 and 7 of Janensch 1929. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeleton Q of D. hansemanni preserves a humerus and tibia, though, and scaling off of it does produces a h/f ration of ~.65... not especially longer, so I guess that it's mainly just longer than I depicted it. The problem with the atlas is that it's not figured in lateral view. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Dicraeosaurus bones from site Q known to be from the same individual? It's apparently a multi-taxon bonebed; Giraffatitan and Kentrosaurus specimens are also from Q. Ornithopsis (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize that. Using the humerus of Q as is produces an h/f ratio of ~.61, so perhaps not changing its size (as indeed done in the mount) is the best option. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the figure from Janensch (1936) in Taylor, Wedel, & Naish's "A new approach to determining the habitual neck posture of sauropods based on the behaviour of extant animals" (available for download from Taylor's website: [43])! I should hopefully be moving a lot faster now! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal reconstructions
Dicraeosaurus hansemanni
D. sattleri
I'm almost done: [44]. Any comments on this? I can't seem to figure out how the preserved portion of the neural arch of the atlas fits into the rest of it - does anyone know what I'm missing? (I'm not very good at atlantal topology...) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would just recommend checking out the SVPOW posts on the atlas/axis complex, since thats the best resource I've found for those bones in sauropods. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the neural arch on the caudals should fade out sooner, with the transition to the 'whip' occurring somewhere between Cd30 and Cd40—see Apatosaurus louisae in Gilmore 1936, for instance—unless there's a good reason for all the extra caudals with neural arches. It looks like you're gonna have to re-pose it a bit to get the feet in the right plane. You should probably undo the damage to the left tibia. Nothing else strikes me as a significant issue, though I'm not checking the exact proportions. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of those posterior caudal vertebrae are actually preserved, and they're seen in the skeletals by Wilson and Paul as well, so I can't really do anything about them. I'm still kind of baffled by the atlas but I think that I did it reasonably well (and it's pretty small). The lowering of the hindlimbs and reparing of the tibia have both been done. Here it is, by the way. It looks really, really weird, but dicraeosaurids were pretty weird anyways. How does it look? Up next -> D. sattleri. Then either Brachytrachelopan or Suuwassea. Hopefully. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sequence has to be that long? Since there are large gaps in the sequence and I don't believe the posterior caudals are all from the same specimen, I don't see why you couldn't shorten the sequence considerably. Wilson depicts it with around 35 caudals with neural arches (as in Apatosaurus) and Paul depicts it with around 45–50 (closer to Camarasaurus), in either case much fewer than your 55+. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something, but why are most of the bones brown when the legend notes that "known in the holotype" is assigned a blue color, which I don't see anywhere in the skeletal? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dicraeosaurus sattleri has been completed! Comments? It's really weird, even when compared to D. hansemanni. One thing that I'm concerned about is that I was unable to replicate Paul's 15m length estimate for it - specimens m and M have equal femoral lengths, and D. sattleri has anteroposteriorly shorter vertebral lengths compared to D. hansemanni. Equally concerning is specimen Nr, a D. hansemanni specimen which preserves a femur that's about 5% longer than that of the holotype... Anyways, once these are ready for the article, I was thinking that a multi-image template like the one used above might be useful. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa... my work got on TetZoo?! Neat! I've fixed it and overhauled the proportions. It's now ~36-37 m long, within Paul's range of 35-40 m. The tail was redone by putting together the tails of Haplocanthosaurus, Lavocatisaurus, Demandasaurus, and Nigersaurus. How does this new version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to see the previous version easily, but looks good to me. And yeah, there's also one of IJReid's skeletals in there... FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dilong
This image is in the Dilong page but has not been reviewed yet. Those exposed teeth should probably be removed. The feet look problematic too. Also, is this[46]Dilong reconstruction by Nobu Tamura accurate? If so, it could be added to Wikimedia. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several things. Your first source was talking about Spinosaurus, which has a higher-than-average density of neurovascular foramina, and even then it doesn't mention integumentary implications. The second source also has no opinion on lips and at least one of its authors (Naish) is pro-lips. The last two sources are by Carr, who is admittedly against lips, but on weak grounds such as poorly-constrained phylogenetic bracketing. It's disingenuous to claim that the only thing supporting lips is the hypothesis that they help with hydration. Lips are generally more likely considering osteological correlatures, even if rare exceptions do exist. The debate is not fully resolved but a pro-lips consensus does seem to be present among paleontologists. These kinds of endless discussions are tiresome and we don't want to restart them. Since you're a new user who probably started editing just to complain about lips, I'll give you some advice: Don't repeat old weak arguments which we've heard a million times, make sure your sources actually support your opinion, learn proper link formatting, and sign your comments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Witton just stated his opinion, nothing more, nothing less. He hasn’t gone through the same necessary steps like Carr did. Carr’s paper went through peer review process and was published through scientific literature. Witton’s observations and statements have not gone thought he same amount of peer review/scrutiny and never made it to scientific journals. His post is just a blog post, so unless (and until) he goes through exact same steps, it is simply just another person’s opinion. Other paleontologists just seem to ignore this fact for some reason. --- WTJP sockpuppet
I should probably not feed the troll, but whatever. The text of the Carr paper says two things about tyrannosaur skin: it involves flat scales and crocodilian-like sensory organs. Witton also thinks it has flat scales, and various papers confirm the sensative nature of theropod facial tissue. But neither of these contrast with an interpretation with lips. Carr is personally anti-lips based on arguments which have not been formally published (phylogenetic bracketing), so saying that lipless tyrannosaurs is a peer-reviewed argument and that lips are not is misleading. The illustration provided with Carr's paper does portray Carr's interpretations of tyrannosaur integument, but these interpretations are not discussed and many people have noted that the illustration seems more like a diagram than an accurate life restoration. Seriously, I know you have low moral standards due to your disruptive editing and sockpuppeting, but please don't bog down this image review process with half-truths and misleading arguments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"but these interpretations are not discussed" They're discussed in the video.
But it's Carr who explains why the restoration looks kinda weird. And sure, the guy who made the video is an awesomebro because he doesn't think that every dinosaur was feathered and/or lipped...
This was uploaded to the Aquilarhinus page without review. Overall it looks good to me but I'm not the best when it comes to hadrosaurs so lemme know what you guys think! Also, it's awesome to see that a lot of artists I've seen/know on Instagram have been putting up their art on Wikipedia! I'll put up a PSA-ish thing up on there though to try to inform as many people as possible of the palaeoart review pages though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the hands don't look quite right. The unguals are too pointed and there seem to be too many of them (fourth and fifth digits in particular!); I think there should also generally just be more flesh on the hands. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hind leg also looks weird, like it is both turned towards the viewer, but also towards the head. Is that the knee joint pointing right at the camera? Also, aren't the individual scales way too large? FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User Петр Меньшиков uploaded a 3D model of Convolosaurus marri to Wikimedia Commons and asked me to help him send this image for review. We have no reconstruction in an article about this dinosaur and it would be nice to have it, since it is known for several complete fossil skeletons. --HFoxii (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's me again, this time with a new life restoration for Enigmosaurus in order to update the previous one. I decided to illustrate an albino individual, since color mutations are not very popular in paleoart, comments? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but we should probably show idealised versions of animals here, it is not an All Yesterdays experiment after all, but an encyclopaedia, we are supposed to show a best guess at how a normal individual would have looked (we wouldn't use a photo of an albino lion as the main photo in that article either). Anyhow, since they could have had this colour normally, no big deal. But I'm pretty sure the hallux should reach the ground, all toes were weight bearing in therizinosaurs, except the very basal ones. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we shouldn't depict an albino individual unless we have a specific reason to want an image of one. I'd suggest tweaking it to look a bit less obviously albino (e.g. the eyes) and remove the part of the description which says it's albino; for the most part the color scheme isn't impossible for a non-albino individual though. I don't have anything to add regarding the anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't expecting that much discouragement surrounding the coloration, I'll try to change the color of the eye. However, I find difficult to make the hallux more ground-touching, I'm not the best when it comes to photomanipulation. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς01:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be like a prosauropod foot, so it has to be changed pretty radically (which is one reason why they were thought to be related to prosauropods at one point, so not really something we can miss showing). Like here:[47] As for the colouration, well, you could draw it with one hand also since there would probably have been one handed individuals (or any other atypical deformity), but that would also not really fit what we need here, which is to just show how a typical animal could have looked like. Perhaps we should write that into the criteria for inclusion at the top of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made, what about now? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC
The lower jaw is much more strongly curved than the upper, and it looks like as if the beak could not be closed completely. If so, it would not have been able to use its beak for cropping, so this seems unlikely to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Jens said, the curve of the upper jaw should logically follow that of the lower. According to Mark Witton at least, animals that large would possibly not be that shaggy:[49] Also, their inset tooth rows have been hypothesised to indicate cheeks. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other theropods with curved lower jaws while maintaining a semi-straight upper jaw (Jeholornis or Masiakasaurus), also, my upper jaw have some degree of curvature. Is not like a flat surface. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a skeletal diagram for Suuwassea as a dicraeosaurid, something that I don't think that anyone else has done yet (correct me if I'm mistaken). I did my best to cram the known material of Suuwassea' skull onto that of Bajadasaurus, but my success was... limited. I've come to the conclusion that Suuwassea, Bajadasaurus, and Dicraeosaurus all had rather different cranial morphologies - unfortunately we need more material to confirm this. Anyways, Suuwassea is a super-obscure animal, yet it has one of the most thoroughly done descriptions of any diplodocoid. It's pretty interesting as well, and has a neat name (which, coincidentally, sounds remarkably like Eulalia!). Suuwassea has historically been classified as a diplodocid - something that seems pretty understandable after drawing it. Further information's available in the file description. Comments? How did I do? And yes, the size comparison will updated - someday. Next up is Brachytrachelopan. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The torso looks quite long compared to the other dicraeosaurids done, which is probably because of the elongation of the anterior dorsals because of cervicalization, but still should probably be attempted to be remedied. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. As far as the one dark blue rib goes I don't think distinguishing that a single rib has unknown preservation is necessary, but thats up to you. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that Tschopp and Mateus [50] reidentified the bone Harris described as a clavicle as an interclavicle. Other than that point, I see nothing obviously objectionable. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've relocated the interclavicle. The dark blue color also applies to nine of the whiplash caudals, as these are only known from their ends and could represent as few as five caudals in total. Any more comments or is it good to go? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the upper arm and the neck are unusually long for an ornithopod, so that should be visible in the diagram. As well, the tail was probably more elongate than the typical ornithopod according to possible elasmarians like Diluvicursor or the "leaellyna" postcrania. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arm is swept back, I could rotate it further forwards if it would help. The tail's more than half the animal's length and the neck's over twice the length of the skull - is this not sufficiently long? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The neck length wasn't clear because of the curve, it looks closer to 1.5 skull length probably because the neck is straight out behind the head. The upper arm should be longer, as the skeletal by Rozadilla has the shoulder too high up the side of the body, and even then in the diagram here the humerus doesn't look over the length of the forearm. Tail length is a bit more subjective since the closest probable relative with a tail is Isasicursor, and in the skeletal on its article the tail is significantly longer than double the rest of the body in length. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram comparing small Morrison Formation theropods
The Morrison coelurosaur size comparison diagram should be updated to include the recently described troodontid Hesperornithoides, and it might also have to include the ceratosaur Fosterovenator because the latter genus is clearly a small ceratosaur possibly related to Elaphrosaurus judging from the fact that Dalman (2014) erroneously classifies Ceratosauridae under Carnosauria and accidentally assigned Fosterovenator to Ceratosauridae, when he meant to assign the genus to Ceratosauria incertae sedis.
Dalman, S.G. (2014). New data on small theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Como Bluff, Wyoming, USA. Volumina Jurassica. 12 (2): 181–196.70.175.134.8 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Ah yes, this old chart. I've really got to update it. Here's a list of everything needed that I can see:
Stokesosaurus: Not too bad, although the feet and ankles could use some more work, and the axial column's not too good. Since I added fuzz to my Timurlengia, this should also be fuzzy.
Tanycolagreus: Not bad, but not good either. The legs look weird, the arm's weird, the rest is subpar. Needs fuzz.
Coelurus: Not too bad, but could use an overhaul with a boxier skull (following Tanycolagreus). Needs fuzz.
Ornitholestes: Pretty poor - metatarsal orientation, leg shape, arms, flesh on fingers, and some other soft tissue details all off. Also - needs fuzz (I'm detecting a recurring theme here...).
These fixes are rather extensive, so they may take awhile, but I should be able to have them done by the first week of November. Fosterovenator is far too ambiguous for a size comparison currently, and it doesn't seem to be a coelurosaur, so it's outside of the chart's scope. Thanks for reminding me to work on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noasaurids are also small theropods, so you could restore Fosterovenator as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid (the paratype of Fosterovenator has been removed from Ceratosauria by Skawinski et al. 2017) because noasaurids are almost about the same size as Stokesosaurus and Tanycolagreus.70.175.134.8 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]
Here's the first step in the update - Ornitholestes. It's still based on Hartman's skeletal. I've given it fuzz this time, and added long filaments for wings on the arm (seeing as it's basal to Compsognathidae). I'm wondering if the long advanced tail feathers were a bad idea - I might go back and change that. The posture is sort of intended to show a hesitant step. Are the feet too chunky? Has anything else gone wrong? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the other two updated individual size charts. Any comments before the main image is updated (Coelurus & Stokesosaurus are both ready) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment is that the forward weight shift of the Ornitholestes would imply the other foot is farther forwards than it is in the diagram. The rest of the elements look fine. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the promised Brachytrachelopan, but much more straightforwards by far. Suuwassea was used as the basis for the silhouette, and, along with Linwulong, helped to fill in for the unknown material. The holotype of Brachytrachelopan is not described in as much detail as that of Suuwassea, Amargatitanis, or LingwulongDicraeosaurus, and this is the only photograph of it that I could find: [51]. It's difficult to interpret, so it may take awhile (though I aim to complete it by the end of March). Comments on either dicraeosaurid? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amarga is fine theres really not much to comment on. As far as Brachy, yeah thats really all that there is so its one of the more problematic taxa. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cnemial crest of Amargatitanis is differently shaped and more complete than you depict it. Only the distal margin of the cnemial crest is incomplete; its low and elongate shape is a genuine feature shared with other dicraeosaurids other than Suuwassea. Other than that I don't see anything that you should change. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't have it quite right, IMO. As far as I can tell, the margin of the cnemial crest is essentially complete except distally--there shouldn't be any greyed-out region at all anterior to it. See this: [52]Ornithopsis (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of Amargatitanis, how accurate is this image by Levi bernardo? The hindlimbs immediately strike me as extremely skinny, based on my skeletal the tibia just barely fits inside the shin. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I work on the Angolatitan and tyrannosaurid images above, I thought it'd be a nice idea to redo the first contribution and artwork I ever submitted to Wikipedia, my old Neuquenraptor! Which, looking at it two years later (WOW, I cannot believe it's been that long already), has not aged well. I don't think it even got reviewed, as it's wonky in various ways and inaccurate to what fossil material is known. I based the new illustration on Slate Weasel's recent skeletal, which I've put in place of my also wonky size chart[53] on the article. Lemme know if there's anything else I should fix on the restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your artistic skills have only gotten better over the years, nice! It would seem you need some longer covert feathers[54], I don't think you would even be able to see where the primary and secondary feathers attach, but now there is a weird junction between them by the wrist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, I overlooked that the primaries look like they attach to the wrist rather than the second finger, but you could hide that if more of the finger was covered by coverts, and the first finger was free of them. Sort of like here:[55] Here's a diagram of Archaeopteryx showing where the primary feathers should attach:[56]FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were definitely attaching to the wrist, so I just changed the outlines so that they lead to the second finger, and also moved the first finger slightly to the left to avoid ambiguity as suggested. Hopefully that's better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I made that skeletal less than a year ago?! Time flies! It did have a few issues, including the lack of flesh on the feet and the femur being rotated too far back, but I have hopefully fixed those now. Fortunately neither of those were replicated in your life restoration (I'm not too familiar with maniraptorans, so I can't really say anything about its accuracy). Thanks for reminding me about this! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! Even with the (now fixed) flaws it was still leagues better than my size chart though, haha. And let's not forget the even older and less accurate version of that chart that's still being used in some articles on other language wikis [57], gonna be replacing both of those with your skeletal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the final skeletal of the month: that promised Brachytrachelopan skeletal. It's neck is really short. I scaled the tail to the same length as the dorsal series of D. hansemanni, so its appearance as extremely long is probably just due to the neck's shortness. This one was pretty tricky to do, it seems like dicraeosaurids fall into these groups: well-documented (Dicraeosaurus, Bajadasaurus, Suuwassea, and Amargatitanis), well-known but not well-documented (Brachytrachelopan, Amargasaurus, Lingwulong), and those that I have virtually no information on (Pilmatueia, Dystrophaeus, Dyslocosaurus). Some of the scaling of the vertebrae went a bit funkily, and the type specimen seems rather crushed. How well did I do in restoring this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to really say, the neck is short as was known, and the tail is more reasonable than other restorations I've seen. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything obviously in need of change. The head in the silhouette looks like it could be angled down a bit, though, perhaps. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've angled the head further downwards. I'll begin working on that size comparison now that the skeletal making part is done. I considered trying Amargasaurus, but it's not too well documented, the neural spines are rather distorted, it's too late now, and there's a good Hartman skeletal for it anyways. Thanks for all the feedback throughout the month! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no primaries in this reconstruction. (And why even show the silhouette of the feathers in a skeletal restoration?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing reconstructions and determining if any of them have some sort of inaccuracy. This one clearly has. The fact it was published in a scientific paper doesn't make it mistake-proof. Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, we have before, and in this situation the change I see as necessary is simply adjusting the silhouette so feathers come from the second digit as well, a well-established rule of paravian feather arrangements here. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there have been some pretty awful reconstructions in peer reviewed papers, see for example.[58] Others that seem good otherwise also have issues, like this one.[59] So they are certainly not exempt if we find some issues. In this case, it should be an easy fix. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems to lack toe pads. The feathers aren't connected correctly to the hand (here's an example of what it can look like: [60]), I think that it would be better if someone with more experience than me in this region explains it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that attempt at adding in the wing feathers ended up slightly degrading the quality of the outline on one of the digits. OviraptorFan (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. The Dineobellator fossil has no skin impressions so no one knows exactly what its feathers looked like. The inclusion of a crest in the image seemed questionable.Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phu Wiang spinosaurid
Since I recently got back to my expansion of Siamosaurus for GA and FA, here's a skeletal reconstruction for a series of caudal vertebrae from the Khok Kruat Formation, possibly belonging to that genus. Based on photographs from Adun Samathi (2019)[61]. Let me know if there's anything I need to fix! Especially since I'm still rather inexperienced with skeletals. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are the unknown regions based on? It would be good to cite that. Also, the snout seems to be really shallow at its front. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based the silhouette on Baryonyx and Spinosaurus - added citations for that. Also made the lower jaw less shallow, though still keeping the snout relatively low since the specimen was small and likely represented a juvenile/subadult individual, which, given what we know about theropods (including other spinosaurs) in that age range, would have had a more gracile snout. Also made the text a bit bigger and cropped the image a little. Are the updates better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼01:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Old life restorationNew life restorationHolotype tooth illustration
While Siamosaurus and Ichthyovenator are going through the GAN process, I'm gonna start prepping our second spinosaur tooth taxon, Ostafrikasaurus, as well, starting by digitally re-doing my old restoration, and drawing the fossil tooth in a separate image instead of just having a silhouette for some reason. Fixed some anatomical issues with the reconstruction, such as the unusually short humerus, skinny thigh, and wonky feet, and made the throat pouch more akin to those of crocodilians, with it deepening right under the hyoid. Also gave the "proto-nasal crest" a splash of colour, assuming they evolved as a socio-sexual display structure as suggested by Hone and Holtz (2017)[62]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼12:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've used Torvosaurus as a reference, but it's a pretty derived megalosaurid that appears to be designed for tackling large prey. Perhaps Eustreptospondylus might be a better reference megalosaurid, seeing as it diverged before the Afrovenatorinae+Megalosaurinae split and already has a long, low snout? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought it would be a good idea to split the images, nice! I see you've covered the teeth in lips, so I wonder if the "subnarial gap" would even have been visible? Now you have a kink in the "lip" where it would be, which is sort of odd. The thigh also seems exceptionally wide? And maybe you need more indication of the deltoid muscle, the arm looks a bit odd where it attaches with the body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slimmed the snout and overall proportions to make it more Eustreptospondylus-like (I'll admit I didn't do much proper research as to what megalosaurid reference would be most appropriate when creating the original drawing). Also made the thigh less broad and added skin folds to show presence of the deltoids. For the subnarial gap I was assuming that if the lips follow the shape of the skull it may still be visible, since if we're going by how lips seem to work in modern reptiles, they're pretty rigid and don't "droop down" or stray so far from the outline of the skull as they do in mammals. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The overall anatomy of the Nobu restoration (especially around the tail, hips, legs and feet) is rather wonky, which seems to be a common issue with his older illustrations. On the second image the toes of the left foot are curved in a weird, sort of distorted way. Also, not sure if it's just me but the fingers on that one also look like they're backwards? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The toes on the near foot of the second image aren't just curved strangely, they're arranged so that digits III & IV wouldn't sit flat on the ground! I think the fingers, wrist and forearm are a bit shrunken and lacking in flesh, and honestly look a little mangled. Comparing it to this skeletal suggests that a lot is off proportionally (Concavenator is by no means a poorly known taxon, and recently it's been thoroughly described in the literature, all the detailed new stuff being paywalled unfortunately). The NT image's wonkiness isn't helped by the weird perspective, with the torso being in posterolateral view, the knee in lateral view, and the left foot in posterior view. Not sure about those huge spines either. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We also have so many restorations of this genus now that we can afford to just tag these as inaccurate and leave it at that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the restorations we have for Concavenator reflect the proportions of the randomdinos skeletal though, so they're all inaccurate. The Daniel Vidal restoration could become accurate with a few tweaks, and would even look better than if we were to tweak the other restorations we have.
This one was taken from a paper about Australovenator's forearm range of motion. Is the rest of the image accurate?
Crocodile-like armour?
This model seems to be based on the two previous reconstructions (or the opposite).
This is the 3D model used in those reconstructions.
From a different artist than the rest, skull and torso look small
As most of these images originated in peer-reviewed sources, they probably don't, strictly speaking, need to be reviewed. Nonetheless, that doesn't stop us from reviewing them if we want to. I don't see anything obviously outright incorrect in these images, though I'm hardly a fan of some of the artistic choices made. The "crocodile-like armor" could plausibly be interpreted as a Carnotaurus-like situation. Maybe the shape of the nostril needs work. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with critiquing megaraptorid reconstructions is that much of the overall anatomy (especially of the skull) and proportions are unknown due to the fact that a mostly complete skeleton hasn't been found for any members of the group, though this will likely change in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GetAwayTrike's skeletals are usually not the most reliable since he doesn't account for taphonomic distorsion a lot of the time. Some of GetAway's skeletals are better than others, but in this particular case, Patch's one definitely looks cleaner and more anatomically sound (you can see the dorsum of GetAway's Australovenator is rather bumpy and distorted for example). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another one exists [64] that shows similar proportions to Ashley's, but is probably just as good if not better because it incorporates the better known megaraptorans. All the material known from Australovenator (dentary, arm, hindlimb, ribs) is included. For both of these, only the original restoration appears to have the proper skull shape, and the integument is unclear enough to be acceptable. I honestly think that all but the first image here are inaccurate because of a combination of a skull that is too short and robust and massive scalation across the entire body, Ceratosaurus only has a single row along the back and Carnotaurus only has small feature scales known from the sides. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley's is probably better to use because it's supposed to be Australovenator, specifically. The one IJReid linked is a generic, composite megaraptorid. --TKWTH (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is a composite that includes all the known materials of Australovenator, which is just as good as Ashley's. It is up to the artist to decide, but I would consider the one I linked to be preferable if I made my own. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to understand why you'd prefer a composite megaraptoran skeletal to a skeletal depicting the specific taxon we're talking about, especially when you say they're both of equal quality. Ashley did a rigorous skeletal alongside it, and some of the material shown (and hence the material preserved) differs notably from the equivalent bones in the composite (likely because they were drawn from other taxa), rendering the composite less reliable. Your priorities are making no sense to me. This isn't even about using the skeletal in the article, it's merely a case of which one is a more reliable reference to base an Australovenator reconstruction off of. --TKWTH (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course also the issue that Muttaburrasaurus isn't from the same formation. But that doesn't mean similar relatives didn't co-occur, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With Lythronax and Ichthyovenator both at FAC, our theropod navbox has come under some scrutiny. While trying to verify our Rinchenia against the holotype as figured in Fuston et al. (2017), I noticed that the crest seems too short: [65] This is a bit concerning, as the genus is diagnosed by (among other things) a "tall, domed cranial crest composed primarily of nasals"... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These two images are considered "valued images", but the reconstruction hasn't really aged well with those pronated hands, wrong skull shape and possibly incorrect scapula.Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should certainly avoid use them, even if they look nice. One leg is also rotated too far backwards. FunkMonk (talk)
A digitally-painted side profile illustration of the sauropod dinosaur Brachiosaurus altithorax.
Hello! I recently made a Brachiosaurus side profile view that I believe is suitable for the page about the genus or Brachiosauridae / some other cladistic ranking relevant to the animal. Please provide feedback if necessary. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better than the ones we already have, so I'd think we could replace one of those used in the article if everyone else agrees. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The base of the tail is a bit odd-looking; it looks like the ischium is too long. The proportions of the forelimb also look a bit off-the forearm looks a bit long and the manus looks a bit short. Looks fine other than that. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rectifiable, if you guys would like to see those adjustments. Wouldn't be difficult to adjust. I go back and forth on how bulbous to make the soft tissue around the nares, but it could be rounder. The perceived ischium length is the soft tissue "padding" I added up to the cloaca. ThePaintPaddock (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nose area is probably bulbous enough (if we're talking the profile), it's more the shading in front of the eye that makes it seem very concave. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The feet currently look like they're digitigrade, but shouldn't they be semi-plantigrade? Compared to both my and Hartman's skeletal many proportions seem somewhat off - the neck, for instance, seems a bit short. Also, the forelimbs seem really, really robust, much more than in Hartman's and nearly twice as much as in mine, based on humeral length. There also seems to be a huge amount of soft tissue - I'm not sure how plausible this is. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the recent paper describing the caudal biomechanics of Aeolosaurus maximus, I have decided to do a reconstruction of the type species of Aeolosaurus. I have based the proportions of the neck off of Rapetosaurus, the only aeolosaurin with a complete neck, and the other proportions were reconstructed based on Powell's description of the species as well as general titanosaur proportions. The tail posture, of course, follows da Silva Vidal et al. 2020. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very front heavy, but I guess that's just how the skeletal is? I also wonder how that tail articulation hypothesis will be received... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The neck length is scaled to that of Rapetosaurus, as I said. It's more or less in line with Hartman's skeletal thereof—Rapetosaurus had near-mamenchisaurid-like neck proportions, and it's the only aeolosaur with a complete neck so I think it's the best available source of data for their neck proportions. As for the tail, I believe as much as anyone that it's important to treat new discoveries with caution, but I also think it would be irresponsible to ignore the conclusions of the only published study on aeolosaur tail biomechanics in a depiction of an aeolosaur. Bear in mind that aeolosaurs had weird caudal vertebrae and surely were doing something unusual with their tail anatomy. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the torso appears to be too short, based on Overosaurus, and the neck is likely too long because it is based on Hartman's skeletal, which is a juvenile. These two fixes would probably change the front-heaviness. The extent of the tail curve does match the Vidal reconstruction, and the length seems to be alright. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sauropods generally show an allometric increase in neck length with ontogeny? If anything, the Rapetosaurus being a juvenile should mean I need to make the neck longer. You appear to be right about Overosaurus, though, so I'll stretch the torso a little. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more change regarding the base of the neck, the length appears to be correct, but the neck is a bit too high above the shoulders, and as a consequence there is no distinction between the neck and the back along the dorsal surface. The base of the neck should begin just above the coracoid which would mean vertically lowering the neck on the torso by 1/3 its height. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it slightly, but it seems pretty consistent with Scott Hartman's Rapetosaurus skeletal to me. I'm not sure what you mean if not this. Is there anything else I need to change? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I outlined it for visual explanation [69]. Blue is your current restoration, the skeletal is green. Emphasis I intended is how your neck is attached higher on the shoulders than in the skeletal, and as well perhaps the tail should be raised so that the first caudal is not dropped, because the sacral articulation was presumed to be horizontal in the paper. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright seeing as thats your base I think thats all I have. For now at least until more is published because it eventually will be I presume. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for your critique and your approval. I'll be happy to update it if a new study further clarifies aeolosaur anatomy; I'd certainly be happy to see such a study in any case. I assume nobody else has any objections to it now? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A look at various Triceratops restorations & models
I've decided to put up various images & restorations of Triceratops up for review, due to the surprising lack of illustrated restorations of Triceratops. There are many images of models, statues, figures & sculptures of the animal, many of which haven't been reviewed. I've only included images of models mostly from museums or zoos that could be used in an article if need be. With a few exceptions, I have not put up any images of any movie props or art pieces, like this thing for example. There's also a lot of images of the same model at different angles, but for the brevity's sake, I've only included a few. There's also the possibility that some of these images might have to be deleted for copyright or legal reasons. Monsieur X (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only one that is somewhat accurate is the NT one, though I never understood why it has a concave back. All the rest have problems with either their heads or hands. And of course, the toys, as well as models in the US, France, Italy, etc. need to be deleted as copyright violations. The latter because those countries lack freedom of panorama. And that is of course also a problem for many of our other images of models. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what that term was. In that case, the images I glossed over will also have to be checked if they're breaking any "freedom of panorama" laws. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the artwork of T. rex, Triceratops & Troodon was uploaded without the actual artist's permission. I think the images of the CG models could possibly be edited. As for the photos of the models that can be legally used, could the one's with weird feet just be cropped to removed them? Monsieur X (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only photos of alright looking models are pretty low quality anyway[71][72][73], so it would almost be pointless. We do have enough restorations in the article anyway, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to remove all of the illustrations, 3D models & free to use images to focus on any Triceratops photo that need to be deleted due to copyright concerns. Feel free to nominate them if they haven't been nominated. Monsieur X (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got most of the rest, apart from a few in Ialy. And there are probably hundreds of images with similar problems on Commons. But the good thing is that a lot of bad models can get weeded out this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Movement at the elbow was also limited compared to humans, with a total range of motion of only 57°. The arm could not completely extend (straighten), nor could it flex (bend) very far, with the humerus unable even to form a right angle with the forearm.
Given the fact that the angle between the forearm and the humerus can never reach 90 degrees, this opens another question: is the angle less or more than 90 degrees? In the illustration mentioned above, it is more, while in others in the article it is less. The skeleton diagram that Stovall drew also depicts an acute angle. Dinosaur(talk)🌴🦕🦖-- 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I wonder if the hands should be turned slightly more outwards, seems like they might be pronated. This image may give an idea:[74]FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He also did a lot of other restorations that are ending up in articles without review:[76] I'm wondering particularly about Paraxenisaurus; it is restored with a hallux, yet Deinocheirus itself did not have one, but primitive ornithomimisaurs assigned to the group seem to do. So not sure, can't access the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as the diagnostic neck frill features are correct, it is no less iffy than for example the published restoration of Wendiceratops (which shows huge, hypothetical brow-horns that do not match its phylogenetic position as sister to Sinoceratops and other centrosaurines with little to no brow horns). But our advantage is that we can always update the horns if some are found; that's not possible for the restoration in the published paper. Brow horns are not really diagnostic anyway, but at least Yehuecauhceratops clusters with taxa that had them (Avaceratops and Nasutoceratops), and thereby fulfils the phylogenetic bracketing criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, it's based on this photo, by the way:[78] Looking again, the shoulder blades seem to be too far from each other in the mount, not sure how I missed that... FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow good work, Rogelio Reyna made an illustration, but only from the head, sadly as you have already discussed, there are very few remains of this animal. Comments have been made about the limitations of diagnostic and phylogenetic studies on this taxon. But in general if you are correct, a taxon quite close to the other Nasutoceratopsini. The illustration is good, the reconstruction of the skeleton as they have been able to perceive, is not. Hector Munive is the author of the cast of the skeleton, he lacked many anatomical details when performing it. The forelimbs are strangely placed and the skull is highly speculative in addition to not having the characteristics that ironically have earned him his diagnostic difference from the others Nasutoceratopsini. Perhaps the diagram of paleontologist Ángel A. Ramírez-Velasco is very helpful [79]. The skeleton seems to dance the Pasito tun tun. I do not see anything in the rest, I think it is now more advanced and corrected. So I arrived late. --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Chihuahua City there is a museum that has a private collection that has original and chimerically complete remains of a new Nasutoceratopsini, this is a different taxon to Yehue, but quite similar to Nasutoceratops, I think they might be useful for a horn urinal arrangement, this skull supports that this tribe also had a variation on it. [80] --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Avaceratops skull diagram with nasal horn in Rivera-Sylva et al. (2016).
By the way, now that I was with the skulls of this group I ran into the question that in the paper where Hector Rivera-Sylva described Yehuecauhceratops fossil remains, he included an Avaceratops skull with a nasal horn on the Centrosaurine Biogeography map. And the image is in Commons, should we fix it? --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly forgot this one, and it was archived before I saw Levi bernardo's comments above, sorry for that! Here's a new version of the sketch with less splayed front legs and a deeper body, and I took some cues from the Luis Rey blog, any thoughts?[81] And I learned to be more critical when basing drawings on mounted skeletons... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Avaceratops horn is not no. As far as the new drawing, it looks far better than anything I can do and the only nitpick is that the left hand is probably too lacking in palm tissue. That might not be what is wrong exactly but that hand sticks out to me for some reason. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the finger posture should be more columnar (it's a bit splayed now)? The problem is of course that the palm should be concave, so it can't be filled up with tissue. I'll try to have a look at what other people have been doing for that angle, if anyone has... And pinging Levi bernardo again, because the former one might not have worked because I added it after having saved the comment... FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hello. here is a modified model of convolosaurus marri
I'm not entirely sure that this will end up being accepted here, so for now its available on Deviantart here [82]. I've drawn out the skull of Malawisaurus as a typical titanosaur, using all the figured material as well as a conference abstract describing characteristics of the jugal that effect the resulting snout [83]. Because it is so vastly different from the published status quo there might be an argument about it being too much Original Research to be acceptable here, but for the sake of neutrality there is a published abstract that supports the conclusions I've come to here, and this image could be used to illustrate the contrasting ideas about the skull anatomy of Malawisaurus. I shall leave it up to you whether it is supported in published literature enough or not. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your attempt at creating a more plausible reconstruction of Malawisaurus, I do think that this falls into the category of OR in the absence of any further published information on the reinterpretation described in that abstract, or at the very least it's dangerously close to being so. I think it's best to leave it out, personally. As for some critique, in case others decide it is worth using: You show the lacrimal as unknown and depict the jugal with the same morphology described by Gomani (2005), but the main point of the abstract appears to be that the so-called jugal is, in fact, a co-ossified lacrimal and jugal. The maxilla should probably have a postdental emargination, as in most titanosauriforms. I'd advise looking into Narambuenatitan, as it preserves a premaxilla and maxilla with relatively anteriorly positioned nares, and Liaoningotitan, a basal somphospondylan with a relatively complete skull. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the OR issue, I think it'll be ok to have in handy once anything supporting it is published. But we should probably keep it out of article space until then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page feathered dinosaur uses this 2015 cladogram which is clearly outdated. Ceratosauria is represented with a Coelophysis silhouette, the pachycephalosaur is misshapen, the ornithomimosaur lacks wings, the heterodontosaurid silhouette lacks the filaments it is said to have (see Tianyulong), Enigmosauria exists, and it gives the wrong impression that several groups are known to be featherless even though they are not (some of these have not even been found with scale impressions).
It would probably be better to just use a new cladogram instead of fixing this one, maybe from Yang et al. (2018)[84] or Benton et al. (2019)[85]. Is it possible to upload any of these cladograms to Wikimedia or are there copyright impediments? If there are any, perhaps a new cladogram could be made using these as reference (I tried Wikipedia's own cladogram-making feature, but the result is probably not very adequate for the article). And are there any issues with them?Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problem with the silhouettes by replacing the bad ones with images already in Wikimedia Commons, and removed the scale icon from Pachycephalosauria and Megalosauroidea. I also think it would be useful to replace the scale icon in Carnosauria with a feather icon and an interrogation mark, but I'm not sure if this is really a good idea. If Concavenator really has quill knobs (maybe not), they would indicate pennaceous feathers (remiges), wouldn't they? Also, Ceratopsia could be replaced with just Psittacosaurus because we don't know whether those tail bristles were present in ceratopsids or not.Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I redid the whole thing. The phylogeny is based on Benton et al. (2019) and might disagree with other studies. The assignment of only one integument to each group is a little simplified (see Yang et al. (2018)) but not too much. The silhouettes were made from works of various Wikipedia users and they are all accurate as far as I know. Sciurumimus stills lacks a silhouette. Any further suggestions to improve this? And is this fit for the article? Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally place a question mark on the phylogenetic position of Sciurumimus as while the authors claim that it is a basal tetanuran (and still do as of this year per "Two of a Feather: A Comparison of the Preserved Integument in the Juvenile Theropod Dinosaurs Sciurumimus and Juravenator from the Kimmeridgian Torleite Formation of Southern Germany"), the specimen is a juvenile and its placement is not considered certain, and other authors have suggested alternative placements within Coelurosauria. In particular a long section on the taxon is given in the supplementary material of the paper describing Hesperornithoides, which places it within the Coelurosauria though the specifics of that are probably out of the scope of this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this diagram is a bit misleading as is: Psittacosaurus was almost entirely scaly, and bristles such as it had cannot be conclusively ruled out in any scaly dinosaur to my knowledge. Carcharodontosauria is in the wrong phylogenetic position and the only carcharodontosaur with preserved integument I'm aware of, Concavenator, is only scaly in places also scaly in Kulindadromeus. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this cladogram is to show only the kind of integument that is known to be present in those groups, not the only type of skin covering they might have had. It does not actually rule out the presence of protofeathers in neoceratopsians, sauropods, ceratosaurs etc. - we just have not found anything but scales in those groups yet. Psittacosaurus sp. was in fact more scaly than feathered, but the cladogram used as reference is focused on the evolution of feathers and their distribution across Ornithodira, which justifies marking this species with the monofilament icon. And the position of Carcharodontosauria is not "wrong" - it is just not the most usual hypothesis, but placing Carcharodontosaurus and its closest relatives closer to birds than to Allosaurus is not at all a new thing. The Asfaltovenator description is not "wrong" for placing megalosauroids in Carnosauria either. This whole subject is much trickier than anyone wished it was. Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use photos of these mounted skeletons? I have some doubts about the reliability of the skeleton of Abelisaurus comahuensis. In addition, this photo was taken from a bad angle. HFoxii (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder whether it is really supposed to be Abelisaurus itself? Here's another angle of the skeleton[87], and it is in Brazil, not Argentina. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but it doesn't look like Abelisaurus either. It was probably just labelled as an abelisaur, and then the photographer assumed it was labelled as Abelisaurus itself. I doubt there are any skeletal mounts depicting Abelisaurus, as it's only known from a skull, and Google image search of Abelisaurus skeleton only turns this photo up, oddly enough. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem with the Allosaurus should be, other than we could try to determine the species. There are more angles of it here:[90]FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, it's a small one... If fuzz is primitive for its wider clade, as indicated by Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong, I don't think it's a problem here. Seems you might have a claw on the fourth finger, the fourth and fifth fingers were probably clawless in all dinosaurs... The first toe also seems really long, and perhaps that foot is splayed too outwards? FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New version of diplodocus size comparison, is this neck posture plausible or should be change to more horizontal version?KoprX (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_BHL21155479.jpg)
.jpg)
Cryolophosaurus with speculative crest
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
(Non-dinosaur)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Oplosaurus tooth
Femur and tibia of Staurikosaurus also the holotype of their synonym "Teyuwasu"
Silhouette (except brow horns) from File:Triceratops BW.jpg
Sauroposeidon & Maraapunisaurus taken from Carpenter (2006), Supersaurus & Diplodocus taken from Hartman
Silhouette taken from Hartman
Patagotitan from Carballido et. al. (2017)
Tyrannosaurus taken from Hartman, Giganotosaurus from Paul, Carcharodontosaurus & Mapusaurus from Sinkkonen
Tyrannosaurus from Hartman again
Silhouette taken from Hartman
Why does it look like that? So blurry...
This one was taken from a paper about Australovenator's forearm range of motion. Is the rest of the image accurate?
Crocodile-like armour?
This model seems to be based on the two previous reconstructions (or the opposite).
This is the 3D model used in those reconstructions.
From a different artist than the rest, skull and torso look small
A young big-eyed Triceratops model from Dinosaurios Park
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allosaurus_Revised.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baryonyx_life_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,w_728/v1555918253/shape/mentalfloss/trexautopsy_004.small_.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erlikosaurus_right_pes.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstructed_beak_and_skull_of_Erlikosaurus.jpeg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://www.gastondesign.com/wp-content/uploads/nothro08_fs.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Soowsl_MIng/Wuw4ecQxoTI/AAAAAAACkac/BrYEqGuUJTgZB7fX0g2E0XwOj-fP7aRAQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/LPP-PV-0042-Romualdo_Spinosaurinae--2018_Aureliano_Ghilardi_Buck_et-al--%2540AlineGhilardi.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hesperornithoides_skeletal_reconstruction.png){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinacosaurus_Jack_Wood_2017.png){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Talarurus.png){kind=link}
![[32]](https://i.imgur.com/5RJcRwn.png){kind=link}
![[33]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enigmosaurus-Mating-Ritual3-2D.png){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptorfull.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utahraptor_price_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Dromaeosaurs.png){kind=link}
![[40]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/File:Tyrannosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek.svg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YidamzZLGMQ/XmPDGj9JbAI/AAAAAAAAAsA/DupeUYf9xqgVMXKBFJG0C3GnZE2ClnWkgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP1.png){kind=link}
![[44]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--ue_0dWrCyk/Xmz3SRUJx3I/AAAAAAAAAsk/eTB5U2Hx8IcCJdBmy4j25nznMsLm3b-_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/DicraeoWIP2.png){kind=link}
![[47]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Therizinosaurus.png){kind=link}
![[48]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segnosaurus_hemimandible.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison_by_PaleoGeek.svg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicken_wing.svg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dromaeosaurus_Restoration.png){kind=link}
![[56]](http://knolik.com/pictures/00/00/0000613.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuquenraptor_Size_Comparison.png){kind=link}
![[58]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png){kind=link}
![[60]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utahraptor_updated.png){kind=link}
![[65]](https://i.imgur.com/OFrncJQ.png){kind=link}
![[66]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/91/20101017090145%21Rinchenia_mongoliensis_profile1.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ingeniinaeprofiles.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oviraptorinaeprofiles.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(10).jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(12).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_(5924384624).jpg){kind=link}
![[72]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brighton_dinosaurs_(5899298656).jpg){kind=link}
![[73]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sk21_Heureka_-_Triceratops_C.jpg){kind=link}
![[75]](https://i.imgur.com/et9ZFjM.png){kind=link}
![[77]](https://i.imgur.com/kTx1eO1.jpg){kind=link}
![[78]](https://static.businessinsider.com/image/58a5b5a1dd0895be328b478a-400/image.jpg){kind=link}
_al_Museu_de_Ci%C3%A8ncies_Naturals_de_Val%C3%A8ncia_(white_background).JPG)
_na_UERJ_20161113.jpg)
![[87]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abelisaur_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[88]](https://www.gazetadigital.com.br/storage/webdisco/2020/01/23/1200x900/e4ccbdd29d4986d8ae6fdb33da0f5d0a.jpg){kind=link}
