Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Omphalosaurus

This image of Omphalosaurus by DiBgd is currently used quite extensively on WP, though has never been reviewed. While Omphalosaurus is extremely fragmentary, it has recently been found to bear marked similarity to Sclerocormus, which would seem to cast doubt on certain features of this restoration, such as the short, downcurved tail. Our only other restoration of Omphalosaurus unfortunately seems to have the same problems, which is understandable as both of them predate Qiao et al. (2022). Not sure what the best course of action would be here in terms of editing and/or tagging as inaccurate, as so far Omphalosaurus has only been considered a close relative of Sclerocormus by a single, recent study (albeit the first to report a non-rubbish omphalosaur specimen). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So what would need to be done, longer tail? Any good reference images of Sclerocormus? But yeah, extensive use is a good reason for updating older images instead of just making new ones that will then only replace the old ones in a few places. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Best figures of Sclerocormus are probably from its description paper: [1] (this paper details the specimen with preserved teeth: [2]). I realize that I didn't really articulate my issue with the wide use: I feel that using a life restoration of a taxon as fragmentary and controversial as Omphalosaurus may make us appear falsely confident in its life appearance. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears the silhouette here[3] shows little to no tail-fluke? Is that proper? And very short head? FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume so, the description paper of Sclerocormus states that it lacked a fluke (granted, it could have convergently evolved in Omphalosaurus but that's probably too speculative for our purposes. The extremely short head I think is peculiar to Sclerocormus and Cartorhynchus, Omphalosaurus seems to have a more elongated jaw, though still relatively short for an ichthyosauromorph: [4] (see Fig. 8 especially). I'm not sure about the exact relative sizes of the head in Omphalosaurus compared to Sclerocormus, but it could probably be roughly approximated using centrum diameter. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to make the tail longer[5](will make it more seamless if approved), but not sure if I should make the head smaller or leave as is. The restoration here[6] indicates the tail should maybe be a bit thicker? I just noticed NT has an image that includes Omphalosaurus[7], worth extracting, or just the same issue? FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Axial (including SL:TL) proportions on the WIP look good, though I'm wondering if the limbs may be a bit short (though that could probably be excused with perspective). As omphalosaurids were axial swimmers, I'd definitely make the tail taller as it would have presumably had an important role in propulsion, it looks very thin and whippy now. It now occurs to me that smoothing out the flipper margins might not be a bad idea either. Yeah, NT's restorations have the same problems, and while it would be nice to have an O. nettarhynchus as well (I'm assuming that DB's is supposed to be O. nevadanus or the like based on jaw shape), NT's illustration fails to reflect modern thinking and also doesn't really show the animal's highly distinctive jaw anatomy either, which is problematic as that's the only thing known about O. nettarhynchus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

How's this[8] for longer fins and taller tail? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Tail looks nice, fin shape does too. I personally might make the forefins even longer, though I don't think that's a huge issue given that the forefins aren't known in Omphalosaurus and are disarticulated in Sclerocormus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 01:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I've now updated the image, and I also lengthened the forefins a bit more. But I just noticed it isn't identified to species on Commons. I see it is identified as O. nevadanus on the Russian Wikipedia page, which is where DBogdanov would have added it. Should we go with that? FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice, added to article! Yeah, basically the only two well-supported species of Omphalosaurus are O. nevadanus and O. nettarhynchus, and this is clearly not the latter. O. nevadanus is therefore probably the way to go (it's also what the diagram I sent you on Discord was primarily based on, so there's that in its favor too). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Dorsal view
Lateral view
Ventral view

On another note Omphalosaurus-related note, I've uploaded the images from its description paper to Commons, I've been thinking of using one of these to replace the restoration in the taxobox, though I'm not sure which would be most suitable. I've also been considering making a montage of some number of these images for that purpose. Any ideas on what to do here? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I would maybe show the tooth plates via the ventral view? If you intend to expand the article at all, however, I would choose an image that fits the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added the images, with the one showing the teeth in the taxobox (note that the dorsal view is the one showing the teeth). Also, wow, that's a really tall image... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You can change the size like I did at St. Croix macaw. An alternative could be to make a combined image of the skull in multiple views that would be more horizontal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Made a combined image from the dorsal and ventral views. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is also a fossil image that is actually kind of Placodont (Cyamodus?), so file name should be changed... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks to clearly match Cyamodus (top row) and Placodus (bottom row). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be fair to change the description accordingly. For now I added categories. The image is still used on the Norwegian[9] Omphalosaurus article, though. Pinging the uploader Petter Bøckman. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No probkem changing the name of the image. The lable of the fossil cast from the museum says Omphalosaurus, hence it's use in the Norwegian article. Revisons may have changed where this thing belongs though, it's not been on display of at 40 years. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thalassocnus new restoration

Never much care for Thalassocnus until I realized that this taxon (specifically T. carolomartini) has indeed been reported from the Coquimbo Formation, which I managed to visit in some instances (added some pics to Commons), so why not give it a try. As my first mammal restoration, I'm not the best when it comes to mammalian anatomy, and ground sloths have some insane feet anatomy. Carl Buell's illustration and monographs about the genus have been major references. It was too late when I realized that my reconstruction was similar in pose to Buell (clearly not intentional). I've seen that reconstructions of Thalassocnus are depicted with thick fur, something I have always disagreed with. I can add a gentle amount of hair to this piece if necessary, though. Lastly, I'd like to know whether or not Thalassocnus should have facial hair (tactile hair, of sorts). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice we've restored different species then, so there's no redundancy. When I restored T. natans[10], I tried to examine what a sloth looks like without hair, but obviously the only photos you get are of dead, decomposing specimens. So what their ears and other parts look like under the fur is hard to gt accurate. But I simply don't think we have any idea of the amount of hair it would have had. Best we can do is look for animals with similar niches. Could be interesting if more species are depicted, if one of the more basal ones (T. antiquus?) were depicted with sparse hair? FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Marine mammals that come to my mind are pinnipeds, sirenians, or even the sea otter. All of them have facial tactile hair, so I don't know, maybe it makes sense to add some to Thalassocnus? Modern day sloths largely lack these specialized hairs, but you know, Thalassocnus was clearly not arboreal. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The carnivorans you list have whiskers ancestrally from before they became aquatic, though, so question is if they would have re-evolved from whisker-less ancestors (doesn't seem like sloths have them, but we of course don't know about the prehistoric ones). What's the case in armadillos and anteaters? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I get it now, but what about sirenians? I understand that Thalassocnus has been compared to this group. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't know too much about them, I must admit, do they use their hairs for tactility? FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, they do [11], apparently very essential for foraging. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably no problem to add, then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Now added. I also included sparse hair 🖖. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but of course, I'm no expert. Dunkleosteus77 wrote the article, maybe he has comments. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The more derived species (like T. carolomartini) were plantigrade, unlike other sloths and earlier Thalassocnus which walk(ed) on the sides of their feet as depicted in your reconstruction. But other than that, looks good. I don't think it'd be wrinkly like a bald modern tree sloth on account of all the body fat that large aquatic creatures have Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging PaleoNeolitic just in case this gets drowned, seems pretty important. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Correcting the feet to a more horizontal plane seems quite difficult, given that I work with a solid base and its respective shadow layers. Can the feet be interpreted as only being bent this way? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The shadow layers can't be modified? If I had to do it, I'd just redraw the feet from scratch... FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Can be done but the base will remain sideways. Guess I'll just draw separate feet, as soon as I have time. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You could say it's a reconstruction of one of the more basal Thalassocnus species, which did walk on the sides of their feet, but I wonder how derived a trait full hairlessness would be Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Contectopalatus atavus

I started working on s reconstruction of this ichthyosaur, since the existing one (by Dmitry Bogdanov) is a bit inaccurate. My available result is based on the found soft tissues of a relative of Contectopalatus, Mixosaurus. Do you have anything to say? JurgenTask 11:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, a new Contectopalatus/Phalarodon atavus would be helpful. Based on the relative placements of the eye and nostril, it seems that either the known portion of the skull is reconstructed as too small and/or the snout is too long, based on other mixosaurids. I'll see if I can conduct a more detailed review of the proportions over the upcoming weekend. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 01:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The proportions look pretty good after a more thorough comparison. The issues I've found are: the posterior skull is too small, the snout seem very long for a mixosaurid, the forefin could be a bit broader, and the hindfins may be a bit too small. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the above errors and also changed the tail, anything to say?

JurgenTask (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, though I think that the nostrils probably could be placed more anterodorsally than they currently are. The sagittal crest also seems low compared to that of the larger German specimens, which seem to fit the head proportions here better than the smaller, younger Chinese specimen. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Errors corrected. Is it possible to start making a line in digital?

JurgenTask (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice, the only two things I'd suggest is maybe moving back the nostril a tiny bit and making the back of the jaw less demarcated from the neck. These are pretty minor quibbles, so I'd say go ahead with digitizing it! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but which way should the nostril be moved?

JurgenTask (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Posteriorly --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I made line in digital for it! Ignore the numbers in the upper right corner, these are the thicknesses of the brushes I drew it with and will probably go back to. I'll erase them later. JurgenTask (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It's colored. Can it now be uploaded to the corresponded article? JurgenTask (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Some more shading on the caudal keel would be helpful, it looks fairly flat at the moment. Otherwise, it looks good to me. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I added some shadows for both the caudal keel and the whole body, what's your opinion on that?

JurgenTask (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice, I think it's ready. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Protathlitis restoration

So this image was added to the recently made Protathlitis article without being reviewed. Any inaccuracies present?, personally I can’t really make out that many details in this, and the lighting looks a little off. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks way too rough.. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not feeling those dewlaps either. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It reminds me of a pelican with a full beak.... SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Protathlitis Head Reconstruction

Like always, whenever there's a new Spinosaurid announced, I don't hesitate to make a sketch or a piece for a new taxon since they're my favorite group of dinosaurs. And with that, I thought it would be nice to add this same sketch for its Wiki page. Is there anything that you guys recommend I should fix first?

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice, a general thing, though, is that it's barely known from any skull material, so a head only restoration is perhaps a bit odd. FunkMonk (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point actually. Hopefully it’s not too speculative though, since I pretty much restored the head based off of the phylogenic data that placed Protothlitis to be closely related to Baryonyx. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Any chance the body could be added? The diagnostic features seem to be mainly in the tail vertebrae. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No sadly, I initially drew this sketch from a small piece of sketching paper. But I wouldn't mind making a full body sketch. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the head could be repurposed as Baryonyx, as we don't have any close-up life restorations of the head of that genus? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The head is pretty similar to B. walkeri, however I feel like the “horn” here might be a little to curved or pointed. Mark Witton did a restoration of Baryonx here as an example http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PwiOAgFUd38/VVDabPX-qFI/AAAAAAAABnw/t5BFdT6ZVEw/s1600/Baryonyx%2B2015%2BWitton%2Blow%2Bres.jpg. Fossiladder13 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a whole lot of Barynyx restorations, so it's not like we really need an extra one. I'd say better to just leave it as Protathlitis, I'm sure a full body restoration will turn up, it's not like spinosaurs are unpopular at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinguinus alfrednewtoni

I was drawing a great auk for something else, so I thought it could be fun to turn one of the sketches into its prehistoric sister species Pinguinus alfrednewtoni, which we probably won't get an article for, but an image could be used on the various lists it's at. Based on various taxidermied great auks, but with markings closer to the razorbill, since it's more basal, any thoughts?[12] This is all it's known from:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably not too much that can go wrong here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd think so, though the other main restoration on the web (from a paper even, where it and the great auk also seem to inaccurately be standing on their toes only like in old mounts, though the tarsometatarsals should be resting on the ground) gives it an oddly white head[14], which doesn't jive well with phylogenetic bracketing. Anyway, here's a colourised version. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

More Pleisto-Holocene Australian animals

A few months ago, we had a selection of Australian animals interacting with a shoehorned cockatoo. Apparently, the artist posted some more, which I will put here:

I believe the Thylacoleo is too fantastical to use here, but I'm neutral on the others. How about you? What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there are some full-body meiolaniids, perhaps Armin Reindl has something to say. In the cases where the cocatoo is too intrusive, like the Thylacoleo, we could probably paint it out in a new version if we want to use it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

They are overall pretty solid, I've actually used them in the respective articles (or in the case of Meiolania in the sandbox) and I'm quite fond of them. They seem to follow the interpretation that the scale areas do not correlate 1:1 with overlying scales. I know this has been suggested for the K scale area in Meiolania and Ninjemys, suggesting that they could have been skin covered, tho I'm not so sure about the bigger cranial scutes like the X, G, Y and Z scales as shown here in both forms. I could of course be wrong, but the impression I got from Gaffney's work is that they'd be more like the cranial scutes seen on sea turtles. Shell shape seems approproiate for Meiolania, smooth marginal scutes and serration towards the back, relatively shallow doming. We don't have the material in Ninjemys, but with how shells can differ in modern tortoises I don't think its impossible. Neck short, legs robust, both good. Really the only thing I can nitpick with somewhat confidence may be the tails? Tho I sadly haven't been able to find images of the material in Ninjemys and its unknown in M. brevicollis, they look quite a bit different from the known material in M. platyceps. In M. platyceps the club is comprised of four fused elements similar to the preceeding rings with a generally similar spike layout (one pair facing posterodorsally, one facing posterolaterally) plus the tip, while here it appears more like a trench formed by dorsally facing outer spikes with the central ones only being a single row that ends halfway down the tail. We also have whats been interpreted as an anterior tail ring if thats any help, showing the spikes starting out as low ridges. Similar applies to Ninjemys, I'm not sure if those side scutes are meant to be the lateral spikes, tho like in Meiolania it seems like they are too big and should splay more outward. The final element, the club itself, would be roughly equivalent to two fused elements.

On a note unrelated to the turtles tho, has Paludirex gracilis been identified as such by the artist? Because the incredibly broad snout is much more similar to Paludirex vincenti, the type species. P. gracilis would be more gracile as the name implies, based on the known material. Armin Reindl (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Paludirex also seems to be closely based on this vincenti image from a paper:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I had a feeling. That being said, other than species assignment it's a solid reconstruction and I can't see anything wrong with it. Armin Reindl (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a note on the description and added the image to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The ears on the Palorchestes seem way larger than every reconstruction in the literature [16], almost kangaroo-like. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Meiolaniidae

As you could tell from previous posts, I've been going over meiolaniids. So I put together a little image showcasing four of the best known taxa to highlight the diversity in cranial shape between them. Armin Reindl (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I see what you did with the color of the Ninjemys… Miracusaurs (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Not something I know much about, but are turtle eyes mobile enough within their sockets that they could give "side eye" like that Meiolania? My limited experience indicates they're pretty immobile? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen some images like that, but reflecting on that I think I missinterpreted a membrane covering the rest of the eye. On that note, artist Joschua Knüppe also suggested making the sclera darker, so I'll need to make some changes to the eyes regardless. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
And executed said changes. Armin Reindl (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Also throwing this in here so its done with, but at the request of The Morrison Man here's a quick chart to show the cranial scales and the terms used to describe them (to simplify and make the flow of the articles clearer). The chart is based on specimen AM F:61110, with the scale margins following the detailed figure of Gaffney 1983 (rather than the simplified versions used by Gaffney in subsequent publications). It is however mirrored to make the skull symmetrical and avoid any taphonomic distortion (even if rather minor). Armin Reindl (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if they could be uploaded separately too? FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ischigualastia

The current Ischigualastia reconstructions seem outdated (musculature, foot pads (recent Lystrosaurus mummy), posture and general anatomy), So I have made a digital reconstruction. I can also make a size comparison if needed.

EnnieNovachrono (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The left forelimb looks dislocated. The interfrontal fossa could be more pronounced, and, if the robust morph is being depicted, I wonder if the nasal bosses could be a bit more expanded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate further? EnnieNovachrono (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Roughly what I have in mind: [17] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to edit, but unfortunately I am unable to make it look plausible. But I think that putting this reconstruction instead of the current one on the article could prove to be a better temporary choice for now, because the current one has more errors. I will make sure to edit/make a better reconstruction in the future.

(current reconstruction):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ischigualastia.jpg EnnieNovachrono (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Request: Reconstruction of Panderodus

The page on Panderodus is pretty good for now, however I feel that a life reconstruction might be needed sometime down the line. Wikicommons doesn't have that many good restorations of conodonts, so this would help increase the diversity of images. In that case it would be nice if the reconstruction is based on the species P. unicostatus, as it is the most completely known species (as well as one of the few conodont species in general known from body fossils). The paper that was published in 2021 on that body fossil would help with reconstructing it: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:45133f30-f1a9-49ba-8383-acf7b3470fcf. There is also this restoration on twitter:https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-7O_LMVgAQrStD.png&tbnid=DzFbAPbw-thZGM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/Tupandactyl/status/1436313391623065608&docid=HuDYwzT4VmCluM&w=800&h=600&source=sh/x/im&safe=active&ssui=on (however I think the way the tooth elements are reconstructed here are inaccurate). It doesn't need to be that complex. Hope I don't feel weird requesting an image for one of my own articles. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, even just a generic conodont reconstruction showing the inner mouth morphology would be good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering study shows that length should be 4-5 cm, considering based on fossil size it definitely longer and head should be proportionally smaller than that reconstruction on Twitter. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I would be happy to do this one. Shouldn’t take long. Will post here when I have a draft. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@PaleoEquii Got it. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Here it is. Let me know if I need to make any changes. PaleoEquii (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@PaleoEquii It looks gorgeous!. It looks pretty good based on the paper's findings (as well as the graph that Ta-tea also made). Does anyone else have any thoughts?.( Edit), I will say that Panderodus probably had a more flat body. The teeth were probably further up the mouth, and I don’t think it had the big eyes that other Conodonts had?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@PaleoEquii Aside from those critiques, this is a stellar piece of art. Probably one of the better Conodont paleoart work I’ve seen Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the same comments left by one of the authors on Twitter - I agree with TTTTT that although they are not preserved in the fossil, the presence of large eyes in a free-swimming raptorial conodont don’t seem unlikely to me. As for the body, I’m unsure how I can meaningfully depict it as thinner? The position of the teeth does seem like a possible problem given some comments, but I don’t know enough about Conodonts to say exactly where they would be in or around the head. I followed the references available. PaleoEquii (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(I would also add as a non expert that even hagfish, the animals Murdock compared Conodonts with, whose teeth are found in the throat, are still capable of everting their ‘jaws’) PaleoEquii (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@PaleoEquii Got it. I’m pretty sure it is ok to use then in articles?. Thank you again for making this. Also, @Ta-tea-two-te-to‘s recent size chart also looks ok to use thanks to the recent edit they made on it. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

According to paper, although eyes are not preserved on fossil, since it is free-swimming predator is it unlikely to lacked eyes, so I think this eye size is reasonable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Conodont size comparison

I just created size comparison of conodonts known from soft tissue preserved fossils. Should it be fine? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The silhouettes are very choppy. Also, it's not evident from the figure why you have two Panderodus silhouettes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, will fix that later. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Now fixed silhouettes and added descriptions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Generic Conodont restorations

@Ta-tea-two-te-to, @Lythronaxargestes While we are on the topic of conodont restorations, there are also these two that have not been reviewed yet. Any potential inaccuracies in these?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

First one looks mostly trace of figure in this paper, without muscles.[18] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Scale bar mistake of Pterodaustro?

Looks like scale bar in this diagram is clearly wrong. The largest known specimen of Pterodaustro is V382, partial femur that is estimated at 96 mm,[19] this doesn't match with scale bar in this picture, so hopefully someone can fix this? I am still not sure what specimen is base of this skeleton, and not exactly good at pterosaur anatomy so not sure. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the bar and text should just be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Mekosuchus spp.

Portraits of Mekosuchus whitehunterensis and Mekosuchus inexpectatus, based on both the reconstruction by Scanlon 2014 and Holt et al. 2007, both of which provide very different appearances for the animals. The soft tissue was based on both Osteolaemus and Paleosuchus. Armin Reindl (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What's going on behind the eyes? Is that the ear? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Are the extreme differences due to different interpretations of the fossils? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

They're two different species separated by over 20 million years of time. The differences between them don't look that unreasonable to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. The circumstances are a bit unclear whether this is caused by simply different interpretations or actual interspecific differences. M. inexpectatus, as said here, is based on Holt et al 2007, a conference presentation that has yet to produce a full on paper. In this presentation, new material from a 2003 expedition is reported and a skull reconstruction is provided, but the actual material is not figured fully. Whitehunterensis suffers a similar issue. Additional material has been reported and in 2014 Scanlon provides a composite reconstruction in "Carnivores of Australia: Past, Present and Future". However, not much context for this material is given and the differences to prior works are not acknowledged. And with Mekosuchus having had a very poor research history in the past 20 years (despite numerous specimens of both species featured here) the differences are yet to be discussed in a paper. Which is why I decided to sketch both, to avoid favoring one over the other. Armin Reindl (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking 20 million years alone is usually enough for concluding generic separation in most other groups, not even considering the morphological differences... FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That is the ear, yeah. Crocs essentially have large flaps covering the ear that drape over the squamosal and only leave a small slit just behind the eyes. In many species it only appears like a dark slit, but there are instances of Osteolaemus (dwarf crocodiles) where this opening appears lighter which I used as a basis for these two [20][21][22]. Tho this might also have to do with lighting, so I can still change that easily. Armin Reindl (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Tapirus veroensis skull

Based on the 3D model found here: [23]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Dabashanella

Dabashanella
Concavicaris georgeorum
Brittaniclus
Daidal
Arthropleura
Attercopus

Accuracy tweaked previous Pterygotus reconstructions by Qohelet12

@Hemiauchenia, sorry for the long wait, I had some problems during this time, but I finally finished Dabashanella. :) Qohelet12 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Long time no see, it's great to see you back. Another fantastic and detailed life restoration, I don't have any issues with it. I know that you said that you wanted to do a thylacocephalan next? Some of the Mazon Creek species look interesting: [24]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We need more thylacocephalan restorations, so I definitely agree with this. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course!. Although now I remember that I told Ta-tea-two-te-to that I would make a reconstruction of Arthropleura, unfortunately my computer had problems and I never finished the 3D reconstruction (although I can pass the model and some screenshots by discord if someone wants it (?)), but I can make one in 2D plus another one of Microdecemplex. And as for the Thylacocephala, I'll let Hemiauchenia and Fossiladder13 choose a species from the paper and I'll draw it. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The paper only describes Eodollocaris--Mr Fink (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I mean this one. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Qohelet12, maybe sometime in the future you could do a reconstruction of a cyclidan. We really don't have any (aside from a few diagrams) so it would be good to have one. A good pick could possibly be Brittaniclus, as we have a good diagram for reference, and this paper https://academic.oup.com/jcb/article-abstract/40/2/181/5721351?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false. I know you have a lot going on currently, so this is just something for later down the line. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do it, although I will be busy again and it will have to be for later. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Got it, no pressure Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I finished it, although I am not sure if it is correct. Qohelet12 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia You were the one that made the diagram on Brittaniclus, how does Qohelet12's restoration look?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks great compared to the restorations in the paper [25]. The increased lengths of the antennae are reasonable extrapolations based on the incompleteness of the original fossils. It's worth noting that this species was moved to the new genus Britanniclus in a paper published the same year [26], so the image title should probably be changed. As for further requests, would it be possible to draw Collinsovermis? There is some good reference material for it: [27]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that I haven't done many reconstructions of lobopodians, although I'm busy at the moment and I have Arthropleura pending. But I will do it as soon I can. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, after several hours I almost have Arthropleura ready, I just need to draw the head 😀 Qohelet12 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished it, I'm not good with myriapod anatomy so I need your opinions. I can also change the color if it is not the most appropriate.--Qohelet12 (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Qohelet12, The colors look good for Arthropleura, and I love how the head and antennae are more similar to those of millipedes then centipedes like you see sometimes. Also it just me or is this restoration lacking mouthparts, I could be wrong here, or maybe we don’t have good fossils of the mouthparts. If that’s the case, then I think it’s fine. It looks great, definitely see why this took longer to make, considering how complex it is. You did a really nice job here. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If anything this is another great restoration by Qohelet12, thank you for making this!. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it also provides illustrations in side view for Convexicaris mazonensis and Concavicaris georgeorum [28], either one of those three would be good in my opinion (Concavicaris remipes is too poorly known to draw imo). If I was forced to make a choice, I would choose Concavicaris georgeorum, as we already have good restorations of large-eyed thylacocephalans, so it would be nice to have drawings of some smaller eyed representatives of the group. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Finished Concavicaris georgeorum. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that looks really great!. Thanks again as always. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

PPS, your choice in coloration for Dabashanella makes it look like a potsticker with eyes. (which is a good thing)--Mr Fink (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that Qohelet12 has decided to draw stem group mantis shrimp Daidal. It looks pretty accurate to the 3D model that has been created of it. [29] (higher res version in [30]). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Junnn11, how is this Daidal since you descripted about prehistoric mantis shrimps on Japanese Wikipedia? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Very impressive! Here's my opinions on some minor details (All are more or less based on modern stomatopod anatomy, since most of the basal stomatopod fossil did't have good preservation for the fragile appendages mentioned below).

The attachment points of both the 1st and 2nd antennae could be more concentrated to the anterior region, just like the 3D model.
For the 1st antenna, the section basal to the flagella should only be 3-segmented at maximum.
It could had 1 more short leg, since in stomatopod bauplan 3 pairs of walking legs presented on the last 3 thoracic segments. I think the 1st pair was ommited in the 3D model just because it was not evident in the fossil material, just like the Gorgonophontes model from the same paper (which even the eyes, antenna bases, walking legs and swimmerets were all ommited).

Junnn11 (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections!, how about now? Qohelet12 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for the edits! Junnn11 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

New Arthropleura reconstruction looks so nice! The point I'm interested in is that the "antennae"-like organ seen in Microdecemplex have a rather heretical structure for millipedes, so perhaps it would be better to have antennas that are similar in shape to living millipedes (7-segmented)? However, since the head element itself is unknown, I can't judge it from myself. Although not accessible from me, Kraus (2003) describes like it should have non-filament antennae, @Junnn11? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This is gonna be one of the best reconstructions of Arthropleura I've seen so far!

Personally, I think both interpretations on the antennae are equally acceptable based on the available (yet very limited) evidences. Junnn11 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback!, I don't know about changing the "antennae" but maybe they look better as segmented antennae.

As for what Fossiladder13 said, is the head ok or should it have more visible mouthparts?.

By the way, I'm not very convinced by the color so I could use as a base some of these millipedes: Buzonium crassipes, Unidentified Polydesmid, Apheloria virginiensis.

Oh and if at some point Arthropleura is redescribed I will also fix the head. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the antennae is ok so far, just need more evidences to confirm which interpretation is more plausible.

The color looks natural, since a brownlish tone is common in lots of different milipede taxa (even within species using chemical defense, where some of them have vivid warning colors, and arthropleurids don't even have evidence of chemical-secreting pores).

The mouth looks fine to me, since it wasn't that prominent in Microdecemplex (or millipedes in general). I can see a tiny bits of the mouthparts and that's a nice detail. Junnn11 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!, then I think it's ok. 👍 Qohelet12 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I drew a reconstruction of Attercopus, it is the first arachnid that I draw so it may contain errors. By the way Hemiauchenia, do you prefer the reconstruction of Collinsovermis as ecological or in white background?--Qohelet12 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As I see it looks better than current reconstruction, though not sure considering its incompleteness. You can try Permarachne as well? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think it might be nice to have a new illustration of Orthrozanclus reburrus. This one[31] is still good but according to study described O. elongata,[32] peripheral sclerites may reconstructed oppositely. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think we would be better served by a proper life restoration of Halkeria. This museum model is good reference material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I can edit the image of Orthrozanclus (although I can also make a new one but at the moment I have another reconstruction). I also remember that in Commons there is a reconstruction of Halkieria, but I don't know how correct it is. Qohelet12 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The central scales (apparently referred to as "palmates") are reconstructed as hexagonal, which is definitely wrong (see [33]) Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok then I think I can do it 👍, although as I said I have more reconstructions pending and I'll do it gradually. Qohelet12 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate that. As always many thanks for your work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sacabambaspis

Looks like Sacabambaspis becoming meme in Japan, so seeing Commons for image but I am afraid there is no clear reconstruction for that. First one is outdated by having simple-shaped tail, restudied in 2007.[34] Avancna's one is better at having newly reconstructed tail, but still due to image size face structure is bit unclear. This[35] is probably good reference for reconstructing head. It would be good to have new reconstruction based on that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Should I reupload a bigger version of mine, then?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh if possible it would be good. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Bigger version uploaded.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Exaeretodon

My reconstruction of Exaeretodon. As a cynodont outside of the ancestral line to mammaliaformes, it is likely Exaeretodon did have no fur nor whiskers, wet nose, external ears or mobile facial musculature. No evidence for it looking like a demonic manticore like some google results show either...

Juandertal (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t even think E.frenguelli is a valid species anymore. 73.186.196.43 (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it is the old name for E. argentinus, and the skeletal diagram I used as reference was labeled so. Juandertal (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Names in the Commons description should be changed, then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Solved, though the file itself has to keep its original name. Juandertal (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Glyptodon

Need this life recon reviewed for my Featured Article nomination.

AFH (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell if there are issues with the shell because I can't find any good images of a complete shell from multiple anges. Is the lip around the neck in the picture actually present in real Glyptodon shells?, because most photos of shell that I see just have a simple u shape. This structure does appear to be present in at least some glyptodonts [36], though I am no sure about Glyptodon. The head anatomy seems within reasonable bounds of what has been speculated about glyptodonts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The claws on the front feet also look a lot longer than in other restorations, though this could probably easily fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this restoration by Peter Schouten from the cover of End of the Megafauna (which I presume had scientific input, though without asking him its hard to know for sure) has much blunter claws, and doesn't have a lip around the neck. Hemiauchenia (talk)

I think this image was labelled as Glyptotherium when it was originally on the artist's now dead website, though I don't know what the implications of this would be. Could the two be passed off as each other? Also note that the image was uploaded to Wikipedia by the artist himself, but later transferred to Commons by another editors, in case some reviewer complains. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The shell bears a close resemblance to a skeleton apparently of Glyptotherium At the AMNH in New York. [37], which I presume this image is based off. However, in looking at others shells of Glyptotherium, I'm not seeing evidence of the lip around the neck, so either they're broken off in most shells, or this is maybe artistic license on the part of the person making the model? I think the latter is more likely, as this 2015 paper directly comparing Glyptodon and Glyptotherium (accessible via shadow libraries), includes complete shells and restorations of Glyptotherium and Glyptodon which does not show the lip around the neck. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

To make matters stranger, that AMNH mount has also been labeled as Panochthus... FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Panochthus seems to be a much more reasonable proposal, you can see what looks like the lip in this image of the skeleton. Pantochthus is currently a pretty sad stub which deserves expansion. (I don't have enough experience with glyptodonts to really do a good job though). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the Glyptodon article. So, what is the correct thing to do here? Is it to relabel the image as Panochthus, or label the image inaccurate? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If we definitely think it's based on that AMNH specimen, I guess renaming it would be the best solution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not accurate for Panochthus either ; Panochthus was closely related with Doedicurus, which means it had a rigidified caudal tube in the end of its tail, instead of the caudal tings present in Glyptodon, Glyptotherium and this reconstruction ; additionally, Panochthus has higher eyes and a longer face - it's really a freaky creature, and I don't remember anybody saying that doedicurine glyptodonts had a trunk. Outside of the notch in the carapace, it's Glyptodon or Glyptotherium. Both genus have a complicated history and some of the material from one genus is now referred to the other, so difficult to tell outside of that. Regardless, inaccurate as either Glyptodon or Glyptotherium for the notch (it's really a Panochthus carapace), inaccurate as Panochthus for everything else. Larrayal (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I was planning on doing a Panochthus expansion, but it would take lots of time, which I have been putting into more vital articles like Brontosaurus, Titanis, and Glyptodon itself. Maybe in the future. Making a history section would be easy though as it and Glyptodon are connected in that regard. AFH (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. You're right, that tube is in the skeleton I linked earlier, but I didn't notice it. I've added a notice to the commons image, but it should probably be removed from where it is being used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems beyond salvation then, and note there is a bunch of other versions of the image too on Commons that should be tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of, would one of those reconstructions be preferable to the ones currently used ? (Submitting them for review if this hasn't done already.)Larrayal (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Both of those restorations look reasonably accurate to the Glyptodon restoration in the 2015 paper above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we assume they would congregate in so large groups as shown in the second image? Modern xenarthrans don't seem to be gregarious? FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is report of mass graves of Eremotherium and Oreomylodon, and group adaptations is something common for large herbivores. Glyptodonts were very different from modern armadillos in that regard, so it isn't too speculative. Armadillos do congregate when the climates gets cold. Modern day El Breal de Orocual is almost on the Equator line, but historically temperatures have been known to reach temperatures just below the threshold of comfortability for modern armadillos, around 17°C, 63°F - and those would have been lower during the glaciation. No opinion on the degree of gigantothermy reached by glyptodonts, but I don't think a group of 4 glyptodonts would be too far-fetched. Larrayal (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Could be nice to add, then? FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is evidence of large Glyptotherium mass graves in the American Southwest, so it is possible Glyptodon did the same. AFH (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Added some additional historical images that haven't been reviewed before to the gallery, which may be useful. The first one is already used in the article, but I think I read on some talk page ages ago that the humans and their tools may be inaccurate for the period? Doesn't seem that spears would be particularly advanced even by the time, though? FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The face of the human looks perhaps a bit too Australopithecus-like, although it's perhaps an artefact of the compression or probably the most outdated thing on the picture. Humans indeed used tools to kill glyptodonts, the spears might be a bit primitive since they seems to be of burned wood instead of the documented silex ones but that's a technology that they knew off, and traditionally naked populations are known historically from Patagonia... Outside of that, for Glyptodon, the prominent cheekbone (which is also present in Bogdanov's) may be too visible (it would have been covered in soft tissues); the tail seems a bit large but nothing too much of the ordinary. Probably good to go.

The Bruce Horsfall reconstitution don't seem too outdated ; the head of Doedicurus may be a bit too long and lacks a visible frontal carapace, which may be hidden under the head skin, outside of that nothing much out of the ordinary, nothing for the Glyptodon either. Note however that though both species were coeval they lived in relatively distinct habitats,

The other one seems to have its soft regions covered in osteoderms, which may be more of an issue. Otherwise, the back osteoderms seems too round, but may be a compression issue. The Doedicurus one still largely holds up and can wait until somebody does a more modern reconstruction, the Glyptodon should stay in the history section since we have better alternatives. Larrayal (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The image is too low res to tell how exactly the spear is constructed, so it's perfectly compatible with a stone projectile point hafted to a wooden shaft. The Fishtail projectile points, which played an analogous role in South America to the Clovis points in North America (and indeed, may have derived from them) were almost certainly used with spears [38], so I don't see an issue with this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

High-billed crow

So admittedly this[39]] is a modification of a drawing of a common raven I did for something else, and which I thought could be retooled for use here. I've changed the proportions of the bill to match the skull[40] (second) and a restoration by Julian P. Hume [41] I made the eye darker than in Hume's due to the extant Hawaiian crow having very dark eyes, and placed the eye more forwards, as that's what the skull seems to imply. But it is possibly still a bit too raven-like in the scraggly feathering around the head, but then again, "crow" and "raven" aren't even taxonomic distinctions. It's still somewhat rough, but I'm thinking of colouring it somewhat like Hume's other[42] restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at images of Hawaiian crows they seem to be fairly shaggy around the face and throat already, and they can certainly puff up, tho it might be good to smoothen the back of the head regardless. Armin Reindl (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's of course just my assumption that it should be particularly related with the Hawaiian crow, but at least the description doesn't seem to say much about affinities other than just being Corvus. I'm not even sure why it's termed a crow rather than a raven, it was supposedly pretty big... From the article it says "raven-sized crow", err, but isn't size the main factor used to distinguish the two? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Added with colour. I don't think it looks so much like a common raven anymore after getting this colour scheme, which is based on Hume's and on a photo of a "caramel" morph of the house crow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, why is the head black? I just looked at a bunch of pictures of caramel morph house crows and they have dark brown heads. 49.204.135.97 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Julian Hume's restorations of it have black heads, and because this house crow caramel morph has it:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Adalatherium skull

Based on the figures in the papers. (There are several). I've adjusted the jaw position relative to those figures. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also decided to draw a figure of the skull of Xianshou, based on the figure in this 2014 paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hyperodapedon

Life reconstruction of H. sanjuanensis. There are already several reconstructions in the article, but since the model is distributed as CC BY-SA 4.0, I'm posting it here. HFoxii (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The premaxillae and dentaries of Hyperodapedon are correctly keratinised here, but the covering looks very light and clean considering the underlying bone texture and the inferred usage. See Mark Witton's Bentonyx: [44] Also, I find the dorsal orientation of the eyes implausible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the best Hyperodapedon reconstruction currently on Wikipedia. The eye orientation is odd, but the orbits irl were oriented more dorsally than laterally, so I think it's forgivable. It's no more bizarre than something like a walrus or alligator, in my opinion. Same with the beak keratin, which does not contradict the available osteological evidence. Witton has noted that his more expansive keratin coverage in Bentonyx is based on a specimen of that taxon in particular, and his Hyperodapedon [45] isn't too different from what we have here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair. That's what I get for not reading threads properly, haha. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Trilophosuchus part 2

Alright, as mentioned before the second part, the skull reconstruction. Pretty simple, the reconstruction is based on the type specimen, of which high quality scans are available in Ristevski, J.; Weisbecker, V.; Scanlon, J.D.; Price, G.J.; Salisbury, S.W. (2023). "Cranial anatomy of the mekosuchine crocodylian Trilophosuchus rackhami Willis, 1993". The Anatomical Record. 306 (2): 239–297. doi:10.1002/ar.25050. The snout shape is based on Willis' original interpretation, which has not been challenged in subsequent years. The posterior region of the skull has been restored based on reasonable speculation for the extent of incomplete skull bones or made symmetrical in correspondance with the better preserved side of the skull to account for crushing and distortion during preservation. Given that these are minor fixes, highlighting them all would not be too helpful. I did highlight the snout as grey however, as this region is entirely speculative (again after Willis) and is more prone to be altered should additional material be covered. Hopefully there won't be any anatomical issues, I did contact Jorgo Ristevski for some of the reconstructed elements (pterygoid and quadratojugal to be precise) so that should be within reason. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Trilophosuchus part 1

Still going through mekosuchines and here's the first of two illustrations I'm working on for Trilophosuchus. This one's a very basic size comparison, nothing too fancy, just a grid, human silhouette and the animal scaled to the lower of the two estimates following Jorgo Ristevski's work on the taxon. Not much to explain other than that it has an intentionally raised head posture based on the conclusion of the type description. Also just as a heads up, a full reconstruction of the skull is coming as well, but that one's gonna take some time as I'm currently running it by the author of the recent most papers. Armin Reindl (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how we usually deal with such small animals. Would a hand or cat be a better size reference? Also, I assume the grid is 10 cm but that should be specified. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be a scale bar. I had similar concerns about small animal size when I made the Balaenognathus size chart. I think for an animal of this size, a full human is preferable since it provides a better sense of scale. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the scalebar. Believe it or not I did actually already have that, looks like I simply uploaded the wrong version to Wikimedia. Anyhow, that should be fixed now. Armin Reindl (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think it's a good idea wo show it with a hand or something smaller (just legs?), as it is now very small within the frame at thumbs size, and the image will take up a lot of vertical space. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Request 2: Bachitherium curtum and Bachitherium insigne comparison

For my second request, may I ask for either life restorations of Bachitherium curtum and Bachitherium insigne or a size comparison image for the two species? The two species lived and coexisted in the European continent for most of the Oligocene but likely lived in different environments (the smaller B. curtum lived in closer forested environments or riparian habitats while B. insigne would've lived in lighter forested (but still humid) environments with possible water bank sources). As stated in sources within the article, B. curtum weighed probably around 6-8 kg while B. insigne would've been closer to up to 36 kg. I used scaling measurements from an image of the B. cf. insigne statue in an article, and it looks to measure around 80 cm in length and about 50 cm in width, although I could be off.

You can refer to the skeleton in the article and restorations online such as this source and a statue of Bachitherium for what the genus would've looked like.

Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Bananogmius

Pachycormus
Pentanogmius reconstruction by DBogdanov which is commonly treated as Bananogmius image

The sesame tree's work of Bananogmius aratus. Since image searching "Bananogmius" shows DBogdanov's reconstruction of Pentanogmius, I asked them to upload proper Bananogmius reconstrcuton. Also DBogdanov's one looks like having exaggerated fin height? According to Discord discussion, this specimen from Oceans of Kansas website[46] would be base, but still it is kind of misinterpretation. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I will ping @Orthocormus: for review by the way. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that there is no indication in the filename or Commons description what taxon the first image depicts... FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably file rename is needed yeah I agree. Original reddit post[47] shows it as aratus, so just have to descript that in Commons as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems it would be pretty easy to shorten the fin if it's reallyinaccurate? FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This paper[48] (and Fishboy's reconstruction) is good for fin height of Pentanogmius, so probably can fix based on that (as well as cropped+flipped version). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, but sesame tree's Bananogmius reconstruction is based off one in this paper [49]. Most of the fin is indeed conjectural, but the reconstructed height is reasonable based on other tselfatiiforms. Orthocormus (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's[50] a quick attempt at making the fin shorter, any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks nice to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Now updated on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice! Hopefully can be fixed flipped one too?[51] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, think we should delete/redirect all those flipped images and use scripts to flip images in articles instead, it's just extra work that the flipped versions have to be updated too every time the original is updated... I think people stopped uploading flipped versions too after it became more well-known it was possible in other ways. I also think it should be easier to flip images in the regular image templates (now it's mainly possible in cladograms with "floating" images), perhaps a technical request could be made? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Oh I noticed that P. evoltus is restudied and according to that anal fin is overestimated in this reconstruction as well. Dorsal fin became bit taller though.[52] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So the first one in the gallery here is also wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Bananogmius is not known from complete anal fin so I think ok as it is. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, confused it with the very similar restoration I've just added to the gallery. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Materpiscis

Apparently Materpiscis honestly doesn't seem to have a general and accurate reconstruction. Entelognathus's one looks good for soft tissue, but fin placement looks too speculative considering other ptyctodontids such as Ctenurella. For example, dorsal spine on plate is normally treated as base of dorsal fin, but it is not in that reconstruction. In other reconstructions in contrast, have generic body shape for ptyctodontids, but these have misinterpreted nasal cartilages that shouldn't be exposed, it should support rostrum soft tissue like first reconstruction. Probably easy way is to fix fin shape of Entelognathus one and give other three inaccurate tags? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Trying to ping Entelognathus if they're still around and can fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, as I heared she stopped working on the Internet. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

head clasper/frontal tenaculum of ptyctodontid?

@Apokryltaros: descripts like some ptyctodontids have head clasper like chimera. Are there any evidence for that? As I see original description of Ctenurella,[53] there is no such things like that. Probably, according to this paper,[54] it just means that pointed and hooked denticles in anterior plates may worked like tenaculum of chimera. Possibly it is confused with pelvic and prepelvic claspers it had. Still I am amateur about placoderm anatomy, so I am sorry if that is evidenced. Some possible useful references about ptyctodontids-holocephalian anatomical similarities can be found there.[55][56][57][58] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

According to from what I read in John Long's book, Swimming In Stone, evidence or implication for a tentaculum in ptyctodontids is from how the forehead plates in Gogo ptyctodontid fossils, identified as being male, form a hole that suggests a socket for an organ like a tentaculum. Mr Fink (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. Probably better to note that is speculative on articles though? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thylacares

So I just realized that this image of Thylacares I’ve uploaded a while back hasn’t actually been reviewed. Any noticeable problems with it?. The main source of contention I have are the elongated frontal appendages, which do not show up in any other restoration I’ve seen of this Arthropod. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that appendage shape looks too speculative. Existence of flatworm in Waukesha Biota is also just speculative so not sure that should be remain or not. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The image was actually licensed under a noncommercial license (see caption under the image on the source page), which is incompatible with commons, so it should probably be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it, do not know how I didn’t catch the license the first time, but I will file a deletion request. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Added copyvio tag, for clear copyvio just tagging that works easier. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Cretalamna

i have made a few reconstructions for cretalamna for the cretalamna page. used various fossils of the animal for this and touched it up with a bit of modern lamniforme to bring it up to date gonna try and do one for Otodus megalodon soon and a few other sharks Evolutionincarnate (talk) 6:27, 1 june 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Macrophyseter. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

pinging @Carnoferox: as he's the guy who published the original study. In the meantime, first impressions look good to me; it has been awhile since I've looked deep into the subject, but did some of the Lebanese fossils have claspers? Macrophyseter | talk 23:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hippos and Desmostylus

After This review of inaccurate art of H. antiquus, @Kemonofriends: added these reconstructions without review. I am not sure what is going on leg posture of Desmostylus. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed the issue too recently. The Desmostylus makes no sense perspective-wise, and the legs are both extremely broken and devoid of visible toes. While I don't remember the description of any Desmostylus juveniles, known juveniles from other desmostylians really don't look like that (if anything, they look like a miniature version of their parent, see Neoparadoxia dor instance.)

Hippopotamus gorgops has a big issue with perspective too. @Hemiauchenia removed all images from the H. gorgops article on the basis that they failed to represent the difference between it and modern hippos, so he might have a better opinion on the subject.

The legs of Hexaprotodon are broken too, hippos never sit like that, and I don't know what is going on with the anterior body. Larrayal (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the Hippopotamus gorgops has forwards facing eyes? They kind of have this cartoony expression to them again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

oh it has eyes like pointed at the whole hippos direction but i messed up in the right eye Kemonofriends (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

and i dont see the cartoony thing so i need some advice Kemonofriends (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the right eye shouldn't be that visible. As for cartoonish, it's mainly the eyes themselves that look a bit "anime"-like in places. I think the images could be used, with the modifications proposed in this section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My own opinion is that images of fossil hippos should generally emphasise what is different from the living species, which these images failed to do. I agree that they are too cartoony and seen to have anatomical issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.123rf.com/photo_109413283_amusing-horizontal-image-of-a-lying-hippo-relaxing-in-a-park.html 88.236.180.204 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

i failed again 88.236.180.204 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

i forgot to sign in Kemonofriends (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

i uploaded a new version of gorgops i hope it looks better Kemonofriends (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Titanis skeletal and life reconstruction + Great American Interchange Diagram

Need the skeletal (which I did with the assistance of RandomPaleoNerd) and the life reconstruction reviewed for my Featured Article Nomination. There is also a diagram of the Great American Interchange which may be using outdated silhouettes. If need be, I can create a new one using PhyloPic images as well as my own silhouettes. AFH (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note I removed the wing-claws from the restoration years ago. It could probably also need thicker footpads, but I'll wait before I do that if someone has other corrections for it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Going off of the skeletal the neck may be a little bit too long. Common paleoart trope for Phorusrhacids to give them long necks. AFH (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made the neck shorter, legs less straight, thicker footpads, and whitened the background. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The human silhouette's pretty rough. Try using another one? Also, maybe specify that the skeletal reconstruction is rigorous. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I traced the human silhouette and updated it on the skeletal image, so that shouldn't be an issue now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Dentaneosuchus head

I noticed this image was added by @TarbosaurusSlug:. It looks good but are there any errors? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sinemys gamera

File:27 Sinemys gamera, China & Japan, Late Jurassic - Early Cretaceous 2.png

Added by A.C. Tatarinov without review, uploaded from flicker. Looks like it is directly taken from Satoshi Kawasaki's art[59], but there is no mention about that in description, and just says "Anthony Pain's YouTube". (Also period and habitat is for whole genus of Sinemys, while S. gamera is only known from Early Cretaceous China.) To be honest, isn't that pretty dangerous to be able to upload to Commons just because it's uploaded as Public Domain in Flicker? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would just put copyvio tag. It's clear that it's license laundering (at least on the end of the Flickr account), though that doesn't mean that it was deliberate on Tatarinov's part. Speaking of Sinemys, I've never been able to find an image of the fossil shell itself with the unusual posterior spines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Now tagged copyvio. Fossil image and carapace reconstruction of S. gamera is available here.[60] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok Tatarinov uploaded image from same Flicker user again, which shows Giraffokeryx[61], which is misidentified in video and is actually Shansitherium concept art for a museum.[62] Seriously we have to report that Flicker user and let operators delete these posts... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sinotyrannus

It's been brought to my attention that this image was added to the Sinotyrannus page without review. I got no knowledge on tyrannosaurs (nor much care for it personally) so I'll leave that stuff to you. Tho it would seem advisable to get the background removed properly rather than how it is done here. Armin Reindl (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit rough, and it has a, err, beard? FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this image is usable, honestly. It's not that high-quality and is also unduly speculative about unpreserved anatomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder what is going on with the white marks on the background. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a half-hearted attempt at cleaning up the background... FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)