Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Inostrancevia hunted juvenile Scutosaurus

Excellent work by Amin Khaleghparast, added by @Michel Laurin: without review. Is this image fine for anatomy or environments? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good overall, although I don't know what the latest is on gorgonopsid soft-tissue anatomy (ears, lips, whiskers, etc.) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs WP:OTRS permission, just stating it was approved by email doesn't cut it on Commons. So it's likely to get deleted if it doesn't get it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the OTRS issues, I don't think there are any major issues with the Inostrancevia depiciton. The environment is a bit strange, considering that the Salarevo Formation is thought to be semi-arid, though I suppose it makes sense if you consider it to be on the floodplain during the rainy season. No idea what the uniform green terrain is supposed to be though considering this is long before grass. I suppose maybe a very-low detail rendering of moss or small ferns? As for the large vegetation depicted, the Equisetales look fine, though I could probably nitpick if I knew what specific taxon they were going for. Not sure what the trees with the oval-shaped canopies are supposed to be, so I can't comment on that. Compared to the recent volumetric rendering study, the neck on the Scutosaurus looks a lot thinner, but that may be up to artistic interpretation. Can't comment on the accuracy of the scute arrangement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was looking over the Euchambersia page again and noticed, uh, an interesting coincidence, let's say. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Req: Myotragus size diagram

Would it be possible to have a size diagram created for Myotragus? There's a scaled skeleton in this paper (labellled in white). Scale bar = 10 cm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Antineosteus size comparison

Original image I used

Since Antineosteus article lacked image and once there was copyvio image, I created size comparison image of A. rufus. Other species looks hard to reconstruct. Although placement of material is based on reconstruction in this article,[1] but it looks bit oversized, even based on larger specimen that human shilouette in article become about 150 cm tall. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Would either of these pictures be helpful for the article? [2] [3] Both pictures are based on reconstructions in Janvier's Early Vertebrates.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiwaxia scale placement?

Reconstruction of Wiwaxia from Smith (2014)
Current top image used for page

I think there are no reconstruction showing accurate scale placement of Wiwaxia other than one from Smith (2014)? Since it is created to show ontogeny, so hopefully another reconstruction that shows newer scale placement may fine? Or using Smith's model as main image is fine? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The taxobox doesn't need a life reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'll go to remove then. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Kourisodon

A life reconstruction of Kourisodon puntledgensis

Here is a life reconstruction of Kourisodon punteldgensis, in the same vein as my previous Plioplatecarpus. Hopefully this will make a useful addition to the article. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Like the blue eyes. 2601:192:437F:E240:EDEF:F463:8656:D6EF (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally good, although I'm wondering about the blunted tail fin - what inferences went into that? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The blunted tail fin is taking referencing from some smaller and less pelagic sharks like dogfish to reflect Kourisodon’s smaller body size and presumably less pelagic habits (based on close relationship with Clidastes). It also matches up favorably with the tail flukes reconstructed by Lindgren et al. (2011). Fishboy86164577 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Plioplatecarpus primaevus artwork

My reconstruction of Plioplatecarpus primaevus. The scalloped flippers and tail fluke were informed by the Harrana Prognathodon sp. fossil, the only mosasaur fossil that preserves conclusive flipper and tail shapes to my knowledge. Bogdanov’s current restoration is dated in that it makes strange decisions with flipper shape and tissue, lacks lips & noticeable tail bend, has an unsubstantiated dorsal ridge. More subjectively, it has a lot of wrinkles for a streamlined marine animal. I was figuring my reconstruction could provide a useful addition, or if needed, alternative. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Bogdanov's restoration was made before any of these soft tissue features were known, and the tail fluke was added by me, though it doesn't blend in welland isn't enough tosave the image. This one looks much better, but I wonder why the snout seems so short compared to the proportions of all skull photos I can find? It seems almost double as long in relation to the rest of the skull in the photos I can find. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I second this, nearly every skeletal and Life reconstruction I could find on this mosasaur has it with a long snout. Most of it's relatives also have long snouts so I am not sure why this one doesn't. Other than that, this is a really nice reconstruction. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Part of it is perspective, but P. primaevus has an unusually short snout. This isn’t a trait seen in all species of Plioplatecarpus, so that’s where the confusion may lie. My drawing is based off the skull reconstruction in “Plioplatecarpus primaevus (Mosasauridae) from the Bearpaw Formation (Campanian, Upper Cretaceous)of the North American Western Interior Seaway” (Holmes 1996). Fishboy86164577 (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Having just looked at the skull, it seems pretty odd. It really doesn't look like other skulls of P. primaevus I've seen.

For example, here is the skull in question: http://oceansofkansas.com/Plioplaty/pliopic1.jpg

And here is a skull of the same species: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosasaur_skull.JPG

It might be a case of individual variation in this species, but I do not have access to the 1996 paper, even through the wikipedia library. Fossiladder13 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a juvenile? FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The skull reconstruction isn’t of a juvenile. I haven’t been able to find much on that long snouted P. primaevus image you linked. I think it’s a safer bet to follow the skull reconstruction from actual literature where I can see the documented specimens used rather than this one image of a different proportioned skull. Theres no guarantee, to my knowledge, that said skull is even fully genuine, correctly refered to the species, or correctly labelled as the species. The paper I mentioned is accessable through sci-hub, btw. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s been a while with no discussion on this topic. Should I upload this to the Plioplatecarpus page? Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which skull is correct but here's another photograph of the OUMNH skull I found: [4] Perhaps it would be good to get an opinion by a mosasaur worker on social media? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Australian fish models

Mandageria

Mandageria

Uploaded from Flicker, models by Australian artist who have website.[5] Are these accurate enough to use in page? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we know the Flickr uploader is the artist, and not just a collector? If the latter, these are copyright infringements. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like collector,[6] maybe problematic and possibly have to delete then... I have seen Remigolepis uploaded so I thought Mandageria is safe, if enough problematic I will do quick deletion for that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, since these are commercial figures, only the sculptor or company could release such photos, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Cotylorhynchus size chart

Cotylorhynchus romeri

A size chart of C. romeri. The other two species were omitted due to a lack of sufficient resources and the fact that they may represent distinct genera. This diagram also debuts an update format with a more realistic human silhouette(!). Critiques appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What's going on with the back left foot (foreground)? It looks strange compared to the other feet. Is that just due to it being a silhouette? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It is supposed to indicate the sprawling mid-step leg posture. I think I’ll have to spend some more time fixing the stance - maybe just have it stand there… I struggle with posing synapsids… -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find out that C. hancocki and C. bransoni might not be species of Cotylorhynchus at all. 2601:192:437F:E240:599E:2876:B53E:238D (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the pose. How does it look now? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Cyclida life restorations

[[File: Drawing based off the restorations in [7] and [8]. Wikipedia previously lacked any restorations of Cyclidans, so I thought creating these was warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Filling in the eyes might be helpful for clarity? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: is that better? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, having had a look at more recent cyclidan restorations, I'm having my doubts about the accuracy of these restorations (aside from the carapace anatomy, which is fine), which are 17 and 15 years old respectively. Research on cyclidans has significantly advanced since then, and these restorations are clearly missing some features (like the pleon and some of the limb pairs) that are known in more complete cycloid taxa like those in Americlidae [9]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of Brittaniclus rankini

This was bugging me, so I decided to create a ventral diagram of Britanniclus based on the one in this paper. Any comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Xiphiacetus bossi

Just finished up this Xiphiacetus bossi reconstruction with a bonus merganser. Most of the soft tissue is based off of river dolphins, which seem to be related to it. Although since it seems to live in deeper water I made the colour more like a true dolphin. I’m still new at cetacean anatomy and wasn’t 100% sure on the eyeball shape and placement so I can change that if there’s an issue. The merganser is basically a common merganser with a slightly different coat of paint and if that’s a problem I can change it up some more. Thanks! TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can say, the eyeball shape and placement is OK. 2601:192:437F:E240:A574:40B8:E9CE:F66C (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! BTW, what living dolphin species did you base the colouration for this Xiphiacetus? Also, that merganser is the now extinct species Mergus miscellus. 2601:192:437F:E240:EDEF:F463:8656:D6EF (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the merganser is supposed to be M. miscellus unfortunately I couldn’t find any photos of its fossils online (or any photos of it at all) so it’s just based on modern species. I think I loosely based the colours off of the common dolphin obviously not an exact match but it’s got the grey back with a white underside and yellow stripe. So it’s kind of similar. 131.104.23.129 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Shoot forgot to log in. That was me ok? Same with the guy who polished up the image. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Diprotodon by Dmitry Bogdanov

Looks like this Diprotodon image has never actually been reviewed on here. I think, based on this skeletal, the back shouldn't be so straight, and the hindpaws should be angled in more Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can try to fix it, but would like to see if moire editors can find additional issues or confirm the above (that skeleton image is really old) first. Also, it would probably also be good to review our other Diprotodon images,[10] (added to gallery above), especially as it's now at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe Hemiauchenia may have some views on this, since they commented here[11] once. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hippopotamus antiquus

Added to Hippopotamus antiquus by an IP without review. While H. antiquus is closely related to the modern hippopotamus, it isn't exactly the same and does have some anatomical differences (notably more elevated eyesockets and shorter metapodial bones), though the angle makes it difficult to tell whether this has been reflected in the drawing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit too cartoonish, unfortunately. Looks more like a slightly more ferocious caricature of a hippo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this critique, I'll go ahead and remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Should get some sort of inaccuracy tag description too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT --Magnatyrannus (talk \| contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looks too scary IMO with those huge canines. 2601:192:437F:E240:EDEF:F463:8656:D6EF (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Dorudon

Dorudon atrox

Did this Dorudon a while ago, and forgot to post it here not much to say honestly it’s just jumping out of the water and cetacean-like soft tissue. I have no idea the nose and lips are supposed to work and I ended up mostly basing it off of a leopard seal mixed with a dolphin. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's perspective but the flipper shape looks pretty different from [12]? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah I can see that. I’ll get to fixing it TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the tail fluke goes up like that for any cetacean when they're porpoising unless the back is arched (which it isn't here). The tail fluke is rigid, unless there's evidence of a non-rigid one in Dorudon Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I based the pose off this picture of a northern right whale dolphin. The tail seems to be slanted upwards but I could be misreading it. Or it might just be a right whale dolphin thing. I’m not sure. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about those, they don't have a dorsal fin so they have to compensate with a really long tail for stability at high speeds Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Would it make sense if dorudon had that I was comparing their skeletons but I do not have the expertise to say either way. It also probably lacked a dorsal fin right? TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Who is to say? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok touched it up. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bassipterus

Following the discussion and description by Super Dromaeosaurus here[13], I made this sketch of Bassipterus, but having little experience with restoring invertebrates, it seemed daunting and I kind of shelved the sketch until now. But I recently figured it could be fun to finish it with ink, so here is the sketch with some rough digital corrections[14], so it can be evaluated before I try to ink it. Perhaps Ichthyovenator and Junnn11 also have comments? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. After so much time I'm pretty rusty on the subject of eurypterids and other invertebrates so I had to read that description and the article again. Yes, everything looks good. I only have a couple notations. The last podomere (segment) of the sixth pair of appendages of Bassipterus was serrated, and on top of that, had a big distal (final) claw. The difference between the two is clear in the restoration of the sixth appendage [15], but not so much in your drawing. I know it's a sketch at the moment, I just wanted to remind it for the final product. I also remind that the telson had a "keel", it looks very clear in this restoration of Hughmilleria [16] (that restoration is very detailed and includes something in the middle of the keel, for Bassipterus that "triangle" at the beginning and the midline after that would suffice). Finally, in terms of proportions, the head of Bassipterus seems quite small and the sixth pair of appendages quite large and thick. On the right, the head does not start from the first segment. Maybe these restorations can help you see what the proportions should be like [17] [18] [19].

By the way, since the appendages of Bassipterus' apart of the sixth pair were not known, we should state on what genus where they based on, that was the common practice for eurypterids. I think I said they should be based on Hughmilleria, so that should be on the description at Commons.

Thanks for your work, and in case there are no more messages from me here in 2022, have a happy new year! Super Ψ Dro 11:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, not as wrong as I feared, then, and happy new year to you and everyone here too, will continue this next year... FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Here with some ink[20], will still have to tweak some proportions, but how is it, Super Dromaeosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's really good. It would be perfect if the ocelli weren't so big and prominent. It was a bit difficult to see them. Restorations for reference of the size they should have: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (this one is the closest relative though it's not a restoration). Super Ψ Dro 21:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I shrank the ocelli a good deal[26], is it better Super Dromaeosaurus, and how is their position? I also rotated the image horizontally so it might not take as much space, what do you think? And what colour do you think it could have? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it all is now good. The position included. I think that the image would look better in vertical though. Imagine if the restoration in Parahughmilleria, which occupies a large vertical space, was in horizontal. It'd be the worst case of WP:SANDWICH I'd have seen. As for the color, if you mean the ocelli, they should be black as they're basically underdeveloped eyes that only detected light. Though it is hard to notice them in many eurypterid restorations. You might want to make them slightly even smaller based on that though we have some, non-colored that is, restorations of eurypterids with that size of ocelli. Their size would certainly be more prominent if the whole restoration was colored, though again, it is okay as it is right now. If you mean the whole animal (I assume so), I know there were some studies into eurypterid color, but I never worked on a genus with known coloration. There's some info you can read at Carcinosoma#Color and Megalograptus#Coloration. Ichthyovenator made a restoration of the latter with realistic coloration [27]. There's also another of Carcinosoma [28]. Those are the best we have. Here are other good colored eurypterid restorations: [29] [30] [31] [32]. As you can see, brown is the most commonly depicted one and it is confirmed in Megalograptus. Other alternatives are dark blue and grey. I'd go with some kind of brown. Maybe you could take some inspiration in modern-day xiphosurans too [33]. Super Ψ Dro 15:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, I've added the image at the upper right with colour based on an extant horseshoe crab (golden brownish) and with the ocelli slightly shrunk further. Could probably get another pass for refining the colours, but anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Damn, just realised it took me four years to get this one done, lol... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The eyes are quite protruding, but everything else looks good! Including the color. Many thanks for your work here :) Super Ψ Dro 23:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the eyes would have been flatter, Super Dromaeosaurus? I also read in the article that almost complete specimens are known, but I couldn't find any images of them, do you know where they can be seen? As for why I linked the term life restoration in the caption, it's because I've been asked a few time by FAC reviewers what it meant, with the solution being the link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just a little bit flatter. That's the way I notice them in most eurypterid restorations. It looks good nonetheless, so if you want you can leave it as is. I think life restoration is clear to be honest, though maybe it's because I am used to it after so many years? And yes, there's many images, without color, of specimens of Bassipterus at the original description [34]. Are you able to access it? I am unaware of images of Bassipterus fossils in other works. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried to made the eyes look less protruding by removing some shadowing around them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hypohippus life reconstruction

Hypohippus

I initially stated that I would do mainly illustrations of animals without visual representation here on Wiki, but I thought Hypohippus might benefit from an article expansion and a new reconstruction showing what is known about it (high shouldered browser likely possessing a strong, mobile upper lip). My source for this info is the paper THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE : History and Techniques of Study, but due to the format I dont know how to properly cite it. If someone could verify that the article is up to date and thus my illustration is valid, Id be grateful. Juandertal (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we absolutely also need new restorations of taxa if we only have outdated ones showing historical interpretations of their anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I see you are very knowledgeable on Wikipedia contribution and are a great artist yourself. Luckily I just found the source of the article and I can cite it and improve the Hypohippus page, and likely in the future some other equid pages. Juandertal (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good, and yeah, our prehistoric equid pages are a mess, but then again, so is prehistoric equid taxonomy, it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of whitespace (or I suppose greenspace in this case) for something that's likely to be primarily displayed in thumbnail view. The top and bottom don't really matter for display size, but the sides could easily have half their current whitespace cropped, which would improve legibility of the image in thumb view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll crop it and check the problem on my other images. Juandertal (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bauria by Nobu Tamura

A reconstruction of Bauria by Nobu Tamura, which can be found in the article devoted to it. Its appearance seems me too reptilian for a relatively derivative therapsid, and I think it is better to remove it. What is your opinion on this? - JurgenTask (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Better to toss this one out and start from scratch. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Could help if it wasn't green, to begin with. What else would need fixing? Waiting for someone to make restorations from scratch is rarely fruitful here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That said, we have two other restorations, which I've added above, which need review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that it's too reptilian. Green isn't an ideal color for it, but overall it seems more or less in line with what's likely for a basal therapsid. Dmitry Bogdanov's Bauria, on the other hand, is too mammalian; though the whiskers have correctly been removed, it still has a mammal-like muscular snout, and not the tight-skinned snout likely for non-probainognathian synapsids. I'm inclined to think it shouldn't have a visible ear hole, either. Given the various studies suggesting endothermy evolved within cynodonts, I'm also inclined to think we shouldn't be depicting therocephalians with fur. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems we already had this entire discussion, hehe:[35] So if we can agree on an outcome, I can do some edits (maybe brown or grey instead of green, no earhole). FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is really that the head (even without a muscular snout) just looks off shape-wise for a therocephalian, much less Bauria itself. I can't reconcile the skull in Fig. 8 here with NT's reconstruction. The long, drooping tail also seems problematic. If tweaking it to match is possible, then perhaps we can keep it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's an attempt[36] at getting it more in line with that, any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Better for sure, although I think the dentary is still throwing me off: [37] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that NT's illustration is from a slightly dorsolateral view, not a straight-on lateral view. The lower jaw shouldn't be as pronounced as it is in the skull image due to perspective. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I also looked at this[38] image for the skull at different angles, which may look a bit dorsoventrally squashed. I think the lower side of the jaw could get more of a curve, so I'll do that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Updated the NT drawing with a more rounded jaw. Anything that could be done to the other two? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Much better. It looks like a therocephalian now. The right hand on NT's newer one looks broken. Then there's the deal with the fur, but I don't see it as big enough of an issue to remove it urgently. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that's an attempt at making splayed limbs? Could perhaps be helped if I shift the fingers by moving the hind most one to the front? FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That might work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tried that, think it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not very good with perspective, but I think it still looks twisted: [39] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly still twisted, but the question is whether it is to an unrealistic extent/has to be broken to be like that, as long as it doesn't almost turn backwards? Some molerats for comparison:[40][41] Though I don't know the flexibility of Bauria and kin's limbs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ainiktozoon loganese

This paleoart of the thylacocephalan arthropod, Ainiktozoon loganese, has not been reviewed yet. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't this reconstruction of the animals carapace and eye now being questioned in recent years?. I think the arthropod is now thought to look something like this https://www.deviantart.com/gabuded/art/Ainiktozoon-Alternative-Reconstruction-915931201. Here is the paper (edit, blogpost) that raised my concerns about this reconstruction, https://age-of-arthropods.blogspot.com/2020/02/misunderstood-then-misunderstood-now.html. It's probably because the animal got crushed when it was preserved, hence the chordate-like reconstructions you normally see. It should probably have a more sleek carapace, and a more compact body. What do you guys think. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a paper, though, just a random blogpost? Evidently Ainiktozoon should be restored following other thylacocephalans [42] but none of the newer sources include any explicit interpretation of carapace or eye morphology. It's OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes Yeah, that was the only thing I could find talking about the topic. It being a blog post is kind of disappointing, but I felt like it was worth bringing up. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is a better restoration, which is done by someone who has actually done research on thylacocephalans (see this video, which also features a discussion of Ainiktozoon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is probably better and probably usable reference, even through YouTube or DeviantArt, posts by researchers can be used as reference sometimes. (e.g. Riojasaurus) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as is known, Ainiktozoon fossils appear to have eight pairs of swimming legs. However, given other Paleozoic forms there may have been some more behind the raptorial legs, but I'm not sure. The eyes are relatively large, but there are two eyes that are clearly not fused, as they are separated when the shell expands in fossils. Therefore, the eye morphology may have been similar to that of Thylacares. However, it is not clear where the parts reconstructed as chordates correspond to in arthropods, because the preservation state of the fossil is unclear. Do you have opinions @Junnn11 and are you interested in @Qohelet12? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Qohelet12 has stated that they are very busy atm, so I wouldn't expect any restorations from them for the next while. I think the YouTube video is probably a citeable source as a self published subject matter expert. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As the reconstruction has already been updated, perhaps it is no longer necessary? Although I would like to do a thylacocephalan at some point. Qohelet12 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh now looks like avancna updated reconstruction! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Paleoart upload proposals

Hi everyone. During the last years I have been uploading some of my paleoart work at wikipedia, but there are also several pieces that aren't here. I've been thinking of uploading some of them, so I would like to propose a list of potentially useful pieces that could be reviewed:

Messel birds: Eocoracias, waterbirds (Juncitarsus, Massillastega, Rhynchaeites)
Macaronesian extinct fauna: São Miguel scops owl, Greater Azores bullfinch, rails, quails, Cape Verde giant skink, Centrochelys atlantica
Mesozoic fauna: Tamarro, Harpactognathus, Spanish enantiornithines, Gargantuavis, Dearc
Mesozoic marine fauna: Aigialosaurus, Palaeopagurus (top left), Baculites and Hoploscaphites

The images with multiple subjects could be split of course. If required, I could provide references for the artwork. Happy new year to everyone! :) El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Since we already have an Aigialosaurus restoration, perhaps it could be relabelled as Carsosaurus, which us currently nominated for DYK? FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't scroll down in the Aigialosaurus page so I didn't get to see the current restoration, that's ok for me. The animals depicted alongside the lizard (giant clams, rudists and fish) were found in the same location as Aigialosaurus, but I guess that the environment where Carsosaurus lived could have been similar. El fosilmaníaco (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer tweaking the existing Aigialosaurus to be Carsosaurus, if that is the case. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was assuming the images were proposed to be split out also? FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is no problem. I can remove the other creatures from the picture. I just checked and it seems that the 2 fish species I depicted are found also in the same place as Carsosaurus (ref), so I will keep them for environmental context (but I'll remove the invertebrates since they are not found there) El fosilmaníaco (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Carsosaurus

Carsosaurus restoration uploaded--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps An anonymous username, not my real name, who expanded the article, has comments? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No comments, but thanks for the ping, FunkMonk. The restoration is excellent. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! :) El fosilmaníaco (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone would be happy to have the rest of these too, El fosilmaníaco. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder FunkMonk. I couldn't find much time to work on this these last weeks, but I'll try progress gradually. Now I am uploading a number of restorations each day. Regarding the ammonites illustration, do you think it's better to upload it as 2 separate images or as 1 (to show 2 kinds of Paleocene surviving ammonites)? Or even upload both options El fosilmaníaco (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What, I didn't even know there were Paleocene ammonites, sure, that sounds interesting (if it's reliable?). FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, apparently some survived some millenia after the K-Pg extinction, and there is even a page in Wikipedia about them (link below). I ended up uploading the full illustration as well as separate ones for each ammonite

Here are the illustrations of the ammonites and Palaeopagurus.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Request: Canis mosbachensis

A not too-well-known canid which, nonetheless, deserves representation, considering it is widely considered the immediate ancestor of the wolf.
As per the sourced wikipedia article on the species, it was either smaller than a red wolf (implying it was coyote-sized) or the size of an Indian wolf.
Unfortunately I can't find much info on the skeleton, with only the skull being the most frequently found element.
A detailed written description of the skull from Mecozzi et al. "Canis mosbachensis (Canidae, mammalia) from the Middle Pleistocene of Contrada Monticelli (Putignano, Apulia, southern Italy)":
The main characters proposed in literature to distinguish C. lupus from C. mosbachensis are located in the cranium. These include the muzzle rostrocaudally longer and narrower at the level of the canine alveoli. The Mosbach wolf shows long nasals ending beyond maxillofrontal suture, straight in lateral view. It differs from modern wolves for its flattened frontals, less elevated over the rostrum. Furthermore, C. lupus can be distinguished from C. mosbachensis for the longer anterior palatine foramina, with the caudal border lying at the level of the distal part to canine alveoli. Regarding dental morphology, the Mosbach wolf shows a relatively longer tooth row, less curved at the P3-P4 junction, with mesiodistally more elongated and narrower premolars than in the grey wolf (Fig. 4, Tab. 2). The upper carnassial differs from those of C. lupus for a prominent protocone located slightly mesially and a strong lingual cingulum, while the upper first molar has a deeper and larger hypocone basin and a more developed and continuous labial cingulum. Finally, C. mosbachensis shows a larger upper second molar than C. lupus.
Reference photos (skulls and mandibles):
[43]
[44]
Regarding colour, my suggestion is to use European golden jackals or north African wolves for reference, as basal members of Canis are almost never grey (and absolutely not black or white) as we see in most modern wolf populations.
Many thanks in advance to anyone wanting to take this on.Mariomassone (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a job for Juandertal again? If not, I might try a stab at it one day... FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ill keep it in mind. As soon as I get a breath of inspiration Ill make it. Juandertal (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The inspiration came and here it is.

Juandertal (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice, pinging Mariomassone, in case he didn't see. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

William Harris might also want to see this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Juandertal, you never disappoint. Thank you again :) Mariomassone (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Discokeryx again

Although this image was once submitted for review once, no one commented about that. But looks like neck direction is wrong, compared to reconstruction in paper. @Iofry:, I remember you made reconstruction of this animal and Sivatherium, if no problem can you upload that? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. There is a version with only Discokeryx, one with two discokeryx fighting and the one with Sivatherium and Discokeryx comparison (all of these are skeletals), which one is better? Iofry (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Fighting one may work clearly, maybe good to upload some of them and get review here? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Dawn bear Ballusia

Some time ago, I decided to try digging into the fossil history of ursidae. This led to this restoration of Ballusia moving down a cracked cliff. Any suggestions to make it better (details can be found in image description)? Conty~enwiki 05:49, 18 May 2022

I guess we don't really have any experts on things like this, but maybe SuperTah? FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at the cited references and one of them suggests that it should be digitigrade. Is that the case? It's not obvious to me. Also wondering about the source of the background image. The Shanwang biota (source of B. orientalis) preserves a rich flora: [45] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, unfortunately I know very little about the early evolution of ursids, but from what preliminary reading I have done it looks good! I agree with @Lythronaxargestes' queries, I'll check back if I find anything useful. SuperTah (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Notifying Conty~enwiki about these answers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Kyhytysuka sachicarum

I decided to do a reconstruction of the Kyhytysukа for a related Wikipedia article. For now, it's a sketch on paper, but I plan to finish it later in digital. Do you have anything to say about the current version of the artwork? JurgenTask (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Slate Weasel may have comments? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though it seems the head may be a bit small and the forefins a bit far back based on the skeletal in the paper. The angle of the tail bend also seems a bit extreme, although there should be some leeway there as the tail is effectively unknown in Kyhytysuka. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of the work with the corrections of some details? ignore the crumpled sheet - JurgenTask (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The foreflipper and potentially the hindflipper need to be proportionally larger. Kyhytysuka was a derived platypterygiid, and outside the reversals present in Undorosaurus spp. and Grendelius spp. they had large forelimbs formed by a greatly enlarged number of digits with a greatly enlarged amount of phalanges. The small-flippered skeletal reconstruction of Kyhytysuka in Cortés et al. 2021 is incorrect, as it is a plagiarized version of Scott Hartman’s Ophthalmosaurus, which is a bad model for Kyhytysuka or any non-ophthalmosaurid ophthalmosaurian. There are indet. Platypterygiid foreflippers from the same formation as Kyhytysuka described in Cortés and Páramo (2018) that would make a good reference to use for the drawing. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

regarding comments about the tail bend, Ophthalmosaur tails in natural articulation and soft tissue are known from Solnhofen. They show a more bowed & relaxed tail bend which creates a tail with very wide caudal & ventral lobes. However, relatively complete Myobradypterygius (=Maiaspondylus?)(=Platypterygius?) fossils show a more extreme tail bend. This is may be a product of post-mortem distortion or disarticulation (the vertebral column of these animals is often found bent out of natural shape through a combination of death throes and undersea current) but there is no definitive published word on it afaik, so the steep tail is technically still fair game, I think. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So, I redrew it with some bug fixes. Do you have anything to say? - JurgenTask (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I painted the existing result. Do you have anything to say? - JurgenTask (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the whitespace could be cropped. Also, I'm not sure what's going on with the nostril there? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This shape of the nostrils is based on the Simbirskiasaurus, a related genus of ichthyosaurs. By the way, I cleaned up the extra space. - JurgenTask (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to say about the artwork or can it be already be uploaded to the article? - JurgenTask (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Discokeryx

These are my skeletal drawings of Discokeryx, I was asked to post them here to get a review. Iofry (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like it's better to directly leave the missing material out of the rigorous skeletal, or to make the right set of legs filled in white as well on the main skeletal. You have two shades of gray here and it might be hard to tell them apart. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sifrhippus grangeri

Sifrhippus

My reconstruction of Sifrhippus/Hyracotherium grangeri, the model on the page is great but shows very horse-like traits such as its snout structure, notable mane and long tail fur.Juandertal (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the genus for this taxon was Arenahippus? But it looks about right relative to the complete skeleton. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Aquilolamna

I noticed that this image was added without review. Are there any errors? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to The only inaccuracy I can find is that the pectoral fins are a bit to broad and thick compared to the fossils and other reconstructions: https://www.sci.news/paleontology/aquilolamna-milarcae-09470.html, and https://english.elpais.com/usa/2021-04-05/the-eagle-shark-that-glided-through-the-oceans-93-million-years-ago.html. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The new Qohelet12 images thread

Nice image of Fengzhengia, which I had previously requested. Looks accurate to me. I'm not going to quibble about the frontal appendage, as the actual fossil appendage seems to vary in the placement of the spines (which Qohelet12's restoration faithfully renders) vs those of the life restorations in the paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A beautifully rendered restoration of Surusicaris, looks accurate and I have no objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Qohelet12, would you be interested in drawing marrellids? If so, there was a paper published this year about a new one from the Ordovician (Tomlinsonus, which I probably will create an article for), which is known from relatively complete remains, and has a good life restoration for reference. [46]. (Open Access). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If the material of the paper is distrubuted under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (can be reproduced non-commercially), then wouldn't it be possible to just use my art from the paper alongside images of the fossils and such? PaleoEquii (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that you that did the artwork for the paper! It's very good. We can't upload artwork from NC licensed papers, as neither Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts non-commerically licensed work, as to whether that's good or bad I don't have an opinion, but this was decided long ago (I think the mid 2000s). I don't know what your licensing agreement with the paper authors and/or the journal was, but if you retain the rights to the image, presumably you could upload it yourself under a CC BY or SA license, if that's something that you would be comfortable doing, totally fine if you're not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, although for the trunk I based it on Mimetaster, is it correct? Qohelet12 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like on the hypertrophied appendage, the spine on the 8th podomere and the 9th podomere are maybe the wrong way around? The description says that the spine is on the inner margin of the leg rather than the outer margin. It looks pretty strange in the way that it has been restored in the paper, so this is an understandable mistake. Otherwise on a technical level it looks very good, and I have no other objections. Maybe @PaleoEquii: has some comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The spine looks the wrong way around because the legs are drawn splayed out laterally - in life it probably would have been held upright, as in my reconstruction. I don’t think it needs to be changed, really. However, I have a few notes - The hypertrophied front appendage should also probably be covered in small sensory setae hairs - again, see the reconstruction in the paper. The antennae don’t necessarily need to be changed, but we assumed they would be similar to the antennae of Mimetaster, where each element of the antennule is shorter than the last - starting at the longest element, and each subsequent element gets about half as long each time as it grows more distal. See Stürmer and Bergström’s 1976 paper on Mimetaster for reference. Lastly, although this is technically up to you since it isn’t preserved, I would probably include a 3rd pair of (probably small and unornamented) spines coming off the back of the head shield. They aren’t super visible in the life reconstruction in the paper, but they are there. PaleoEquii (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough about the spine and podomere, I wasn't sure about the perpective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I tried to make all the changes mentioned. Qohelet12 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoEquii: Any thoughts on the changes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks fantastic! Thanks again for your hard work, Qohelet. PaleoEquii (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Qohelet12, would you be interested in restoring Jianfengia? It's one of the few megacheirans we don't have a life restoration for. A paper came out recently that CT-scanned its head, and provided a nice 3D reconstruction of it paper (which you should be able to access via the Wikipedia library) direct link to image of 3D model. A lateral diagramatic reconstuction (though unfortunately not a vertical one) was provided in Aria et al. 2020 (Open Access). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Another great reconstruction Qohelet12. I think you did a really good job harmonising the inconsistencies between the previous reconstructions, and I see no issues with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it looks good. Since you did reconstruction of relative like Fortiforceps, what is your opinion @Junnn11:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the eye could be located a little bit more anteriorly, as it stick out from the gently concaved anterolateral margin of the head shield (instead of seemly covered by the lateral margin like the current version).

Other than that I see no issues. Great reconstruction as always! Junnn11 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Another euthycarcinoid reconstruction, this time of Sottyxerxes. Looks accurate to previous reconstructions, so I have no issues with it. Qohelet12, would you be interested in drawing the most famous marrellid of them all, Marrella? Given that we already have a good restoration of it in dorsal view, would it be possible to draw a side-on/front-facing perspective, similar to those seen in the ROM reconstructions and fig 19 of García-Bellido and Collins 2006? The 1971 Whittingdon description is here if that's useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It may be a little difficult to express structural colors? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how widely accepted the conclusions of that paper are. It's been ignored by other subsequent papers that discuss Marrella. I just assumed that Qohelet12 would restore it in their usual style. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The conclusions of the paper have been contested by other authors (at least for other animals mentioned). In the supplemental material for the 2019 redescription of Canadia spinosa, it is stated that In Canadia, longitudinal striations along chaetae, which have previously interpreted as external evidence for iridescence, are concordant with the dimensions of microvilli and represent internal rather than external features.. Most of the other authors mentioning the paper say that iridescence has been "suggested" by the paper rather than stating it as fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. As most of Japanese literature and websites write that Marrella and Wiwaxia are iridescent like common sense, I thought that is common theory for that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If you read the original 1998 paper, the iridescence claim only ever applied to the frontmost pair of cephalic spines. I think that might be why in the ROM 3D reconstruction, that pair of cephalic spines is light blue, in contrast to the rest of the body. Also Smith's redescription of Wiwaxia suggests that the striations were internal rather than external, and this could not not have been iridescent. The full width of each sclerite is striated by finely spaced longitudinal lineations.Parker (1998) argued that these were superficial – although they are not visible on surfaces imaged under SEM and do not exhibit interference under transmitted light, so might be better interpreted as internal channels indicating microvillar secretion. interesting that again it is attributed to microvilli structures Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on it, by the way, sorry for replying late :(, I've been very busy lately. Qohelet12 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi!, sorry for taking so long, but I finally finished Marrella. Qohelet12 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qohelet12 it looks really good based on other reconstructions I could find. Also I’m sorry for asking this just after you finished the Marrella, but would you be interested in doing Schinderhannes bartelsi?, it’s a late surviving Devonian radiodont from Germany that really doesn’t have a good reconstruction yet. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's kinda tricky, given that no academically published restorations have been created since that of the original 2009 description, which has some features that are now considered erroneous e.g. the supposed "trunk appendages", which are now considered to more likely be setal blades or muscle strands, see Ortega-Hernández 2014. 21:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia oh, got it. Maybe they could do Pahvantia then.? Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that's also kinda tricky to reconstruct, as it's incompletely known, and the only recent academic restoration done of Pahvantia was from the 2018 press release, which looks quite different to the version @PaleoEquii: has drawn [47], which perhaps they can elaborate on. Ideally you want to request taxa that are largely complete and/or already have good reconstructions to use as reference, for example, Yawunik has great reference material (e.g. [48]). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia How about Tamisiocaris, there is a lot of decent restorations that @Qohelet12 could use for reference. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, the problem with Tamisiocaris is that it's only known from the frontal appendages, making the actual body restoration completely speculative other tamisiocarids aren't known from much better remains either. Qohelet12 has done speculative restorations of radiodonts only known from frontal appendages before [49] so I suppose that isn't issue. It's up to Qohelet12 what they want to draw I guess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, yeah, really does show you how fragmentary most radiodonts are. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I agreed that partially known or poorly preserved radiodonts may be problematic at reconstructing (especially Schinderhannes). There is another radiodont known from majority of body but not enough to reconstruct due to preservation, Buccaspinea. I think possibly only head reconstruction of "Anomalocaris" briggsi may work to show unique eye shape but not sure since other head elements are unknown. Pahvantia is one possible taxon, considering appendage mostly basing on Hurdia is probably fine. Anyway good to hear @Junnn11's opinion about that I think. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I agreed on the opinions of @Hemiauchenia and @Ta-tea-two-te-to. (This sheet made by me may help for the completeness of each radiodont species).

Considering their incompleteness (only frontal appendage and fragment of possible head sclerite, plus a kidney-shaped eye for A. briggsi) and unique phylogenetic positions, tamisiocaridids are the most unrecommended to reconstruct at the moment. While Schinderhannes has a nearly complete specimen (and we know its rough silhouette), many details still remain uncertain and many parts of the original reconstruction (which is very unusual for a radiodont) was considered inaccurate. A minor review about Schinderhannes from Moysiuk & Caron 2022 (Fig. S4) may help on this issue, but it is worth to note their interpretation of setal blade position is very different to most other researches. We have no information about Buccaspinea head sclerites, which is a major, diverse, diagnostic (thus unrecommended to speculate) feature of hurdiids. Pahvantia's completeness is not better than Cordaticaris, but consider its similarities with Hurdia, I also think it most likely has a Hurdia-like body shape. Junnn11 (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Another masterpiece by Qohelet12, genuinely amongst your finest works. The level of detail is really amazing. Well worth the wait. My one thought is that you've drawn the swimming appendage in the old style, like in Marianne Collins's 1988 reconstruction, where the setae are present all over the appendage, as opposed to the reconstruction given in García-Bellido & Collins 2006 (and the 3D ROM reconstruction presumably based on it) where the setae solely radiate from the thin edge of the paddle. I think this newer reconstruction of the appendage is supported by other workers. [50] Mimetasterid second appendages differ in structure from the equivalent pair in Marrella, which are flattened, fringed laterally with rows of setae, and have been compared to the oar-like appendages of nektonic aquatic insects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change Qohelet12, it looks great. I was wondering if next you'd be interested in drawing Dabashanella? There's a good restoration in Zhang & Pratt, 2012. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for not replying, I am very busy at the moment but I will finish the reconstructions as soon as I can. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I finished Yawunik, I think now I can do Pahvantia or Dabashanella (but it might also take a while). Qohelet12 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qohelet12 The Yawunik looks really nice. Pahvantia might not be a good choice based on the discussion above, but It would be the best choice for a radiodont reconstruction Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, oh did not know that. Yeah Dabashanella would be a better choice, and we really don’t have any artwork of phosphatocopines yet. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The Yawunik looks great and I can't see any inaccuracies (aside from the lack of visible segmentation on the flagellae of the great appendages, though I appreciate that this would have been very tedious to draw, and I think the suggestion given by the alternating colours is good enough), but maybe @Junnn11: has some thoughts? I'm obviously biased because I asked for it, but Dabashanella is known from very complete remains, and therefore is unlikely to be rendered obsolete by new remains being found, which is a danger for Pahvantia. So I'd personally recommend drawing Dabashanella over Pahvantia. 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Qohelet12 is going to be gone for a while. [51]. Thanks for the multitude of images you've contributed so far, they're really appreciated and obviously took a lot of time & care to make. I wish you all the best. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Plesioselachus

Created interpreted chart of Devonian mysterious chondrichthyan Plesioselachus, currently redirects to elasmobranch article which should not be. (Edit: currently I made it redirects to Chondrichthyes, until article is done. The one made it as redirect is the same user who redirected multiple placoderm articles to just phylogeny section of Antiarchi and Arthrodira articles) Interpretation in original description[52] is wrong according to redescription, so I used redescription as main reference.[53] Body shape is somewhat based on Onychoselache which morphology was compared,[54] and Maggie Newman's reconstruction in this paper.[55] I am still not sure about this chart, such as placement and direction of ceratohyal, do someone have opinion to this? I should ping @Carnoferox: who is good at chondrichthyans. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Making a drawn Gymnotrachelus hydei recon

Gymnotrachelus hydei

Making a Gymnotrachelus hydei, need to know if it looks right. Also, the picture in question is not the final result. It still needs review. PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Trek Through Time from the United States Geological Survey

This collection of artwork for United States Geological Survey by various paleoartists have yet to be reviewed. Some of these appear to pre-existing artwork depicting various ecosystems, while others are more or less anachronistic collection of various species from their respective geological periods. Monsieur X (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether these are really public domain, as they don't appear to have been specifically made for the Geological Survey, but are taken for example from the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Cambrian-Cretaceous ones are art by Masato Hattori, who did press-art reconstructions such as Aepyornithomimus, Kamuysaurus and Paralitherizinosaurus. He have Wikipedia account (talk page) and argued about Kamuysaurus reconstruction copyright even through paper is licenced as CC-BY 4.0. What taxa descripted in these images can be seen in his website.[56] And yeah, this is just collection of animals from same period, so using images as showing ecosystem can cause issue. As I see, Anomalocaris is seriously inaccurate, Opabinia and Sanctacaris are outdated. Wiwaxia showing iridescent color is unlikely according to recent study. Giant nautiloid is made as Cameroceras, seeing page description (reaching 11 m) it is confused with Endoceras, which is long remaining misinformation that is often written in books by famous Japanese book author who often uses artworks by Hattori. Meganeura and Arthropleura are outdated. Probably just art style but Pederpes and Akmonistion definitely look huge. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm pretty sure we've had copyright issues with those deep time maps. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

They occupy so little of the image that De minimis almost certainly applies. If they were cropped to just the map though, there could potentially be issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure of De minimis works for something like this, it's not a photograph, and the maps could easily be isolated. Anyhow, I think I'll mass DR them, because their status seems extremely iffy. National Georaphic and the Smithsonian aren't going to release anything for free, it just says "courtesy of". FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The point of De minimis is that the uncropped image is not copyright infringement, but a hypothetical crop is. That said, the licensing here for images as a whole seems pretty murky, so I agree with your assessment to take them to deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've mass DRed them, but seems there's a lot of split off smaller images that have the same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

New Diprotodon reconstruction

This was uploaded a few days ago, a Diprotodon with joey and sulfur-crested cockatoo in a tall field. I think it's fine but the second and third digit on the hindpaws may have been fused, but it's not a dealbreaker. What do people think? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the artist ARC CoE CABAH (context for the images here[57], seems to be made by a palaeontologist and commissioned by a scientific organisation, so should be safe). Also an opportunity to get the rest of their paleoartwork reviewed (they have other art of extant species, placed them last here for good measure), placed it below. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the animals mostly look okay, but I don't like how the cockatoo is shoehorned into all of them. Its interactions with the cassowary and the dingo also feel unreliastic and almost too human-like for me. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but those images aren't really going to be used in paleo articles anyway (if anywhere). But the one with the snake gives a bit of a Junglebook vibe, but snakes do eat birds, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Request: Sus strozzi

A relatively easy one this time, as wiki commons has plenty of cranial and post-cranial material to work on (see here).
As for colour, markings, fur etc., I've noticed that a lot of artistic reconstructions of S. strozzi simply look like regular boars, yet most sources seem to concur that it was actually a relative of the modern Javan warty pig. Therefore, through phylogenetic bracketing, it would look similar, with huge tumor-like growths on the head and throat, but obviously more cold-adapted, being native to Pleistocene Europe. It was also apparently massive, being the largest member of Sus, so it would look a lot beefier too.
Some Javan warty pig pics for (phylogenetic) reference:
[58]
[59]
[60]
Once again, a big thanks in advance to whoever wants to take this on. Mariomassone (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Artworks by LancianIdolatry

User @LancianIdolatry uploaded a number of reconstructions of marine reptiles from the Moreno and Quiriquina Formations some time ago, though they have not yet been reviewed. I have included them here so that this might finally happen and we can start using them in articles.

Wunyelfia maulensis
Aphrosaurus furlongi
Quiriquina Halisaurus sp.
Quiriquina Fm. marine reptile size chart
Fresnosaurus drescheri
Morenosaurus stocki
Moreno Mosasaurinae (indet.)
Plotosaurus bennisoni
Cf. "Marichimaera" waiparensis
"Aristonectes" quiriquinensis
Quiriquina Elasmosaurid (indet.)
Hydrotherosaurus alexandrae
Moreno Halisaurinae (indet.)
Moreno Aristonectinae? (indet.)
Plesiotylosaurus crassidens

TimTheDragonRider (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Still a bit iffy to show dorsal fins on mosasaurs? Could be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If I remember correctly they are more plausible in Plotosaurus, not sure on that though. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

agreed on removing the mosasaur dorsal fin. Otherwise, the elasmosaurs especially look good, although it’s technically incorrect to show the flippers articulating directly downwards as it’s out of the animal’s range of motion. I don’t think this is a big deal though, as maximum predicted ROM gets quite close, exact perspective is hard to gauge with the simplistic style, and it highlights the animal’s anatomy/proportions better. Might be worth considering turning some of these into silhouettes and/or scale charts given their clean linework and orthographic view.Fishboy86164577 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed the dorsal fin. As for clean line work, it's actually quite pixelated if you zoom in. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What should we do with all these indeterminate animals, what can we use them for other than in faunal lists? Also, LancianIdolatry's dinosaur restorations should probably also be reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The indeterminate animals are probably only useful for Paleobiota lists, yeah. As for the dinosaur reconstructions, I believe some of those have already been reviewed? Not sure. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a bunch of them in the lists of continents sections, but not all. Anyhow, I took the liberty to add most of the ones identified to genus to articles, as issues haven't been brought up. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also advise swapping the Nobu Tamura reconstruction out for Lancian's on the Augustynolophus page. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of fixing NT's, though, as it also serves as a size comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that NT's is so fundamentally flawed that you would be better off adding a silhouette to Lancians or making a seperate size chart entirely based on the silhouette. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if some of these indeterminate taxa could be reused to illustrate known genera (as new, modified uploads) that lack illustrations... Otherwise they're a bit wasted. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Request: Hatzegopteryx

Having a look at Hatzegopteryx life restorations & it seems like Mark Witton's artwork is the only accurate one of the bunch. I personally think there should be at least one more that can be used for lists & cladograms. One that can replace Nobu Tamura's old reconstruction. Monsieur X (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's just to have something in the cladogram at tiny size, I think modifying NT's would suffice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)