Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 10

Colymbosaurus

I created an image for the Colymbosaurus page, showing the difference in sizes between the two species C.megadeirus (CAMSM J.29596) + C.svalbardensis (PMO 216.838). Vertebral count was based on Benson et al. (2014) where the genus is described in detail, and measurements for C.svalbardensis from Knutsen et al. (2012). These are the largest specimens which can be accurately scaled in each of the aformentioned papers (if anyone knows of larger specimens, please tell me). DaCaTaraptor (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A scale bar would be useful. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now, unless there's any issue with the silhouettes which I wouldn't be able to tell (I'm not a plesiosaur guy). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine, should be a good addition to the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Simolestes

Another image for the Simolestes page, presenting the largest confirmed size for the genus as per Noe (2001) (PETMG 296). Skull reconstruction based on Noe's thesis, and vertebral measurements based on the original 1909 description. Tail fin based on Smith & Benson (2014)'s skeletal reconstruction of Rhomaleosaurus.DaCaTaraptor (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine, can't say much about the accuracy since I've not seen anything in lateral view. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Request: diagrams for Elasmosaurus

• I've seen a lot of nice plesiosaur diagrams posted here recently (by Slate Weasel and DaCaTaraptor), and while working on the Elasmosaurus article, I realised the current life restoration with a man for scale is inappropriate, since it shows the animal foreshortened, so therefore doesn't show the size correctly. So I think it would be better to make a new diagram in side view, and remove the man from the life restoration. Any takers? FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• In addition to this, there has long been talks of making a diagram showing the range of motion in elasmosaur necks, based on figure 1 in this paper:[1] I was going to do it, but I'm not really good at neat diagrams. Could also be nice if the drawings weren't as ugly as those in the paper... Pinging LittleJerry for potential comments to this. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on the scale chart using NT's image right now! I'll upload it when finished. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Completed. I can remove the black outline if you want. Also, since the Rhomaleosaurus is the only plesiosaur I've ever contributed until now, I assume you're referring to it. Does that mean it's okay? Also, the SVG elsmosaur could easily be altered to show different neck positions. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be better. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, seems your earlier one was approved. This one looks too short, should be at least 10.3 meters? But thanks for taking it up! Pinging Jens Lallensack in case he has anything to add. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Size can easily be fixed. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so. Maybe the same silhouette can be used to make that other diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I added the size chart to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the first part. For the second part I will have to create a partially new elasmosaur. And, of course, I would like to hear your feedback on this one, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, would be good if it in the end (when the others are added?) is a horizontal rather than vertical image, as it will otherwise be hard to fit in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

How does this look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It could maybe be clearer that some of them are shown from the side and others are from above? Easiest way would probably be to show the bodies (as in the paper) FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Much better! Let's see if LittleJerry has something to add. Perhaps it should say "elasmosaurid" in the description, since these poses were proposed for the group in general. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a rename. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I've now removed the diver from the life restoration[2], lengthened the neck, and made the skull profile more concave. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be elasmosaurid rather than Elasmosaurus. I also don't think (A) should be included since we have enough pictures of the outdated swan curve and this image should be only of the accurate flexion range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking this (I was the one who originally wanted to exclude it), including that pose is actually good if we want to use the image in other pages too, for example in Elasmosauridae. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Pliosaurus

Pliosaurus size chart Pliosaurus funkei size obtained from vertebral measurements provided by description (Knutsen 2012): (Vertebral count obtained from Páramo et al 2016 (Stenorhynchosaurus munozi description, VL17052004-1, has a complete skeleton missing only the tail) and Kronosaurus (info from the supplementary materials of Knutsen 2012) and for the caudals, Peloneustes from vertebral count provided by Ketchum (2010)(CAMSM J.46913) ) Pliosaurus kevani proportions based on Pliosaurus funkei: according to Benson et al. (2013), the two are sister taxa, description of skull from Benson (2013) too.

Pliosaurus macromerus size based on large mandible in the etches collection, measurements provided by etches collection staff (and collection database). Proportions (vertebrate measurements) based on Pliosaurus brachyspondylus (Tarlo 1959), and flipper based on P.brachydeirus flipper (photos obtained from NHMUK collection database). Finally, flipper:pelvic/pubic girdle ratio based on “Stretosaurus macromerus” (Tarlo 1959). Tooth count based on proposed neotype (Benson 2013 + Knutsen 2012) NHMUK PV OR 39362. Both P.brachydeirus and P.brachyspondylus are the closest to P.macromerus phylogenetically (Benson 2013)

One thing which may be problematic with the diagram is the size of P.funkei. The description lists a size of 10-13 metres (based on McHenry's dataset), a dataset which uses Kronosaurus as a basis, which does not correspond with the vertebral measurements provided in the paper. I laid out the vertebrae (using the vertebra count provided in the aforementioned papers) and obtained the size shown in the chart. I used the size of the largest skull which is provided in the paper. If this is considered too near to independent research it is understandable, and I won't use the diagram. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the silhouettes or sizes for P. kevani or P. macromerus. I think the size for P. funkei is a little less clear. According to WP:OR it would have to be stated *somewhere* that P. funkei was about 9 meters for us to be able to use that here. I bet I could find that somewhere eventually, but it may be best to just upsize it to the minimal 10m for now. Should wait for others input on this. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so in Benson (2013) it is mentioned on how P.funkei's vertebrae are much shorter proportionately than Kronosaurus, which was used to obtain the 10-13 metre estimate: "However, individual middle–posterior dorsal vertebrae of K.boyacensis range from 117–138 mm [96], comparable or only slightly less than 114–145 mm in MCZ 1285 [1]. These dorsal centrum lengths, as well as the skull lengths, of Early Cretaceous pliosaurids, are greater than those of the largest Late Jurassic specimens (dorsal centra range from 100–121 mm in Pliosaurus cf. kevani; CAMSM J.35990 [57]; most dorsal centra are in the range 97–116 mm in Pliosaurus funkei PMO 214.135, only two are greater at 135 and 142 mm [3])." Perhaps this is ample? DaCaTaraptor (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that would make it close enough to acceptable, you can probably add it now, but be prepared for more critisism from others if they decide to comment here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

Hey guys, I'm planning on making an image for this beastie, but I want to ask a few questions before I begin.

1. Should I go for 5m, 6m, or 9m?
2. Should I include the Monster of Aramberri?
3. Should I include the outrageous 18m estimate to help disprove it?

Thanks for any feedback you can give me. And the new year seems to have brought plesiosaurs! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would advise avoiding including an "outrageous" estimate as a rule, although the caption could mention it I suppose. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

How does this look? I could go back and fix the teeth. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add a scale bar. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would make the back flippers larger than the front. The size is fine, but I'd perhaps change the shape of the tail "fin" as well as the shape of the skull (Noe's thesis has a detailed skull reconstruction) DaCaTaraptor (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have rotated the back flipper and enlarged it a bit to make its size more obvious (I might go back and make additional changes). I don't have access to that paper, so could you describe the shape to me? I also made the tail more like the tail shape of your Pliosaurus. Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this version should be fine now, you can probably upload it. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Mosasaurus

https://batavotyrannus.deviantart.com/art/DA-relocation-717912805 I'm thinking about adding this piece to the Mosasaurus page. I have the artists permission and think it is more reflective of current ideas on mosasaur life appearance. The background foliage is seagrass which we have from the Maastricht formation and the theropod is a Betasuchus. Jonagold2000 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely looks like an improvement to the current image we have. I'm not sure if its gums or just small teeth present, but they are almost un-noticable. May not be an issue. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is extensive gum tissue as is present in modern monitors.: Jonagold2000 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok understandable. My only concern now is the size of the Betasuchus in comparison to the Mosasaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

After some measuring I understand your concern, however I think we can change it from Betasuchus to just a juvenile abelisaurid and not have too many issues. Jonagold2000 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm lenient enough to accept that, although some other people might have a differing opinion, although it almost certainly is stil an improvement on that ghastly 3d model. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we even need to specify what dinosaur it is eating? It could be anything from that angle, really. As for artist's permission, you need to confirm that through OTRS:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hint: He is the actual author. He just created a new deviantart for security reasons. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Cryptoclidus

Created a new size comparison for this guy, the old one seems to have been removed for whatever reason. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd perhaps make it a little more rotund. Other than that, looks fine to me. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you flip either the human or the plesiosaur so they face the same way? An unfamiliar reader might confuse the head and tail here. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this look better to you guys? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the holotype, the flippers should be larger, sorry for not mentioning this earlier. The orientation is fine, however. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How does it look now? I also made the head and neck more natural. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Much better. If no one has anything else to say, it should be fine. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Pluridens

I saw that the Pluridens article lacked a restoration so I thought that I might as well offer my reconstruction of it from back in September as a possible one to go with (https://megabass22.deviantart.com/art/Many-Teeth-704752734, recently changed the license on it to a Creative Commons one). Since Pluridens is not very well known it is primarily based on the closely related Halisaurus. Megabass2 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like not too much is known which means that theres not too much to get wrong. Looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

At first I was surprised by the proportions (long neck and smaller flippers), but these seem to be present in Halisaurus, so your image should be fine. Great work! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Request: Jaekelopterus size diagram

Here it is!

While working on the Jaekelopterus article I noticed that one thing glaringly missing is a size diagram, especially since the biggest reason it is moderately "famous" is due to it being the largest arthropod and largest eurypterid. I have seen some nice size diagrams passing through here, so maybe someone would be interested in making one for Jaekelopterus? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have wanted to do a chart like this on previously, so I may as well sign up for this one. I do have a question: would you prefer a dorsal or a lateral view in the size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! I think a dorsal view would be best since there is very little I can find on how exactly Jaekelopterus would look from a lateral view and because a dorsal view would better show the morphology of the appendages and chelicerae etc. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps show both? FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if a decent lateral view is possible to make. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the length end to end of the carapace or tail to pincer tip? And if it is the second, at what position? Also, would you prefer to see the animal parallel with the ground or perpendicular to the ground? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2.5 meter estimate is from the carapace to tail. As for parallel or perpendicular I don't really know. If you do a lateral view in addition to the dorsal, parallell would probably look best but if you go with just dorsal perpendicular might be better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I finished it! What do you guys think? It's even bigger than I expected! I don't think I'll do a lateral view because I had to use Pterygotus to make this truly a dorsal view, and the closest relative that I can find a lateral view of is Eurypterus, which is too distant for my liking. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks really good, a lateral view is not strictly necessary in my opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Also note that there are more free unused images of the genus in this paper:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the unused images, yeah but it would be best not to overcrowd the article with images, right? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course. I usually just add images as an article I'm writing expands, so it's good to know where to find them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I am not sure just how much more can be added to the Jaekelopterus article, but if a wall of text starts to form in some part, it is good to have more images to add. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A commons link could be placed at the end of the article to show all the images anyway (though I have my doubts anyone actually does this...). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The additional images aren't on Commons yet, though. By the way, the white space next to a cladogram is often a nice space to fill out with an image of some sort, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've uploaded the additional images on commons, added a commons link and put in one of the unused images next to the cladogram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot that I used the claw image from the paper to make this chart. I do realize that this does make it sort of a chimera, but since I couldn't find a close up of the J. rhenaniae claw, I think that it's reasonable to use J. howelli to fill it in, the two don't seem to be terribly different, anyways. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the pincers are one of the few things that differ slightly between the two species, which are otherwise largely identical. Now this is a very minor detail, but in J. howelli the second intermediate denticle (the long narrow one on the "outer claws") is massively elongated, which it apparently isn't in J. rhenaniae. It's barely visible in the size diagram, but is one of the few distinguishing features between the species. Other than that particular denticle, the pincers should be the same so shortening it a bit should do the trick. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, should be accurate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Doswellia kaltenbachi

I spent about 15 hours on this little guy, how does it look? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks good, and follows what little I know of the taxon. I'm just wondering why there is an "arch" in the right side of the back, since the rest of the body is in top-left view. It would make more sense if there was just a gentle curve along that edge, instead of the arch. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The "arch" is a matter of perspective. Doswelia had heavy armor and probably twisted from side to side while walking, like a salamander. This picture depicts Doswellia mid-stride, with the middle part of the body bending away from our perspective and the shoulders and hip area bending towards us. In addition, Doswellia had very odd proportions, with a very wide and flat armor-plated back. It widens and flattens most drastically behind the shoulders, so a larger portion of the right side is visible past that area. This feature, combined with its pose, creates the "arch" even though the perspective is completely unchanged. A smoother curve would not be able to depict how truly flat and wide that part of the body is. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, looks good. Although note in the caption that it is mid-stride. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wealden Leptocleididae size chart

Scale diagram presenting three Leptocleidids from the Wealden group of England. Measurements from Kear (2011) and Benson (2012). Missing parts filled in with Brancasaurus scaled to proportions of the three. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good as far as I can tell. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Request: Megarachne size diagram

The Megarachne article could use a size diagram. This open-access paper (link) provides a good dorsal view (link) of the eurypterid (which would have measured 54 cm in length). Thanks in advance! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'll take this one, here's the size comparison. I recycled the legs from my Jaekelopterus size comparison, and made a few modifications to them. What do you think? (By the way, I think that I have a Pterygotus size comparison lying around somewhere...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! I have added it to the article. I am working on Pterygotus at the moment, so a size comparison of it would be very good to have, if you can find it. If you are feeling up for it, Acutiramus, another giant pterygotid eurypterid, could also use one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In cases where a genus has many species with a distinct size range, perhaps the laergest and smallest species could be shown in the same diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably be best. For Pterygotus that would be P. grandidentatus at 1.75 m and P. kopaninensis at 50 cm, for Acutiramus it would be A. bohemicus at 2.1 m and A. floweri or A. perryensis, both at 20 cm. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

For Pterygotus, I used P. anglicus as the model. How do the different species differ from it? Also, would you prefer the bigger one or the smaller one to be darker? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not got into how the species differ from each other morphologically yet, but I would imagine that they would be largely identical going by how small the differences are between the different genera. If Acutiramus and Jaekelopterus are anything to go by, the differences would be small differences in stuff like the size of teeth in the claws or the morphology of the genital appendage, things that would not generally be visible on a diagram. Perhaps the smaller ones should be darker so that they stand out next to their giant relatives. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's one for Pterygotus. What do you think? The pincer "teeth" really aren't that visible, which is probably a good thing for now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, I will use it in the expanded Pterygotus article. One quick fix would be to make kopaninensis slightly bigger, 50 cm would be the body excluding the claws and "arms", as you have done with the grandidentatus one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. What are the main differences between Acutiramus and Pterygotus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Acutiramus and Pterygotus are virtually identical going by their actual defining characteristics. Acutiramus is really only distinguished by angles the teeth on the claws are pointing, the acute angle of the final tooth on the claw is what gives it its name. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer floweri or perryensis for the smaller one? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It really does not matter, but floweri might be better as the article has slightly more information on it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Finished. I decided to have the little one in the human's hand, but I can change that if you want. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Great! Having it in the hand is okay. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you've gotten Pterygotidae to GA, too. Would you like a size chart for that, also? I'm thinking Pterygotus, Acutiramus, and Jaekelopterus, because they're big, cool, and (most importantly) well known. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure! The "gigantism" section could use a size diagram of select giant pterygotids, you could go with the biggest species of the three genera, and maybe slip in some of the second biggest too, such as Acutiramus macrophthalmus at 2 m and Pterygotus anglicus (1.6 m) or Pterygotus impacatus (1.65 m). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How big was J. howelli? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Much smaller than J. rhenaniae, 80 cm long, several Acutiramus and Pterygotus species are bigger than it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there are relatively few genera, perhaps show the maximum size of all genera? FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This works too. Then it would be Jaekelopterus rhenaniae at 2.5 m, Acutiramus bohemicus at 2.1 m, Pterygotus grandidentatus at 1.75 m and Ciurcopterus ventricosus at 75 cm. I haven't looked into Erettopterus much yet, supposedly E. grandis would have reached 2.5 m too but I need to look into that further. I think Necrogammarus could be left out because it is fragmentary with no published size estimates and likely represents either a Pterygotus or a Erettopterus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Finally created it. The article said that Erettopterus was 90 cm so that was the length I used. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks very good, and I have added it to the article. As I said previously, Erettopterus might have grown larger than depicted, but it is still something that needs looking into and this looks good for now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Domeykodactylus

This pterosaur is often shown as a copy of Dsungaripterus for some reason, though its jaws seem to have been pretty straight.[5] Here's a sketch[6], any thoughts? The crest is expanded by soft tissue, as is now thought to have been the case for dsungaripterids. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I assume that the hand posture is correct, I don't remember if pterosaur hands faced backwards, sideways or forwards. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly to the sides:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Back to this one after a while, drew some lines and started to add colour[8], any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope looking good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here it is in colour. May have been a good idea to find the original description first, the Wikipedia article indicates it may have looked a little different, but I'm not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Request: Hughmilleria size diagram

Hughmilleria

Stylonurella

I am expanding Hughmilleria and a size diagram would be useful. The measurements of the 3 species are in the article, with H. socialis the largest and H. wangi the smallest. If possible, I would like it to be included the third species, H. shawangunk, so that the diagram has all the species and that it is complete.

There are not many morphological differences, H. shawangunk has the carapace larger than H. socialis and H. wangi has it larger than both for example, but it really is not important. Image for the silhouette: [9] or [10] Super Ψ Dro 20:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I did it. Is this what you had in mind? Also, do you known how big Stylonurella was? I'm thinking of making a size chart for it, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very good! I'll try to find something about Stylonurella, if I do, I'll write here. Super Ψ Dro 13:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slate Weasel: The largest specimen of Stylonurella spinipes measured 11 cm, and that of S. arnoldi, 7 cm. Super Ψ Dro 10:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Completed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I add it to the article, Super Dromaeosaurus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Super Ψ Dro 13:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Paleomerus

This image has been modified from the PDF cited in Wikimedia Commons. It's my first upload image, so I do not know if it complies with the licenses and other things. Is it fine this way or should something change? Super Ψ Dro 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't say anything on accuracy, but it would probably be best to redraw it based on the diagram in the paper, and then state in the image description that it is based on the diagram, instead of listing the pdf as the source. Ichthyovenator has made some similar line drawings, and can maybe explain their procedure. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The image looks good but I would advise against directly modifying images and diagrams from papers. By my line drawings I assume you refer to things like these 1, 2, 3. Most of these are based on photographs of fossils found in relevant papers. Of course there is only very small amount of ways a fossilized arthropod with reasonably substantial fossil remains can be reconstructed, so if Super Dromaeosaurus were to redraw the image it would probably end up similar to the one already made. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pterygotoidea Scale Chart

I created this size chart because I thought that it might be useful for Ichthyovenator or Super Dromaeosaurus, since they have been working on the relevant articles and I have created a lot of size charts for them. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good! This will be useful once we get onto superfamily-level articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Astrapotheres

Something that I have in mind since some time... looking at the images that we have currently in Commons of Trigonostylops [11] is clear that both depicted a large nose, surely since that both are based in the classical diagram of the skull [12] However after Bond, 1984 the skull had a more conventional profile, like this [13] Also both reconstructions shows digitigrade hindfeet, and to my knowledge it seems that both primitive and derived astrapotheres have plantigrade feet. I wonder if these images could be modified, although also I made a restoration of the animal [14].

On another hand, also it seems that this Astrapotherium looks malnourished [15] Curiosuly Bogdanov made another version [16] but I guess that is not free. And finally, this other Astrapotherium...[17] looks innacurate, particulary in the feet. Some thoughts?--Rextron (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your image looks good, and as for the older images, they can of course be modified, but someone's gotta do it... I'm certainly no expert on these animals. As for Bogdanov's Deviantart images, they sadly have a non commercial licence, but he might upload an image to Commons if asked. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the image doesn't haveany problem, I can upload both the reconstruction and the skull image of Trigonostylops. As for the Bogdanov's Astrapotherium, I made a modified version [18], I hope that looks better...--Rextron (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it all looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I uploaded the new version of Astrapotherium (however the old version still appears in the larger view of the file, I wonder what I made wrong). I'll upload the other images soon.--Rextron (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice, the new version shows to me in large view, sometimes you just have to refresh the page... FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed, now it works. Well, I uploaded the two Trigonostylops images. As for the other images, they will need too modifications, I prefer to retire them from the article. On another hand, I find two skull images of astrapotheres, this Astraponotus:[19] and this Eoastrapostylops: [20] These images seems based in my own images. I have not problem with this, but I wonder if I should upload my versions...--Rextron (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Strange, yeah, your own versions are definitely more appropriate... But as often, I can't really say much about accuracy with these taxa. We always hope someone who does comes around... FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm,so I'll upload them too. At least have scale bar. :) --Rextron (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Viatkogorgon Size Comparison

I found this image on Commons, it seems pretty good. Are there any errors or would it be OK to add it to the article? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that looks well, but I see that is an article with more images than text...--Rextron (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pachycostasaurus life reconstruction

Life reconstruction of Pachycostasaurus, based on the mount of the complete skeleton at the Peterborough museum. Skull based on reconstruction in Noe's thesis (2003) DaCaTaraptor (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but have you looked at this[21] blog post about plesiosaur soft tissue by Mark Witton? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I used that for reconsturcting the flippers. The Shape of the flippers in Pachycostasaurus is different to the shape of the flippers in that diagram, so I edit that accordingly. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wondering if I should put the name of the species underneath the image? DaCaTaraptor (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not in the image itself, captions make this redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't the pupil be a bit darker than the surrounding eye? It looks kinda ghostly right know. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I darkened the pupil. Anything else? DaCaTaraptor (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Paraceratherium Size Chart

Follow the link here to the work in progress: [22]. The silhouette is based on and scaled from the diagram in Larramendi 2016 which represents the largest fragmentary individuals. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And by the way, your older image is already used in the article I think it's good to show it in relation to other giant animals. It might be debatable whether that Palaeoloxodon should be included over a mammoth, as it is only based on one fragmentary bone... FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand, there are more complete Palaeoloxodon specimens/species that the fragmentary individual is scaled from and reading the text, it is a conservative estimate which assumes an animal 20% larger. That said, I'm happy swapping in better known Mammuthus/Palaeoloxodon species if that's preferred.

I have a Palaeoloxodon scale diagram in the works that shows P. recki, P.antiquus and P. namadicus. The largest P. namadicus was going to be in greyed out behind in the background.

Paraceratherium is in a similar boat. There are composite reconstructions of more complete specimens and the largest individuals are scaled up from individual bones. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Brian Switek expresses some caution here:[23] The problem is mainly that it's based on just a fragment of a femur. It's of course normal practice to scale up from more complete specimens, but in many of the other cases, such as Columbian and steppe mammoths, very large, almost complete skeletons are known, which makes them more reliable. Even indricotheres have better material of large size. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the comparison image; Here is a version that includes P.recki as opposed to P.namadicus [24] (I havn't adjusted the text yet). Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Tylosaurus strikes back!

Finally got around to updating this guy, as I recently noticed that Scott Hartman conveniently had a skeletal for this guy. What do you think? And by the way, this image is 37,542 pixels wide, just to warn you. (Yes, it's life-size, a big enough printer should give you a good idea of how big a tylosaur was :P). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks fine right now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Added it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pannoniasaurus

• 
• 

I have created a skeletal diagram and size chart for Pannoniasaurus. Legs are restored based on discussion in the journal stating that it could very well be possible that the animal had not yet developed the typical flukes known in other more evolved species. I have also greatly expanded the article itself. Paleocolour (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Salteropterus scale

I decided to try a little bit of .svg scale diagram making so I made one for the GA nominee Salteropterus. Apparently the telson is a bit larger than 3 cm so I hope I got the size correct. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Ichthyovenator whose nominated the article for GAN. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! The largest complete telson is apparently 3.1 cm long, with some incomplete ones being slightly bigger. What is the scale here, is one "box" 10 x 10 cm?. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's what it's meant to be I can add a scale bar if wanted. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Then the telson looks to be the right size. Since we do not know how the body looked (though likely similar to that of Slimonia as you depict) the chart looks about as good as it is possible to do at the moment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok nice feel free to add it wherever in the article you want. I may begin a GA review of it soon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Request: Pentecopterus size diagram

Pentecopterus

Here I bring another, this time monotypic. Pentecopterus decorahensis measured 1.83 m. Images for the silhouette: [25] Super Ψ Dro 14:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Always wanted to do this guy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. That's one terrifying-looking critter! Is it okay? (Also, any other requests?) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you very much again. Maybe I will expand Megalograptus in the future, so a size chart of it would be useful to me. By the way, it seems that you want to make several size charts of eurypterids, so I think this will be useful for the sizes: [26] Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Teleocrater rhadinus

I made this life restoration of Teleocrater, because we were in dire need of an aphanosaurian life restoration (not counting Smokeybjb's really old Yarasuchus). I was unsure what level of integument was most suitable because of how basal this genus was, but I eventually decided to give it a few spiny hollow scales along the neck and tail as precursors to feathers. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't say that much on proportions. The spines seem kind of strange just randomly positioned, though. Maybe try to make them more uniform? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

By "more uniform" do you mean that you want them in rows like osteoderms? I placed them scattered around because that's generally how people place feathers or other fibers in the same areas. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what's going on with the eye. Is it either only the brown part wedged in a crevice, or is it a overly gigantic eye half closed? If the latter, remember that the eye was round, the diameeter wouldn't fit into the skull based on what you've shown. If we assume this skeletal is correct[27], only the part within the inner ring of the sclerotic ring would be externally visible, as in all other animals with such structures. The limbs also seem extremely chunky, the width of the ilium pretty much dictates how wide the thighs would be, for example, and it is narrow in the skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant for the white patch to be a ring of white skin or scales surrounding the eye (like with some modern birds such as white-eyes and the silvereye), although I may not have clearly distinguished the scalation around the eye from the eye itself. I was considering making it blue, but white just looked more natural to me, although I now see that it is causing a few complications, so I can edit the coloring. I'm also willing to slim down the hind limbs a bit, thanks for the tip with the illium. I do want to keep the front limbs chunky though, as the humerus is actually quite wide when seen from the front, and the perspective of my drawing is meant to show a bit of the chest view. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The lower arm seems too chunky even at that, though, now it is as thick as the upper arm, which doesn't seem to be the case in for example crocodiles. Here is an interesting photo of a running crocodile in front view:[28] As for the eye, the birds you mention still have round eyes, but in the drawing the eye looks like it is partially obscured by some huge lid, which I don't think any other animals have. The white part is also external in those birds, not as it appears here, to also be behind this strange lid. The eye should also be moved up, if it is to match the position in the skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The limbs have been significantly slimmed down. The weird "lid" you were talking about referred to a ring of dark coloration to accentuate the white. I'm not even going to bother with that anymore. The eye in general was redrawn to look more clear, and the white area was retained but reduced. Although it's not exactly necessary to move the eye further upwards (most of the skull is speculative as only the maxilla is known), I still shifted its placement a bit. Do you have any issue with the little spikes as Slate Weasel suggested earlier? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

By "lid" I meant the white part, but it seems better now. As for the spikes, well, what structures are they supposed to be? I can think of no other animals with so unevenly distributed spines. Even if it was supposed to be feather-like structures, it would be more even. Personally I would not give feather-like structures to anything outside Ornithodira, there is no indication of it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I misread your statement in that case. The structures are a bit ambiguous. Some could interpret them as elongated scales or thin vestigial osteoderms (which were presumably lost somewhere near Aphanosauria). On the other hand, they could be very basic precursors to filaments, although still very scale-like. Feathers and other filamentary structures had to evolve from scales at some point in early Avemetatarsalia. I know it's speculative, but I think that pointy, possibly hollow scales like those I depicted here could be the first baby step (like proto-stage 1) towards true Ornithodiran filaments, such as pterosaur pycnofibers, ornithischian filaments and quills, and theropod feathers. Archosaur integument in general is irregular and I kind of assumed that these special scales would individually develop at random around certain parts of the body. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that's way too speculative if it isn't based directly on anything. We can't invent a new type of intermediate filament that has never been proposed before (WP:original research) in an image for a known genus. I could maybe see it done for some hypothetical animal, like the "proto-pterosaurs" shown in some pterosaur books, but here it kind of distracts from the point that we're supposed to show this specific animal, not some hypothetical structure. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "archosaur integument is irregular". Looks pretty regular in both crocodiles and birds, not like random patches. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I may have just been misinterpreting some images when considering archosaur skin irregular. Although I think the integument I used was rather well-supported by data (kind of like the 'tubular feather' seen here:[29]), I agree with your concerns, so it has been replaced with more typical scale texture used elsewhere in the drawing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Could this be added as a small thumb next to cladograms containing Aphanosauria, in line with images for other taxa? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, although some people like their images flipped for cladograms. I have no particular opinion on the matter, but you can create a flipped version if you want. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Orovenator

Just a drawing of Orovenator, not sure why I chose the taxon but I did. I gave it just a generic diapsid bodyplan, since we have no postcranial remains. Just gonna leave it here ... IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Heh, nothing better than drawing random animals... Can't say I know much about this thing, but two things struck me. Based on this skull diagram[30], I would say the eye should be below the apex of the "brow", whereas it is now somewhat behind it, which gives the head a weird slope. I think most reptiles have the eyes in a position where the curvature of the brow has the apex over the middle of the eye. The tail also seems proportionally short and thin. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the tail is just perspective, it was intended about as long as in Petrolacosaurus and looking at how it is drawn from my view it is the right length. I'm not sure about the eye though it was drawn close to centrally in the orbit. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Would an early reptile really have such an upright stance? I think it would make more sense for it to be sprawling. And I agree about the tail. Even though the perspective is to blame, that doesn't change the fact that it looks weirdly short from the side. As for the eye issue, it can probably be made larger and moved further forward. The skull looks similar to that of this skull of Anolis oculatus I found browsing the web [31], so the living animal's head would also have similar proportions to a living anole, with big and bulging eyes [32]. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The eye has been enlarged and moved slightly forward and the tail had been elongated. The posture is already sprawling I based it off modern lizards. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Caulkicephalus

Scale diagram for Caulkicephalus, parts of the postcrania that weren't preserved filled in with other Ornithocheirids. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, but you need to fill out all the missing information in the information template before it gets deleted... FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, the text just needed to be rearranged for it to register Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the dorsal view based on? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Edited the proportions (and soft tissue) of a dorsal view of Anhangeura (https://pterosaur.stanford.edu/skeletal.html) Eotyrannu5 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Caulkicephalus skull reconstruction

Skull reconstruction for Caulkicephalus. Missing elements filled in with other related genera, crest based on Ludodactylus and Guidraco Eotyrannu5 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Are all teeth unknown? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I based the size of the teeth on the size of the sockets. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Request: Adelophthalmus size diagram

I have recently expanded the article on eurypterid Adelophthalmus quite a bit and it could definitely use a size diagram. As Adelophthalmus contains the largest amount of species of any eurypterid genus (29), it might be best to show more than just the biggest and smallest ones in this case and perhaps show a selection of species. The article contains sizes for all species well preserved enough to allow ones and a few images that probably could serve as a good basis for silhouettes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this guy again. I'll probably finish before Saturday. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Only got 13/29, but I think that this is enough... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you really wanted to, a second row could probably accommodate all the remaining ones without using to much extra space. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! I have added it to the article. I think 13 is more than enough, seeing as many species lack good size estimates and are in dire need of redescriptions, upon which many will also likely turn out to be synonyms. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Heck, it's actually 14! Sorry, can't count, apparently :) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Atlanticopristis

Life restoration

Tooth comparison

Since I'm creating the Atlanticopristis article, I thought it could use some images, so I made these two. The first is a speculative life restoration based on modern sawfishes and partly on Libanopristis (Also, yay for my first digital restoration! although it is more of an experiment). The second is a comparison of the "teeth" of three sawfish species, based on fossil photos of Onchopristis and Atlanticopristis, and on images of the teeth of the Large-tooth sawfish, any changes needed? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think both images look good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, great diagram! It's nice as it is, but it might also be nice to have a Libanopristis tooth. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, here's that Libanopristis tooth, the abstract has an illustration of the denticles, they look a lot like those of Onchopristis. Anyways, the article's almost done, should be up pretty soon! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The Atlanticopristis article is out! Finally finished the draft. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ianthasaurus

Hello there! First time contribution. I realized there is not a lot of good, up-to-date reconstructions of the edaphosaurid Ianthasaurus. So here's my attempt at it.

Not an expert on these, looks good, but I wonder if the individual scales may be too big? FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That is possible. This might be the limit of my technique, really. But scale size variation could allow some pelycosaurs to have bigger scales. Still, you're probably right.

However, is my reconstruction valid for the article in spite of the scales size? GuillaumeBabey (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently, it would probably be best if the article was expanded a bit first, since there are already a few images in it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the advice! GuillaumeBabey (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Brancasaurus

Thanks for the ping, happy to help! Here's one to get started, tomorrow I'll upload one for Batrachotomus. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)

It looks like the rear paddle is articulating very high on the side, not sure if thats possible. I'm also unsure of the overall paddles posture, I don't know what the most recent research says on paddle movement cycles. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJReid Changed it, is this acceptable? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus Size Comparisons

I created this size comparison of Ichthyosaurus a long time ago, but I have finally uploaded it. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also created this size chart for Eurhinosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not know much about ichthyosaurs, but they look good. Super Ψ Dro 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll go add the Ichthyosaurus, but I would like to have addition confirmation on the Eurhinosaurus, because I'm not so sure about that one. Does anyone specialize on ichthyosaurs? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, but until someone complains, it shoud be fine to use. FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Request: Erettopterus and Mixopterus size diagram

Erettopterus

Mixopterus

I would need a size chart for both since I am going to expand them. The largest species of Erettopterus is E. osiliensis (90 cm), and the smallest is E. globiceps (9 cm). There is a larger species, E. gigas, of 250 cm, but this is not completely safe and it would be better not to add it. The largest species of Mixopterus was M. simonsoni (75 cm), and the smallest was M. multispinosus (40 cm). Images for the silhouettes: [33] and [34]. Super Ψ Dro 12:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take these. I've already got a silhouette for Erretopterus, so that will be quick to make. I also have always wanted to make a size chart for Mixopterus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Erettopterus is done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but the image has an error, you have put twice "osiliensis" instead of "globiceps". Super Ψ Dro 14:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be fixed now... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Finished the Mixopterus. Tricky because of no exact dorsal view. I sit okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good! Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I added E. grandis, although I'm fairly suspicious of it. I also am in the process of correcting the filename. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• How come the article states Mixopterus kiaeri was the largest species, which contradicts the diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not know, but in the document from where I took the sizes it says that M. kiaeri was 65 cm in length. Perhaps the one who wrote that was confused or M. simonsoni was previously included in M. kiaeri. Anyways, I deleted that from the article. Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Updated Mammuthus Size Comparison

• 
  Old
• 
  Mid
• 
  New

Hi guys, I'm no expert with (stinkin') mammals, but I decided to create a new (SVG) size chart for Mammuthus, as the current one is a PNG and the sizes aren't totally clear (no grid), and the old one is a JPG! I based the skeletals on Laramendi (2016). What do you guys think? (I have not restored M. trogontherii or M. primigenius with their extensive hair in this image, but I can see what I can do if that was the wrong move.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I never saw the point of size comparisons where animals of similar size overlap each other this much. It is very hard to appreciate their full lengths in that way. The new silhouettes look kind of strange too, very skinny, with tusks seemingly coming out of the trunks. It seems to be a result of the "incision" for the mouths being much longer than in the original skeletal silhouettes of the paper. Why not just take the silhouettes directly from the paper? The human too, which again, looks less cartoonish. I think it would maybe be better to just add a grid to the existing png image or make an svg version of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll remake this as a new file sometime, but from my understandind, mammoths are measured by shoulder height, right? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think most quadrupedal mammals are. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the sizes need a double-check. I noticed the size of the southern mammoth is a bit off, as it's shoulder height is a bit under of what Larramendi (2016) estimated it to be, but the others might also be a bit off. Also, on the deviantart page of Larramendi, you can see the southern mammoth in the more regular pose present in most of the skeletals in the paper, and the proportions seem to be a bit different than in this size comparison picture.

Palaeoloxodon Species Scale Chart

Carrying on the elephant theme; Here is a link comparing three species of Palaeoloxodon. [35] I have currently kept in the fragmentary femur specimen of P.namadicus but greyed it out. I'll mention its uncertainty in the image description. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The colours are all very similar, more contrasting ones would be useful. An indication of what the greyed-out individual is in the legend would also be useful. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've adjusted the colours, [36] I've decided to remove the larger P. namadicus specimen; I'll hold off until it's better described. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Titanoboa compared to modern snakes

Here's a size comparison I did, showing Titanoboa cerrejonensis, Broghammerus/Malayopython/Python reticulatus and two Eunectes murinus. Should I remove the 6,7 m anaconda? Or any other suggestions? Gamma 124 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too big on snake knowledge, so I'll just comment on anatomy/aesthetic tips. I'd suggest smoothing the outlines of the snakes, especially Titanoboa has some strange lumps on its dorsal side, Broghammerus also seems to be lacking a head. You should also probably add grid lines, and some colors could also make the image more interesting, although that's more of an optional thing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it could benefit a lot from a bit more white space, it's very cramped and a bit hard to look at right now. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Did it. Gamma 124 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should use a 6.95 m long reticulated python, as there was a 6.95 m long specimen reliable measured, while others are questionsble, including Medusa by looking at pictures of it.

Images by User:Ornitholestes

• 
  Varanosaurus
• 
  Elginerpeton
• 
  Brygmophyseter
• 
  Livyatan
• 
  A new Livyatan

These in-use images haven't passed through here yet. If you find any more, feel free to add them. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The teeth of Livyatan seem to be jutting forwards for some reason, which seems to contradict other reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the author, Ornitholestes, has become active again and has made a new life restoration of Livyatan, which I have added above. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Would Livyataan have had a dorsal fin like that? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why it wouldn't have. I've seen multiple restorations with dorsal fins, some of them with even with noticiably larger dorsal fins, and they didn't seem to be bad restorations to me at all. If I know well, it has a dorsal fin even in a 2017 paper. Until it isn't as large proportionally as in bottlenose dolphins, dolphins with similarly large dorsal fins to bottlenose dolphins and in orcas, I see no reason to refuse the idea of a dorsal fin in Livyatan.

To Hungarian sockpuppet, stop posting because you are not supposed to post and you will be banned again 2001:569:7821:500:5D20:871:60A8:E00F (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The reconstruction for Varanosaurus looks too cartoony and nondescript, especially compared to the one created by Nobu Tamura. Monsieur X (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the "new Livyatan" either, what whale ever had fins like that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It kinda looks like it’s part Orca, it even has the stripe in front of the dorsal fin. The top-view looks almost exactly like an Orca with the dorsal fin too far back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Alopias Grandis

Someone on devientart said they were OK if i cold use this. this is not mine. Credit: https://rahonavis70m.deviantart.com/art/Shark-Week-Alopias-grandis-695375790

The image might have permission to "be on wikipedia" but that doesn't mean is has the proper legal licensing to be here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Xixianykus

File:Xixianykus Restoration (Updated).jpg

Xixianykus Restoration (Updated)

I created this. Yes it may look a tiny bit cartoonist so someone can edit it.

Honestly, that looks like a roadrunner collided with a pair of Prada boots. There is no way this can be edited into usability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Admittedly I am partially responsible, as I recommended to Bubblesorg that he edit his image and post it for review (after editing). However, if he is not willing to do the artistic or scientific research necessary to fix his own work, someone else would have to take over. At that point it would be better to just make an entirely new illustration and forget about this one. Sorry Bubblesorg, but your artistic vision (at least in its current form) is not up to any of the standards that this site requires. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Megladon size

I created this my self

There is a significant difference in style and quality between this and the other images you have posted here. Was this perhaps created with 3D models that are not your original work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~ The Model is anyway free on the Microsoft paint tool. I just used the model as a template to recreate it. Took some work but i was able to get it right. I was rather cool as i did get someone there at Microsoft to actually look at it before posting it.

There have been some disagreements on whether Megalodon looked exactly like a Great White Shark, so the carbon copy appearance you have here may not be the best interpretation. We also already have a quite well-made size chart for Megalodon courtesy of Scarlet23. Also, do the 4 ~ symbols without spaces when signing your comment. In addition, put the signature after the comment rather than before it. Fanboyphilosopher

What do you mean "free on the microsoft paint tool"? If you used something that you modified you will need to make sure those images were either in the public domain or licensed under Creative Commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 15:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (Bubblesorg (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC))I Do know that there is a debate on Megalodons Appearance. (Bubblesorg (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC))The Megladon in Popular culture is usually depicted this way.

If this is just a white shark, then it's not a reconstruction but a wild guess based on pop culture. Not acceptable. I won't even go into the copyright/derivation issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)) I will redo the design. But this for sure is mine i did this.

Even if the image was compiled by you, you didn't draw the shark, which is the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The same would go for this: [37]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Iowan eurypterids

I just made this map that shows places in Iowa where fossils of eurypterids have been discovered. Is it ok or should I modify it? Super Ψ Dro 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You should definitely add a source in the image description to what info you've based it on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'd suggest larger type. If it's legible at thumbnail size, that would certainly be preferable than having to click for the full version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since there's so much white emptiness in the image anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have increased the font of the letter. I have also included sources in the description. It's fine now? Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

western interior seaway

This shows the western Interior seaway disappearing between 70-66 mya.These are mine. I modeled them using a United states map. I can add canada and Mexico

Western Interior Seaway disappearing between 70-66 mya

I used these images.

fixed a bit thanks to research

Again, it is most important to note where you got the map itself from. If the source isn't free, you can't use it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes yes the map was from a free source. The Models you see however i mine. The maps i modeled these from are from 1915 and one was from a royalty free website. These Models however are mine. There just Modeled from US Maps and with some research the water is out in accordingly. I modeled the 3d maps. Bubblesorg (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to link to the exact sources in the file description. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I modeled these.[38] Bubblesorg (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah i did make these using that map. I used a modeling sofwere so i modeled on top of that image. Then i just colored it in.Bubblesorg (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what's the point in making a flat map in 3D? Also, if you update an image, don't do it as a separate file, but upload on top of the old one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I try to make it original. So I do not just copy and edit. Bubblesorg talk 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also try to upload the file on top of the old one. I just do not know how I have just heard about it. Bubblesorg talk 15:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems of limited use, seeing as it only shows the United States and not the whole continent. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Megacephalosaurus

This is something I made.

completely unusable 2001:569:7821:500:914A:3EFA:41C8:8414 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC))Why? (Bubblesorg (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC))I made this compleatly by myself just to clarify. The first part was a typo.

There are some significant issues. Eyes too large teeth too large paddles not properly articulated for in life. Also a non-dinosaur. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:68 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC))i know its not a dinosaur. I will correct those mistakes.

What IJReid's trying to say is that this should be reviewed at WP:PALEOART, not here. You can move the section just by copy-pasting. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(172.58.43.123 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC))thanks i will go to the paleo art sextion but i am still getting something reviwed there.

As you haven't added it to the paleoart review just yet, I guess I'll critique this here. In terms of image quality, it needs to be enhance because otherwise many of the details characteristic of the genus are lost. You may also want to move the animal in to the middle of the image. I'm unable to see most of the anatomical features from this resolution, but from what I can tell the skull is way too large compared with the head to body ratio of most Brachauchenines (which is around 1:5, in taxa such as Kronosaurus - from McHenry). In terms of the teeth, there are far too few. It is hard to see the arrangement from this size. As has been mentioned before, the Eye is way too large. And finally, the colour is very speculative, especially for such a large predator. No predator alive today has such vibrant colours, especially in that orientation. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Bathornis

Hello everyone, it's been a while since I last came here. I see there has been a lot of activity recently :). Today I bring here a restoration of Bathornis grallator, a predatory flightless bird from Oligocene Wyoming. The reference used for the restoration is given in the image's source panel, although the paper is not open access (some pictures of the skull can be found by searching "Bathornis" on google, though). The mammal hanging from the beak is based on a shrew, and it's meant to represent the soricomonrph Proscalops. The vegetation is not based on any species in particular, although I intended to recreate a "swampy" setting. Any comments? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know much about birds etc but I think it looks good. Might want a second opinion. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the nostril should be further to the front? Supposedly, the external nostril is always at the very front of the boy nostril, it seems to be a bit further back on this drawing, compared to the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you were right, the nostril was in the wrong position. Now I've updated the image, with the nostrils placed nearer the beak's tip. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: A modern reconstruction of Geikia

Early 20th century reconstruction of Geikia and Sclerosaurus by F. John

Bogdanov's Geikia restoration edited by Monsieur X

A modern dicynodont reconstruction of Geikia is needed to replace this inaccurate, monstrous and reptilian depiction of Geikia from the early 1900s. Monsieur X (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/popular-24-hours/?section=&global=1&q=geikia

https://www.deviantart.com/tag/geikia

To Hungarian sock puppet, none of those images can be copy pasted onto Wikipedia and you know it 2001:569:7821:500:A995:D152:3AA5:75FC (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise, but I am not the Hungarian person you speak of. I also did not add these links to deviantart. Monsieur X (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In F. John's restoration is the eye in the wrong fenestra or am I just interpreting the skull wrong? (Geikia has one heck of a skull!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No the eye is in the correct hole. But you are right the skull has a very large amount of openings. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, Monsieur X, Dmitry Bogdanov just uploaded this image of Geikia! Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine for the most part, but they're might be some problems with the face as Geikia and it's close relatives aren't know for having long tusks or even having tusks. I think Dmitry may have misinterpreted Geikia's strange beak, but it could be fixed with some slight editing. Monsieur X (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, on that note, it might be good to put all DBogdanov's new images up for review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added my amateur edit of Dmitry Bogdanov's reconstruction, any thoughts. Monsieur X (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! I think the old restoration could be included as well for historical context. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Acherontiscus skeletal

Over the past week I've been working on expanding the article for Acherontiscus caledoniae, an snake-like stem-tetrapod from the order Adelospondyli. This is my first attempt at an entire skeletal, how does it look? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, that's an impressively in-depth article! - Nice image, anyway. So you are going with "shoulder girdle means front limbs"? If I understand correctly the jury is still out on that (including Carroll with himself :), so maybe note that in the description? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the glowing reviews. I agree that the jury is still out on limbs, but I have been starting to lean towards the "no limbs" now that I found access to Andrews & Carroll (1991). They documented how the supposed identification of limbs in various adelospondyls were actually misinterpretations. Also, I've been looking at skeletons of modern small-limbed amphibians such as sirens and amphiumas. These animals, despite their tiny arms, still preserve not only arm bones but also the endochondral shoulder girdle bones (aka the scapulae and coracoids). Adelospondyls, on the other hand, preserve neither. They do preserve the dormal shoulder girdle elements (aka interclavicle and clavicles), but these did not connect to the limbs. So yeah, I should probably remove the limbs and note in the article the new info I have found as well. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Extinct shearwaters

• 
  Lava shearwater
• 
  Dune shearwater

Hi everyone! Some months ago I made a group of restorations of extinct animals from the Canary Islands, and perhaps some of them could be used in the respective articles (a couple of them already are, the long-legged bunting and the Trias greenfinch). To start a new round I bring here the restorations of two extinct shearwater species: the lava shearwater (left) and the dune shearwater (right). The restorations are based on the skulls that can be found in the respective articles. Colouration is based on similar species of the same genus. Opinions? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance, but I think it might be better to look at the description papers and see if there are some skull diagrams to compare with. A bit imprecise to base restorations directly on photos of fragmentary, distorted fossils... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the loss of precision by basing the restorations on fossil and sub fossil skulls. I took a second look to the description papers of the species and updated the first one by placing the nostril tip a slightly forward. The images are now added to their respective articles. Thanks for the review, soon I will try to bring here more of the restorations I made during the last months--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Request: Herefordopterus and Hughmilleriidae size diagram

Herefordopterus

Hughmilleria

Hughmilleriidae

Before nominating both to GA, I need a size diagram for both. Herefordopterus was monotypic, with a size of 12 cm. Hughmilleriidae only had two genera, Hughmilleria and Herefordopterus. The largest specimen of Hughmilleria reached 20 cm. In fact, Slate Weasel made a size diagram for it (link). Images for the silhouettes: [39] and [40]. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. While I'm at it, I'll probably update my old Hughmilleria scale diagram with my new hand that I used for my Adelophthalmus diagram. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Super Ψ Dro 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the Herefordopterus diagram. Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And here's the updated Hughmilleria. What species does the big one belong to? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It belonged to H. socialis. And yes, it looks great! Super Ψ Dro 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've compiled them together now. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Great too! Thanks. Super Ψ Dro 18:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Mosasaurus life reconstruction update

After reading more on the subject I decided to update the piece I uploaded to the Mosasaurus page back in january. I'm running it by here again to make sure others agree with the update. The current version is still up on the page. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d0/20180727195605%21Mosasaurus_hoffmanni_life.jpg Changes include:

• larger eye
• Additional small fauna: Decertis and Hoploscaphites
• Tongue more like a gila monster tongue in accordance with Schulp, Mulder and Schwenk 2005
• Updated tailfluke to adhere closer to preserved soft tissue in ERMNH HFV 197
• Changed the landscape to be more readable.
• Updated the colour scheme to be more sensible and to work better with the perspective.

Jonagold2000 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the eye is too large now, compare with this skeletal.[41] The visible part of the eye should be able to fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems you are correct there, will fix. Jonagold2000 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely looks improved otherwise. The background could have more activity especially above the pelagic cliff but nothing accuracy wise I can see other than the eye. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

https://sta.sh/02edvypahz Fixed the eye and added a shark for some interest on the left.

I think it looks good. Definitely an improvement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Request: Eusarcana size diagram

Eusarcana

Just GA-nominated the eurypterid Eusarcana which currently lacks a size diagram. There is a full-body restoration of it in the article (link to image), though the tail is a bit curved. There only seems to exist size estimates for two of the three species, E. scoprionis at 80 cm long and E. obesus at 4 cm long. As E. obesus is so small and might possibly not be a part of the genus I think a size diagram might be best to only include E. scorpionis, but that is up to the creator of said diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. The tail shouldn't be a problem, as I've done something like it before with Mixopterus. I probably will only have E. scoprionis, as anything under ~10 cm starts to become unnoticeable. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here it is! You might need to refresh to see the name spelled correctly... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mosasaurs again

Since we don't yet have a T. pembinensis life restoration in the article yet, and it looks like there might just be enough space to add one, I'm wondering what you guys think about this digital restoration I made. My main concern is that the black outline doesn't look very nice. The solution for this would be to simply put the tylosaur on a black background. Input/Opinions/Corrections/Questions? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We actually have one[42], there just isn't much space left in the article at this point... As for the new illustration the eye seems two times too big, should fit within the sclerotic ring. You could maybe just light the black outline, unless you want to try your hand at shading so the outline isn't needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize that. I've done some fixes, but it's not done yet, so I think that I'll just wait until this one's needed. Are there any mosasaurs that still are in need of more images? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There should be enough to go around, browsing through List of mosasaur genera... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go for Plesioplatecarpus. I'll add it here when done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the line art. Before making it more realistic, I want to make sure that it is proportionately accurate, as it's easier to fixnow than later. Any inaccuracies now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The tail seems too long if you imagine it stretched out. The limbs also seem a bit too close together (like fish fins), makes the body seems narrow. FunkMonk (talk)

Is this better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both issues can get an extra nudge, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Since no one's said anymore, I think that I'll work on this sometime today. If more inaccuracies are found, I still am capable of editing it with GIMP. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Do the color scheme and shading look okay to you guys? Scales will be added soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added scales. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have lightened some of the contours. Does this effect look better than before? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks nice, I wonder if the pupil is a bit too large, maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is big in monitors, but I think that I made it a little too big. Does it look better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's probably fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have added it. I plan to do Kaikaifilu next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gorgonops whaitsi reconstruction from 2007

G. whaitsi skull

A profile reconstruction of G. whaitsi by ДиБгд.

Is it just me or does this reconstruction of G. whaitsi look more elongated than it should be? The location of the eye, visible teeth and various pits in the head also concern me. Monsieur X (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it was based on another specimen. It seems gorgonopsid skulls are often preserved in rather wonky ways, so maybe the drawing was based on such a skull. But yeah, looks more elongated than any skulls I have been able to find photos of. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Outside of this dubious image, I haven't found anything accessible about a elongated skull relating to the genus Gorgonops or "Scymnognathus". There is this paper with an image of a "Scymnognathus" skull, however it's inaccessible to me. Monsieur X (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that Scymnognathus diagram looks like a match. Do we know where that image is from? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I found it on a Wikia that just copy, pastes and links stuff from Wikipedia , I did a reverse image search and appears to have been taken from these Russian Zoological and Palaeontological forums from around 2007. Perhaps ДиБгд used that skull diagram to create this G. whaitsi reconstruction. However, I have no idea if these russians artists were working with outdated or previously unknown information as many promising papers relating to this subject are only available in pieces or just plain unavailable online . Now I'm starting to wonder if that G. whaitsi skull was simply mislabeled. Monsieur X (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I still haven't solved the strange G.whaitsi/Scymnognathus skull case, but I decided to fix the restoration anyway. Monsieur X (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing the Andrewsarchus restoration

I edited out visible parts of the skull, shortened the tail and added a speculative "fly-swatter" tail seen in other even-toed ungulates, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if that edit was needed, though. If you look at the skull of a hippo, the skin hugs the skull rather closely in parts of the head. "Shrink wrapping" isn't necessarily always a problem, some animals do have very little soft tissue on their heads other than the skin. As long as fenestrae don't look sunken, it should be fine. Mark Witton also had a blog post about that here:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ironic as I had Hippos (and warthogs) in mind when I was working on this, my original intent was smooth out some features on the head, while keeping various "bumps", "warts" and grooves. Should I revert it, edit the head back or leave it? Monsieur X (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it looks fine, just saying it isn't always necessary. But even in humans, it isn't uncommon to see the lines on the cheekbones and so on, so it seems a bit excessive to remove it here. Apart from the trunk area, the head of an elephant is also very skull hugging. In mammals, it is usually the snout area which is extra fleshy. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and your criticism, I'll keep it in mind if I decided to fix any future mammalian reconstructions. Monsieur X (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the Eothyris, Mycterosaurus, Lycaenops, Gorgonops and Dinofelis reconstructions

• 
  Made the fenestra less visible
• 
  Removed visible fenestra and added lips
• 
  Removed visible fenestrae and other visible parts of the skull, as well as sheathed the teeth.
• 
  Sheathed the teeth and added lips
• 
  Simply sheathed the teeth.

Any thoughts on my synapsid edits? BTW, I also made some other minor changes to Lycaenops' bottom jaw and nose. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Seem generally fine, but the Dinofelis looks weird now, with a large black bar for a mouth. If you look at the original, it seems the mouth is supposed to be a bit open, so the teeth shouldn't be painted out entirely, but be visible between the lips. And while you're at it, could you maybe clean up some of the dirt on the Dinofelis image (a lot around the feet and tail)? That is a problem in many of DBogdanov's images. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, I've cleaned the image up and opened up Dinofelis' mouth. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks much more natural. You might want to fill in the background with white, seems it's a shade darker than the white you used to clean up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Seems many of these lack ear openings too? Same goes for the Gorgonops linked earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the Mycterosaurus, Eothyris and the black Gorgonops still have their ear holes. I fixed on the other errors on those restorations, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Rhamphorhynchus Size Comparison

I created this size comparison this morning. Is it accurate? Also, this is my first pterosaur image that I've uploaded to Commons! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Have you taken beaks and claws lengthened by keratin[44] into account? But at this size, the proportions of the man becomes more apparent, have you tried overlaying the arms over each other to see if they match up? Now the right arm looks very long, with almost gibbon like proportions of the lower arm. He also seems to have no wrist. It is a bit jarring when the animals seem anatomically sound while the man is so simplified, but you know, I've repeated this plenty of times now. I think the human should be based more on the proportions of an actual human, it can still be stylised, it just needs some anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I did add keratin. I'll see what I can do for the man. I'm terrible at all mammal anatomy (except for cetaceans). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk I have temporarily fixed the issue by using the silhouette from here. I am still working on updating my usual human silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Since no further objections have been made, I'll add this to the article sometime this afternoon. If further inaccuracies are discovered, then I'll refrain from adding it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Zygophyseter Size Comparison

I drew this in the style of our other whale size comparisons. The whale is scaled to 7m. Dunkleosteus77 seems to be our expert on prehistoric physeteroids. Is this image accurate, and is this style okay, or should I just use my typical style? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The forehead seems a little small, and he’s all around kinda thin (but it’s not like I can prove they were thicker). He kinda looks like a beaked whale. I think it should be a silhouette to match up with the other article size comparisons (Livyatan and Brygmophyseter)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this better? I did use beaked whales as a reference, perhaps I made a bit too much like a beaked whale... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have finished updating it. Does it look any better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Slate Weasel Yeah, it seems just a bit too lanky still for a sperm whale, but it’s fine. Again, I can’t really prove it should be thicker. I think it’s the flippers that make it look like a beaked whale, try positioning them more parallel to the body and use the modern sperm whale for reference. Sorry for coming back so late   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Better late than never! I beefed it up a bit and changed the flipper shape. I increase the proportion of sperm whale in the beaked/sperm whale mix that I used. Are the flippers too far back? Oh, it also life-size, by the way. If you have a printer that handles 7x2.5 meter sheets, then this would make a nice print out. ;) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. Good work, go ahead and put it on the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to various Synapsid and reptile reconstructions

• 
• 
• 
• 
  I left the front teeth visible, because it looked a display behaviour.
• 
• 
  Arctops
• 
  Eriphostoma
• 
  Arctognathus
• 
  Oedaleops
• 
  Varanodon
• 
  V. brevirostris
• 
  Ennatosaurus
• 
  D. limbatus
• 
  Arctognathus
• 
  Theriodonta
• 
  The Arctognathus from the Theriodonta image
• 
  Varanops
• 
  Protorothyris

I removed visible fenestrae and added lips, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The ophiacomorphs, Arctognathus, and Aerosaurus look good. The fenestra on NT's Titanophoneus still is somewhat visible. The lips on DB's image don't look like they'd completely cover the teeth when the mouth was closed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think fenestrae need to be 100% invisible, they aren't even in modern lizards. See for example this monitor lizard[45] there seems to be a visible dent for the postorbital fenestra. We shouldn't always go overboard with this shrink wrapping issue. No animals have completely smoothed out heads. Also, there are plenty of living animals today that don't cover their teeth completely with lips when the mouths are shut, we don't have to be more dogmatic with these things than actual animals are. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the back teeth less visible, but I kept the front teeth visible as it looked like a speculative display behaviour of some kind. Monsieur X (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I decided to pitch in and fix Nobu Tamura's Arctops. I sheathed the teeth and added a bit more flesh to the lower jaw. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Good job with fixing those 3D models, it should be harder to make it match the rest of the images than a drawing. But I guess it helps they are so low res... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I just noticed the Arctognathus image was shrunk by 100 pixels, watch out that we don't lose resolution when doing these fixes! FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened, I've tried to restore it back. Monsieur X (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Here are two more images that I edited. Do they look okay? I took your advice and didn't completely hide the fenestra. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bit more obvious on the Eriphostoma where the teeth were, because it is a close up with more detail, perhaps try to paint out the "shadow" that is left where the teeth were, and there is also a kind of dent at the bottom of the lower jaw where the tip of the fang was, which could be filled. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it should be better now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've uploaded some more synapsid fixes, any thoughts? I personally feel like the last three Arctognathus images I did aren't "all that", but it's the best I could do. Monsieur X (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Here's two ones I decided to pitch in, sorry they're a bit minor, but I don't have my better image editing software with me right now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Have the Gimp software? FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I rarely use it since I'm not too accustomed to it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Good work in general, though it seems to me that the latter Varanops image (File:Varanops brevirostris.jpg) should be reverted back to the original version. Even with lips, teeth are usually visible when the mouth is open. Teeth get covered when both lips are in contact, so that the upper teeth slip inside the lower lip, rather than outside it. However, when the mouth is open, completely covering the teeth (so that absolutely none are visible from the side) is not really justifiable. The original image looked like there was enough lip material to cover the teeth when the mouth was closed, but not enough to completely obscure them when the mouth was open. This is accurate for lipped tetrapods in general, as seen in these images: [46] [47] [48] [49] Simply removing the teeth entirely would not make it accurate, so that image should be reverted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with that last image, and I think we shouldn't go too overboard with this, as I said earlier, we shouldn't be more dogmatic than the animals themselves... Especially with animals where we have absolutely no idea how they would have looked, and have no actual scientific studies that try to reconstruct their oral tissues, only a handful of blog posts. I also think smoothing out the entire head of the Oedaleops was a bit much, most modern reptiles have weird lines and demarcations on the dorsal surfaces of their heads, can't think of any with smooth heads like that. Especially removing the brow demarcation seems at odds with how all reptiles look today, for example. I would say the same about the upper surface of the Dimetrodon head. That area is probably where all animals have the least amount of soft tissue (apart from crests and wattles), so it makes little sense to smooth it out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right how we have no real studies pointing to the advantages and disadvantages of "lips" or "no lips". However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't revise "lipless" paleoart regardless. Lips are the default in fish, reptiles, mammals, you name it. They should be considered the default in most paleoart due to phylogenetic bracketing. Jaime Headden, Mark Witton, and other "pro-lip" parties were not going against a scientific precedent when arguing that paleoart should include more lips, they were simply going against a precedent in paleoart which seemingly contrasts with most modern animals for no discernable scientific reason. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is that there are few if any actual scientific studies giving the pro and cons, it mainly boils down to blog posts and pop science articles. So scientifically (published literature), there is no consensus, since you also have the no-lips Thomas Carr camp for theropods. But as I stated elsehwere, this doesn't mean we shouldn't add lips to old images, or include them in new restorations. It just isn't really a valid reason to remove an image as inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

True, I forgot about Carr. Nevertheless, my request in this specific instance was about something both sides agree on, which is that the teeth would probably be visible when the mouth was open (regardless of lips of no lips), and that the revised Varanops would therefore be more inaccurate than the original image. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on the Varanops, and I'd like to add that even in modern mammals where the teeth are normally covered, the canines sometimes poke out. I've seen this personally in Tasmanian devils, see for example these photos:[50][51] No one seems to have mentioned that during the "lips for hydration" debates some time ago. There is also a condition in cats that give them "saberteeth".[52] So I think there is nothing wrong with showing a bit of teeth poking below the level of the lips. As was the case with this older version of the Titanophoneus image[53], the mouth was not even closed, so I don't see why the teeth had to be entirely covered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverted the image then, you guys make valid points. And I'll also take the chance to note that the same can apply for skin-wrapping. Take a look at a lot of modern day animals and you'll see things like ribs showing through the belly (such as in rhinos)[54], sharply protruding shoulders (giraffes)[55], or how surprisingly skinny elephant feet are.[56] Of course, the same applies to reptiles, which have many things like demarcated orbits,[57] and visible neural spines[58]. So overall there should be a balance in paleoart, so we don't go either too skinny[59], or add so much fat to the extent we can't even see the creature's joints[60]. But then again, nature doesn't always do what we expect, and we'll never know exactly how much fat or muscle tissue all prehistoric animals had. But for Wikipedia it's probably best to play it safe and stick with that balance. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

More edits to the various Synapsid and Diapsid reconstructions

• 
  Wasn't sure of the likelihood of lips on this one
• 
  Same here
• 
  Comes with a bonus Eryops edit
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I thought the last discussion was getting crowded, so I started a new one. Anywho, any thoughts on these edits? Monsieur X (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A general thing, again, I don't see why the various lines and ridges on the top of the skulls and around the eyes need to be removed (not talking about fenestrae)... Such are present in modern animals. There just isn't much soft tissue in such areas. To go back to the hippo example again, the ridges and lines around the eyes and face of that Steppesaurus weren't too different from those of a modern, live hippo[61], for example. Making them that smooth seems too neat and unnatural. But good call on not giving lips to primitive, crocodile-like archosaurs. We have no idea whether the liplessness in crocodilians is a primitive condition or not, so it would be arbitrary to make any such decision about primitive archosaurs (especially those with crazy, overhanging jaws like that, where lips wouldn't neatly close the mouth anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally, more rugose bone = less flesh. But yeah, proterosuchids are another animal where the skull defies any form of complete lips (like Smilodon, plesiosaurs, etc.). However, I am curious as to whether or not ichthyosaurs would have had lips. Generally, their dentition is less gnarly than that of plesiosaurs, and although some taxa (Eurhinosaurus, Excalibosaurus) would have almost certainly had exposed teeth, would an ichthyosaur head have lips like a cetacean (after all, there is Eurhinodelphis)? I'm thinking of eventually doing ichthyosaurs, so I'm curious about this. It may also help us find more images to fix... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, we also have to think of precedence (this being Wikipedia after all). If the idea has never been suggested before, we are in WP:OR territory. Don't think even Witton has said a word about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see some mosasaurs have been modified too, which look mostly good, but one has been made more inaccurate than it was before, the eye of this[62] Prognathodon has been made huge, which is not in line with the fossils. The visible eye should fit within the sclerotic ring.[63] The weird red ring around the original eye was maybe unnecessary, but then it should be smoothed out (though it is similar to for example chameleon eyes), not turned into an ovwersized eye. And the snout of this Plotosaurus[64] has become way too pointed compared to the original image. FunkMonk(talk) 02:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the critique, I do apologise for not putting them up for review, I've been ill the last couple of days. Anywho, I took your advice with the Sphenacodontids, as well as fixed those Mosasaurs you highlighted (You'll have to get close to the Plotosaurus to notice). Reasoning behind the enlarge Prognathodon eye thing was me misintripting those late 19th century depictions of Ichthyosaurs that had tiny eyes within their sclerotic ring, the Plotosaurus on the other hand was me mistaking what appears to be some pixels or JPEG artifacts for teeth. I also edited restorations for D. angelensis and D. borealis, although the D. angelensis on closer inspection looks a bit sloppy. Monsieur X (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes look fine. This[65] image struck me as a bit strange, since instead of teeth it now has a white blob, which kind of looks like it's fuming at the mouth... Like the earlier Dinofelis, it seems like the original had a slightly open mouth, so there might be other ways to improve it while still showing teeth between the lips. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, here I thought that D. angelensis looked sloppy. No idea what I was thinking with that one, I've updated it once again, hopefully it's more to your liking. Monsieur X (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, looks less rabid now! I think the tail fluke I added myself to that same image looks kinda sloppy too, but better than nothing... Doesn't help the eel-like pose, though... An image which might be better off replaced completely (if someone makes a new image, that is). FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Here's a new batch of Sphenacodontid edits and a Nikkasaurus edit, any thoughts on these? Monsieur X (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Look good. But while you're in there, maybe remember to remove dirt, there is usually weird spots in the white on Bogdanov's images... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone back at my archives and cleaned every image that had visible artifacts on them, hopefully I haven't missed or forgot any specks. Monsieur X (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, if you're in the habit of revising "pelycosaurs", you may want to try exposing the tips of the neural spines as Scott Hartman has advocated for. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

While Scott Hartman is pretty confident that the sail of D. grandis was exposed to an extant, he wasn't sure if the same held true for the myriad of other Dimetrodon species. I'm surprised nobody has talked about depicting Dimetrodon and other extinct sail-backed species with scars, holes, tears and other injuries some modern animals with sails deal with (e.g., sailfish and basilisk lizards). I'm kinda burnt out on Pelycosaurs at the moment to embark on editing reconstructions to line up more with Scott Hartman's skeletal. I also just want to work on some Therapsid reconstructions, many are in dire need of some editing. Monsieur X (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Check this out if you're looking for a dimetrodont that looks like it's taken a beating. Too bad that scars aren't shown more often in non-dinosaurs. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, the purpose is to show an ideal, representative depiction of an animal's anatomy. For example, we wouldn't use an image of a battered, scarred lion as the taxobox image in the lion article, we would show a specimen that show its features best, without distracting blemishes. Doesn't mean we can't draw images of imperfect individuals, but we shouldn't really go around needlessly adding scars to old restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the Eryops which had teeth removed also shows a small, inner fifth finger on the hand, while it would only have had four. It should be removed too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I fixed that Eryops you were talking about. Now about that previous discussion, I wasn't talking about "needlessly adding scars to old restorations", I was just lamenting the lack of additional restorations depicting general injuries (or just things don't involve hunting, fleeing or fighting), not counting famous specimens of course. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, let's just drop it. Monsieur X (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I forgot to mention, Monsieur X, it has been suggested that the spine tips in at least Dimetrodon giganhomogenes were not part of the sail, see:[66][67], so these two images are still wrong:[68][69] This image shows how it could have looked:[70] FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well, should I also dial back the sail on some of the other large Dimetrodon species reconstrction? Monsieur X (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably, at least Scott Hartman did that to his D. grandis too, but it's hard to say how far back, since the other species have not been examined for this... FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've updated Bogdanov's D. giganhomogenes. I'll start working on other D. giganhomogenes reconstructions, D. grandis and maybe D. angelensis. Monsieur X (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, it will be a bit of work, but it is actually pretty urgent, as this is something we know is (probably) wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a weird different coloured bar at the upper left of the group image that could maybe be coloured in with the same white as the rest of the background. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope i got it, it was kind of hard to see while editing it. Monsieur X (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

hehe, seems it is a much larger "issue", seems the left and right halves of the image have different whites as background... One thing could be the completely replace one white in the entire background. If it's too hard to figure out, I can give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pachycormidae Size Comparison

Pachycormid assortment

A size comparison for an assortment of Pachycormid fish. Leedsichthys restoration based on skeletal by the Peterborough museum, other fish based on respective restorations in literature or skeletal mounts. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm... not an expert on fish. Would Leedsichthys and Bonnerichthys have had those trailing fins? I've never seen them restored that way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they're a feature present in most, if not all Pachycormids as far as I've seen. They are also preserved in Leedsichthys. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the text should be a bit bigger so you can almost read it at thumbnail size, or as large as possible if it will never be large enough to read. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Enlarged the text, hopefully it should be visible now. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx specimens compared to a human being

Specimens compared to a human in scale

The diagram includes the Haarlem Specimen (holotype of Pterodactylus crassipes), which is now assigned to the separate genus Ostromia in Anchiornithidae, and the Thermopolis specimen is now referred to Archaeopteryx siemensii following Mayr et al. (2007). Therefore, a new version of this diagram should exclude the Ostromia holotype, and refer to the Thermopolis specimen as Archaeopteryx siemensii.Extrapolaris (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Should be easy to remove them or relabel them for someone who can edit SVGs... FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Just passing by, removed and relabeled! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Skull reconstruction for Pisanosaurus

Skull reconstruction of Pisanosaurus

The outline of the skull reconstruction of Pisanosaurus ought to be modified to resemble silesaurids because Pisanosaurus has been recently reassigned to Silesauridae (Irmis et al. 2007 considered it possible that the advanced craniodental features of Pisanosaurus in contrast to those of Lesothosaurus stem from feeding habits rather than support an ornithischian classification of Pisanosaurus because the postcrania of Pisanosaurus are morphologically similar to those of basal dinosauriforms).Extrapolaris (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

You speak as if this is consensus. Changing it is jumping the gun and WP:OR. 75.156.69.248 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What's really funny is I, the creator, took into account silesaurids when I made the skull in the first place. The skull is already rather boxy like others in the family, moreso than in ornithischians, and I still think it represents a good intermediate skull for either placement phylogenetically. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Did silesaurs have palpebral bones? In any case, I agree, it's not a big deal when the findings are so preliminary, as long as the known parts are shown correctly and the rest is generic enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you follow the Cabreira phylogeny on Buriolestes and Ixalerpeton silesaurs are within Ornithischia, so everything is really a mess. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not related to accuracy, but there's a giant smudge beneath the angular. Could you remove it, IJReid? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any smudges in the full sized image ... I honestly am not too fond of the style and if I edited it I would probably just redo it first. Any suggestions? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Requests: Strabopida size charts

I'm currently working on the Strabops article and soon I'll move on to the rest of the strabopids, so I would need several size charts. I will need one for Strabops, Paleomerus and Parapaleomerus, and if it is possible to do all of them, also one of Strabopida with every species. From what I understand, Khankaspis seems to be more related to Beckwithia than Strabops, so I prefer to omit it. I'm going to divide this into three points:

• Strabops could be difficult since we only have fossil images. Would it be possible to create a size chart based on those fossils? If not, I will try to look for a valid and accurate restoration. In any case, it seems to measure 11 cm. Images for the silhouette (if useful): [71] and [72]
• Paleomerus already has a restoration (in fact mine, that I will try to fix soon) but has two species. I will investigate more about their sizes but I think the size of the second is only available in the original description document (which I am waiting to receive in the Resource Request). Silhouette: [73]
• Parapaleomerus measured 9.2 cm and 9 cm wide. I just finished the restoration (link). I hope the original restoration (page 148) will also be helpful (but without appendages please). Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Okey, a recent document that I had not read before seems to indicate that the telson represents the 11th segment and the real telson is unknown, so the restoration is hypothetical and therefore, the silhouette too. I guess it's better to exclude this one. Super Ψ Dro 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks in advance, I know this ones are harder to do. Super Ψ Dro 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If the legs are omitted, would File:The_Eurypterida_of_New_York_plate_1.jpg work for Strabops? I can't guarantee that I'll have enough time to do this, so if someone else wants to take a stab at this, I'll let them. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the telson did not end in a point, it had a trapezoidal shape. Also, the 1912 segments are different from the ones now, they are very... I do not know how to say it. In the restoration of Paleomerus for example, the segments are more visually separated than in the Strabops of 1912. In fact, Strabops and Paleomerus are very similar, only differing in the form of the telson (Strabops has it longer and narrower) and in the position of the eyes (should not be visible in the silhouette as they seem to be slightly in Paleomerus). Technically you can use Paleomerus restoration as Strabops, as was done with Acutiramus and Pterygotus (only the form of the chela was changed if I remember correctly). Super Ψ Dro 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made the silhouettes. Since there is 1 way that this arthropod can bend to make it useful for a size comparison, are the silhouettes of these animals copyrightable? This hasn't previously been a problem, since eurypterids have lots of limbs that can bend to make a different silhouette, but I'm less sure about these guys. Can I (legally) upload the silhouette of a strabopid into the public domain? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it can be released to the public domain... By the way, I just finished the restorations of both Paleomerus species. P. makowskii reached 7.3 cm, while P. hamiltoni was 9.3 cm long. Silhouettes: [74] and [75] Super Ψ Dro 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Unmodifiable, naturally occurring shapes shouldn't be copyrightable, so I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, for my images there is no problem, in case you were asking. I do not want it to seem like it bothers me. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, here's the WIP: [76]. The evil black box has returned here, and I'm not sure how to get rid of it (as I seem to be incapable of actually finding it). I'll ping for help if I can't remove the darn thing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks great! I wonder if you could change the color of one of the Paleomerus species so that they have a different shade of the same color, as in the size charts of eurypterids. Super Ψ Dro 08:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah drat, now that the black is gone I realize that the file name was misspelled... (sigh) not the first time that's ever happened. I changed the smaller Paleomerus from red to navy. It should be ready as soon as its name is changed... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm going to add it. Super Ψ Dro 13:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hopelessly inaccurate synapsid scale chart

This image was added to the pages for numerous recently-named stem-mammals. It's completely wrong, as it makes almost everything too big (Nochnitsa had a skull only 82 mm long, for example, and is noted as being much smaller than Gorynychus, contrasting with this absurd depiction) and many of the images are clearly mislabeled. Also, despite the uploader posting it as "own work", none of the constituent images are, and I'm pretty sure they aren't public domain. The Ascendonanus is by Ceri Thomas, the Leucocephalus is a Proburnetia by Sergey Krasovskiy, the Gorynychus is by Matt Celeskey, the Nochnitsa is a Lycaenops by Linda Bucklin, and so on. Since this presumably violates copyright/licensing and is horribly inaccurate, it should be taken down, but I'm not sure what to do in this situation. Ornithopsis (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's even more problematic than that, considering that the grid only covers 2/5 of the image, most animals still have a background, those that don't are in an ugly white rectangle which prevents their size from actually being determined, and at that, about half of the animals are at a perspective. Additionally, what the heck is that file name? This file should be nominated for deletion on Commons. There's a link on your sidebar that should do this, but I'm not sure on the details or I would have nominated the latter three. There probably is a tutorial somewhere. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an obvious copyright violation compilation, so I have nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sus memes sock. 75.156.69.248 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Thalassodromeus sethi size comparison

Trying out a new human silhouette as well

For upcoming GAN/FAC nominations. The skull and wing estimates are given in the article. The body proportions and wing shape should be based on Tupuxuara. Could be nice to show it in both profile and from above, like the Anhanguera and Rhamphorhynchus diagrams. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one, haven't done a size chart in a while. Plus, I haven't made pterosaur ones yet so this should be fun! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Only problem is I haven't come across any good dorsal view illustration of a thalassodromid, so it might be a problem to get the right proportions. But Witton's lateral view skeletals of Tupuxuara can be seen here[77][78] FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Here it is: my first pterosaur size chart! I'm pretty happy with how it came out, but then again I'm not as acquainted with pterosaurs as I'd prefer to be... so let me know if there's anything that needs fixing. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! I only wonder whether the skull should be farther apart from the body in the dorsal view? I don't think the neck would be lifted that much when flying for the neck to be that foreshortened. Also, does the estimated skull length match up in the side view? FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to tell in this view, but the hindlimbs don't seem long enough relative to the forelimbs. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That could be a good point, the hindlimbs of thalassodromids were 80% the length of the forelimbs (excluding the wing finger), the most equal proportions among pterodactyloids. The proportions do seem to match Witton's second image, but might be good to double check. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The length of the skull matches and I've separated the head more from the body in dorsal view, is that far enough? As for the hindlimbs are you referring to the top or side perspective? Because the latter has its leg and arm proportions straight from Witton's Tupuxuara. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the head looks much more likely now. I'll add the image once I've made enough room for it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a note, Gabriel Ugueto has illustrated Thalassodromeus in lateral and dorsal views: [79] Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems he goes for proportionately longer wings. Not sure what we should go for, the diagram currently seems to go for a lower middle approach, maybe go for higher middle (4.4 m) instead? The wings do look a tad short. That would of course skew the leg to arm ratio further, but maybe only the wing finger needs to be longer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also looks like I didn't make the head wide enough. The dorsal view on the diagram is actually 4.35 m, but I forgot to write it in. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added the image, but the changes you mention could be nice. By the way, does anyone have an opinion on which life restoration to feature first in the description section of the article= This image of a flying pair[80], or this[81] of a wading individual? I've had to modify them both (mainly skull fixes), and neither were ever reviewed here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The image with the wading T. sethii would look real nice in the palaeoecology section, once it gets expanded. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I fear it's too vertically long, though, but could make sense in the locomotion section, which will cover possible terrestrial abilities. But I'm wondering which of the images that show the animal best as the lead restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the wading one gives a better view of the animal, and it's good to reinforce that the view of it as a terrestrial animal. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Widened the head and changed label from 4.3 to 4.35. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Very good! I actually feared there wouldn't be room for it in the article, but the description section grew to a size I hadn't expected... FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Various Tetraceratops reconstructions

• 
  Somethings off with this Gremlin's legs
• 
• 
• 
  Clear version of the previous image

I'm currently focused on cleaning and fixing various non-mammalian Therapsids reconstructions at the moment and I was wondering if any of these restorations of Tetraceratops were accurate, inaccurate or just need some minor adjustments Monsieur X (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I know much about this guy, but yeah, the claws on the first one seem rather unwieldy, and the second one seems to miss the "boss" thing at the back of the jaw. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's only known from a skull, hence the debate on where it sits on the synapsid family tree. Anyway, I fixed Nobu's reconstruction and as well as edited the two reconstruction by Dmitry Bogdanov. I decided to leave the front teeth unsheathed, seemed more akin to tusks, sorta like Musk deer or Water Deer tusks. I might edited them under lips if people have any problems with it. Sadly, I'm not a good enough artist fix Stanton Fink's weird Tetraceratops Monsieur X (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My version here is a very old version. I've made another one, but, I'm in the throes of fixing that one, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But muh hydrated enamel!

If the teeth reach past the lower margin of the mandible, I think there's good reason to think they weren't entirely covered. Again, even Tasmanian devils have canines that extend below the lipline, so it certainly isn't impossible. Haven't been able to find an actual photo of the Tetraceratops skull, but it seems the boss should jut out ventrally from the mandible, whereas you made it jut out at the back of the skull in NTs image? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Without a good photo of a skull with the cheek horns, I had to rely on other life reconstructions to fix it, hopefully I got it right this time. Anyway, while looking for more info about Tetraceratops, I found that Dmitry had done a more therapsid-looking restoration with a rounder head and smaller horns. This image does line up with these two papers [1][2], perhaps we need to inculde a similar reconstruction. I've also added a skull diagram from commons to the Tetraceratops article. Also, my reasoning for the visible front teeth was due to the lack of fossils and proper info regarding the animal's diet, I was left speculate about the animal's diet and behaviour and so my mind went to Heterodontosaurs, swine (omnivores with nasty lookin' teeth and tusks), musk/water deer (vegan territorial biters) and tuatara (lizard-like meat nippers). Monsieur X (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say when in doubt, don't modify. It's not really up to us to take any one stand on the issue of lips or no lips in taxa where this has never even been discussed in the peer reviewed literature. Of course, when making a new image, it is up to the artist what to do, but it becomes a bit of imposing one's own biases when it is done retroactively to older drawings by others. Fixing pronated hands in dinosaurs and sunken fenestrae in general is one thing (those are now universally thought to be inaccurate), but I really think we should be much more careful when it comes to features nothing has ever even been published about. Most of these animals probably had lips, but would they have covered the canines entirely in sabertoothed taxa? There is little indication this would universally be the case even if we look at modern taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, regarding the lips situation I'd recommend considering lips the default, as they are today. Tasmanian devils, muntjacs, crocodiles etc. are outliers, so it seems. I'd argue that Tetraceratops could feasibly have lips, given that A: animals don't necessarily close their jaws when they close their mouths, if that makes any sense. There would likely be some space left between the teeth, and B: Is it just me or does the maxillary fang in most Tetraceratops skull reconstructions look a tad out-of-socket? :/ Also, FWIW, I'd recommend that the caption on that tasmanian devil pic be changed. Seems a little... catty, if i'm being honest. --TKWTH (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the presence of lips, the animals you list all have lips. The question is whether we should always assume that long fangs were covered entirely by lips by default, and whether this is reason enough to go back and cover the fangs on every other old restoration. As for the caption, it isn't directed at anyone here, rather the trend a few years back that made paleo-hipsters draw even Smilodon with covered canines, based on some conference abstract that didn't make sense to begin with... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Indohyus sculpture

How accurate is this sculpture? Looks more like a weird looking Archaeocetian than a Indohyus to me. Monsieur X (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the image is mislabelled, it is Ambulocetus:[82] FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Gallotia goliath

Hello there! Today I bring here a restoration of the Tenerife giant lizard (Gallotia goliath), which lived in the homonymous island (located Canary Islands) until recent times. The restoration is based on extant relatives (mostly on other giant lizards of the same genus, endemic to other islands of the archipelago). The scaling of the head is based on the diagram shown here (page 132), drawn from a mummified specimen. I assumed the diagram shows a deformed skull, so I modified slightly its shape to resemble those of extant relatives. Colouration is also based on other lizards of the same genus. Finally, the canary bird is represented for size reference. Any thoughts?

By the way, I like the new section-starting system, it makes easier to submit a new image. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks nice, although I'm no lizard expert, so it would be good if someone else gave a second opinion. It looks more robust than living Gallotia, but bigger lizards tend to be stockier than their smaller relatives (e.g. Komodo dragon, marine iguana, giant day gecko), so this is probably a good decision. User:IJReid is the one who created the new button, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, but one thing to remember about most reptiles is that their limbs taper towards the joints, whereas here the limb segments of the arms are very even/straight. The perspective/angle in the bird's tail also seems a bit off compared to the body. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reduced slightly the arm's width near the elbow and modified the orientation of the bird's tail. Perhaps now the arm is too thin?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I was mainly thinking of the lower arm, but I think the other fixes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Now the width of the forearm has decreased slightly towards the joints. I will add the image to the corresponding article, if no more changes are required.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Parahughmilleria Size Comparison

It was a joint effort of eurypterids...

Should appear soon...

Made this for the Parahughmilleria article, a GA made by Super Dromaeosaurus. Still got a few eurypterid articles in need of size comparisons. This one was harder to make. Is it accurate? I'll probably also take on Pittsfordipterus and Nanahughmilleria, any advice on those? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good! I wonder if it could be added to P. salteri, which measured 8 cm. Regarding Nanahughmilleria, I think it would be better to wait until I finish its restoration. I am not very sure of Pittsfordipterus, as it is very little known, but I think it could be feasible since Bassipterus (the sister taxon of Pittsfordipterus) was very similar to the derived adelophthalmids, so probably Pittsfordipterus was similar as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Added P. salteri, now the coloration looks much better since there's an odd number of the eurypterids! Could this silhouette be used as the body of Pittsofordipterus with the paddles of Bassipterus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Great idea! That would probably work. Super Ψ Dro 22:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, it's the same principle with making Salteropterus, Jaekelopterus rheniaea, etc. although a bit more extreme here! Here it is, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! Super Ψ Dro 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have finished the restoration of Nanahughmilleria (link). The size of the species are in the article. N. lanceolata should be omitted, since it is most likely it was not a real adelophthalmid. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

What about N. prominens? I had enough resources in the article to give it its own silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but its total size is not known. Super Ψ Dro 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Here it is: File:Nanahugmilleria.svg. It will hopefully be renamed to a better filename soon. I'm not sure how well I did on this guy. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks good, but I think the segments stick out too much. Could it be changed to how it is in Parahughmilleria? Other species could also be added. N. pygmaea reached 8 cm and N. notosibirica had 9 cm (the size of these was specified in the History of research). Super Ψ Dro 11:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I implemented those changes. Does it look better now? (By the way, it might be worth it to add those sizes to the description section, since that's where people will generally look for information on size.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better! Thank you! I will add the sizes of the other species in the description. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Request: Removal of backgrounds in two images

Not quite an image request per se this time; would it be possible to remove the background in these two images and upload new background-less versions of them? Versions without backgrounds would be very useful in a cladogram in the currently being worked on Eurypterid article. I have no idea how difficult this would be and I am not experienced enough with image-editing software to do it myself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul might have a bg less version of the first one? Also, the second image is tagged as inaccurate, but I don't know enough about the animal to judge whether it is appropriate or not. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the second image as inaccurate myself. It's supposed to be Hallipterus but everything other than the head is erronously based on Stylonurus (due to Hallipterus here being referred to as a species of Stylonurus). Since both are in the Stylonuroid superfamily and the inaccuracy is only visible with the image at full size I thought that it might be possible to use to represent the superfamily in the cladogram. If not, it might be possible to edit it into an accurate restoration of Stylonurus (though this would change the genus intended to be pictured) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Why not rotate this image by 90 degrees if you need a Eurypterus for a cladogram? That way, perspective doesn't cause problems and the animal's anatomy is more visible. Also, do you need any silhouettes for this project? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look in my sandbox and scroll down to "Classification" you'll see what I'm going for. All the pictures I've used there so far (just 4, but still) are artwork with some degree of perspective and it would be nice with consistency. It's not vital but I think it'd look good. Right now, there already is a size chart (by you :) ) used in the article, depicting six of the largest eurypterids. There could potentially be one made for the smallest ones too but their articles haven't received a lot of work and I don't yet have anything to go on for you as to what they looked like. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I was actually referring to the usage of silhouettes on cladograms (like at Diplodocoidea). But I would be interested in a smallest eurypterids scale diagram, so I guess I'll wait for awhile before proceeding (after all, there's plenty of other work to do and size comparisons to make!) I'll see if I can do something for Megalograptus and Brachyopterus sometime this week. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, FunkMonk, Slate Weasel: Here's the base render for Eurypterus with no background or image editing. Thanks for the ping. You might have to manually crop Nobu Tamura's work, however. --- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool! I didn't realize that you were still active here! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still crossing my fingers for Obsidian to return to paleo articles, hehe... As for the second image, I think it would be good to correct it first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of corrections, would it be possible to fix another image? This one needs work in the appendages, since the Megalograptus on the right does not seem to have a fifth pair of limbs and the swimming leg is too thin and unaccurate, and the one on the left lacks swimming legs. In addition, in both, the third to fifth pair of appendages have no spines and the telson has a rare form. This other restoration could be helpful. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This would go for other restorations of the same animal by the same artist as well; 1, 2. Might be quicker and easier to just make new artwork than to edit these. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Correcting the Hallipterus/Stylonurus would really just be changing the shape of the head a little bit from what it is now into a more boxy shape as seen in these 1, 2. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll ping Monsieur X to see if he wants to try out some invertebrates. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If he doesn't respond, I'll give it a shot. Seems it would be pretty easy to just shorten the head by moving the mouth parts back. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Invertebrates are sadly foreign to me. So I don't think I can edit these reconstructions. Monsieur X (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will try, is the rest of it accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Largely accurate to Stylonurus, yes. Going by this, it looks like the body is too long and the restoration might have an extra segment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not assumed that all eurypterids had 12 segments? It is possible that the restoration of 1912 has become obsolete. Super Ψ Dro 14:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Snap, yes of course they all had the same number of segments (12). The body might still be too long (not sure anymore, will investigate) but the number of segments is right. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk, looking at the most recent reconstruction I could find, the inaccuracies in the image are 1) the wrongly shaped head and 2) the body being to long. Both the head and the telson spike seems to be proportionally right to each other as well as the legs, but the body itself is way too long (refer to the 1912 reconstruction linked above). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

How is this for the Hallipterus?[83] I can also try the Megalograptus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is an even shorter version[84], haven't painted out the background yet, though, as I'll wait to hear which version is more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, well done! Worth pointing out that it looks nothing like Hallipterus which was the main issue to begin with; Hallipterus would have looked something like this, with the artwork you're editing clearly being based on Stylonurus powriensis more than Hallipterus as it was essentially a Stylonurus with a Hallipterus head. That being said, the second ("even shorter") matches up very well with what we have of Stylonurus powriensis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok, are the other anatomical edits that should be done on this one to pass it off as powriensis even better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it there isn't really anything major that could be done, the only thing I could think of would be that the edge where the head meets the body could be shaped a bit differently (going by this image of a fossil Stylonurus) but that is a very minor change. S. powriensis is the only currently recognized valid species in the genus (there is one more dubious one, the rest have been reclassified or synonymized). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be using Stylonurella as a reference: [85]. Were the two really that similar? Because that may warrant a random size comparison, considering that I already have one for Stylonurella (which needs updating to Herefordopterus-style format): [86]...

I think it's more likely that the Stylonurella image is heavily based on Stylonurus than the other way around (seeing as it is labelled as Stylonurus in its original source), they were synonyms at one point. Referencing this new edit with images of Stylonurus fossils and more or less modern restorations it matches up well with Stylonurus. We might have to check if the appearance of Stylonurella has changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've now updated the image, and I made the back of the head less concave. I'll let you change the name to whatever it fits best, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a big change! Now it would be necessary to include the new Stylonurus in this image... Super Ψ Dro 22:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks good, I might be able to manually crop it out myself to produce a version with a white background as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Replacing the image in that collage should be easy for anyone to do.I'll try to fix the Megalograptus images next... Anything wrong with them apart from what has already been listed here? FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Megalograptus images have multiple inaccuracies if you compare them with an accurate depiction. These include wrongly positioned (and shaped?) eyes, virtually every appendage being shaped wrong (in particular the spines of the large frontal appendages being positioned wrongly), the "mouthparts" being too small (and wrongly shaped?), the highly distinctive telson being wrong and overall weirdly reconstructed body (too thick for instance). Not sure all these can be fixed through editing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, which of them is least inaccurate/easiest to make accurate? We probably don't need both anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Out of the three, the side-view one is probably the hardest to fix as it has all the issues clearly visible. This also goes for the one with two Megalograptus, but to a lesser extent. The one of Megalograptus being devoured by Cameroceras is probably the easiest to fix since much of the anatomy is obscured by tentacles and it's from the same angle as the more accurate depiction. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the Cameroceras is accurate... It would not be surprising having the account that the Megalograptus is wrong. Is there someone who can confirm it? (by the way, what a subtle reference to the Sea Monsters documentary). Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, seems like they are a bit too much of a mess to be easily saved... FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it would probably even be easier to draw something completely new than to edit these into accurate depictions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so anyone browsing by at a later time know, I cropped out the background of the Stylonurus myself, so the request has been fulfilled. The result isn't perfect but it is only intended to be used in a few cladograms as a heavily miniaturized version. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New art by Liam Elward

• 
  Erythrosuchus
• 
  Zygophyeter

I really like this guy's style and I'm happy that he has started putting his work on wikipedia. But rules are rules, so they need review. They all look accurate to me, even the weird hand of the Chilesaurus closely corresponds to the findings of Chimento et al. (2017). It also has kind of a green hue to the filaments, but it might just be a combination of dull yellow and grey, so carotenoid rules aren't really broken. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that a similar section is up on the dinosaur review page for this guy's art[87]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Dunkleosteus77 for the Zygophyseter. I'm not sure if it needs some more flesh around the distal caudal region? But yeah, these look really good. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a message on the guy’s talk page. Aside from the forehead it looks like a beaked whale   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not going through the proper channels in terms of submitting artwork. Thank you all for both your kind words and seriously in-depth analysis/constructive criticism. PrehistoryByLiam 17:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, they look really professionally done. Do you do it entirely digitally or by hand and then digitally add color?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Erythrosuchus has the same perspective issue the Rugops had, where the arm closest to us is seemingly above the one behind, which doesn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Megalograptus Size Comparison

Enter Megalograptus, the most gnarly eurypterid in existence!

I finally got around to creating this, Ichthyovenator. I scaled them based on the Pentecopterus paper. Didn't Super Dromaeosaurus say something about a 2 meter specimen? Should it be included like what I did for Erretopterus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to include it like that. By the way, the size of the rest of the species is known (except in M. alveolatus), so it would be good to include them. M. ohioensis reached 78 cm and M. williamsae reached 50 cm. M. welchi reached 150 cm. The last size is doubtful and should probably appear as in Erettopterus. The two-meter specimen (of M. shiderleri) seems that it really did not exceed 56 cm. Super Ψ Dro 13:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly, M. ohioensis (at 78 cm) is the largest species overall. The 50 cm estimate for M. williamsae is probably correct but I would seriously doubt M. welchi being 150 cm unless we can get a better source for that than the otherwise used excel document. The previously discussed 2 meter specimen was, as Super Dromaeosaurus says, incorrectly estimated to exceed 2 metres but was in reality much smaller. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the updated version with the two other species. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good for me now! Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I doubt the 150 cm size for M. welchi and would advise against including it unless we find another source for it seeing as the 78 cm M. ohioensis has also been referred to as the "biggest species". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So what should I do? Rename or remove? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I would wait to see if it is possible to find the source. I have searched previously and have not found anything. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm much better at silhouettes...

• [88] & [89] Here's my crude restoration of Drepanopterus, any comments? I'm planning on using the right side to create another size comparison. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it has several flaws. This publication should help you. About the sizes, D. abonensis measured 50 cm, D. pentlandicus reached 30 cm and D. odontospathus had a length of 40 cm. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does the paper give it 5 pairs of limbs? Wouldn't it have been more like Megarachne or Hibberopterus? And yeah, that was more or less just a random experiment that I did in fossil restoration, without really studying how to do it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

All eurypterids had 6 pairs of limbs of varying size depending on classification, so 5 "large" pairs of limbs is definitely reasonable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I do not know much about the stylonurids but I think they had very small chelicerae, which is why they are not visible in the dorsal view. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Here it is. Brachyopterus comes next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks great! I just added it to the article. Brachyopterus measured 8 cm. Super Ψ Dro 07:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly easy to scale

• Here Brachyopterus is. Scaling was easier due to a lack of appendages going in front of the carapace. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added it to the article. Thank you very much for these size charts! Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Images by User:Joerim

Pristichampsus

Planocrania

This Pristichampsus and Planocrania were recently added to WP by an Ozarcusmapesae sock IP. Going through the artist's contributions, many of them seem to be of questionable accuracy and artistic quality. 2001:569:782B:7A00:1CAE:952A:EB09:4CDA (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

They are both of little use. Last one has gigantic scales, and the proportions are off in all their drawings. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly unusable, but I wonder if the artist is really an Ozarcusmapesae sockpuppet. He has a whole fancy profile on the Dutch Wikipedia, strange.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah, no reason to think Joerim is a sock, that sock guy just does a lot of random stuff with images. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Request: Eysyslopterus carapace and size diagram, Adelophthalmidae size diagram

Another one!

Maybe Bassipterus one day, but not now.

I do not have time to make images until maybe Wednesday or Thursday so I would need someone to do a restoration of carapace the of Eysyslopterus patteni based on this document (page 5, in the cladogram). I also need a size diagram of this genus and of all the Adelophthalmidae family. Eysyslopterus measured 8 cm and although only its carapace is known and it is the most basal genus of the adelophthalmids, they are virtually identical so the silhouette of Pittsfordipterus by Slate Weasel (link) could be used. Pittsfordipterus phelpsae measured 6 cm, the largest species of Nanahughmilleria (N. norvegica) measured 10 cm (size diagram), the largest species of Parahughmilleria (P. major) measured 12.5 cm (size diagram) and the largest species of Adelophthalmus (A. mazonensis) measured 22 cm (size diagram). Unfortunately, the size of Bassipterus is unknown and Unionopterus is too poorly known (size is also not known).

Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

First size comparison done. I'll do the compilation once this one's confirmed to be accurate (won't take too long since I've done silhouettes for everything else you asked for in the description of the request). I don't think that I'll do the carapace restoration, lacking any practice in that field. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. Thank you! --Super Ψ Dro 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the compilation. I may create one for Bassipterus someday, but today is not that day. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since we do not know the size of Bassipterus, it may be impossible. Can it be estimated? Because it seems to be around 12 cm. And thanks for this one too! Super Ψ Dro 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as it can be supported by a source, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why today's not that day ;) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I already made the carapace image so this section is done. Super Ψ Dro 14:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Diplocaulus Underside

Underside of Diplocaulus magnicornis showing possible extent of skin membrane and subsequent obscuring of forelimbs.

This reconstruction shows the iconic boomerang-headed amphibian from an angle rarely explored in life reconstructions, despite the unique silhouette still making it unmistakably Diplocaulus. While the page for Diplocaulus is currently saturated with images, the current depiction showing the mimetic dorsal skin is arguably inadequate in terms of quality and detail (no offense intended). In my reconstruction, the boundaries of this somewhat speculative integumentary feature are more visible via linework and coloration. It also shows how the proportionally small, anteriorly-positioned forelimbs would be entirely obscured from a stereotypical view without actually doing so. PrehistoryByLiam (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)PrehistoryByLiam

Fanboyphilosopher, who has been expanding the Diplocaulus article lately, should definitely have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This illustration is certainly much more well-made than the green CGI.....thing that is currently used to illustrate the skin flaps argument. That being said, there are a few things I need to note. First off, Diplocaulus probably only had four fingers on each hand rather than five. Secondly, I think the body can probably be a bit wider based on a skeletal reconstruction by Douthitt, 1917. His monograph on the genus noted how long and rod-like its ribs were, as well as how they stick out from the body at practically 90-degree angles. I have yet to find a source that disputes his points on the subject, and quite a few (Like Jenny Clack's recent books) still use the skeletal. I’ll probably add the skeletal to the article so people can see. I can't really comment on the size and shape of the skin flaps themselves, because it's impossible to find any pictures of the impressions since the original source is from some tiny, obscure journal which was only published in Germany. I think maybe you can add in some subtle gill-protecting flaps under the horns like those of modern lungfish, as seen in this[90] image. There's still some debate on respiration, but internal gills are par for the course for most aquatic Palaeozoic tetrapods. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks! I hadn't seen that skeletal before. I'll try to fix mine soon.PrehistoryByLiam (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fanboyphilosopher Sorry this took so long, here is the image with all the changes you proposed. PrehistoryByLiam (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you can update images in the same file instead of a new one by clicking "Upload a new version of this file". FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. And I'd recommend following FunkMonk's suggestions whenever you want to update images in the future.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it should be rotated; vertically long images are very unwieldy to use here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. PrehistoryByLiam (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Request: size diagrams for all palaeo FAs and GAs

Ok, so we are almost done with the size diagrams for all dinosaur GAs, but I noticed that there are a lot of other palaeontology articles that need diagrams too... So I'll try to list them all here, feel free to add. Some animals are maybe not suited, having no published overall size estimates or being too small. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Livyatan - perhaps show next to a modern sperm whale as well.
• Cryptoprocta spelea - perhaps show next to a modern fossa as well.
• Archaeoindris
• Dinocephalosaurus

I finally GOT AROUND TO UPLOADING THIS!!!!! What do you think? The silhouette's pretty old, so it might need updating. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The front limb seems like it may be a bit too far back? FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It might just be the position, but I'll look into this sometime. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Brancasaurus
• Brygmophyseter
• Zygophyseter
• Tiktaalik

Here's the first one up, Tiktaalik. What do you think? Dinocephalosaurus my take until Wednesday, since it's a pretty old image. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm not really an expert on fish... FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Batrachotomus
• Arktocara
• Euchambersia

I have charts for Tiktaalik and Dinocephalosaurus, I'll upload those whenever I have the chance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Steveoc 86 Paleocolour PaleoGeekSquared DaCaTaraptor Gamma 124, in other words, everyone who contributed a size chart this year. Sorry if I missed anyone. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are two more articles that I intend to get to GA and FA, but which do not have proper/any size diagrams yet, so I thought they would be relevant in this section too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thylacosmilus
• Thalassodromeus

Here are size comparisons of Brygmophyseter and Livyatan:

• 
  Brygmophyester
• 
  Brygmophyseter
• 
  Livyatan
• 
  Livyatan

Feel free to make suggestions or even edit the images if you want to Gamma 124 (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 might want to take a look, being our fossil whale expert. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m assuming the person’s around 6 feet, so the Brygmophsyeter on the far left looks accurate, the other one seems a little big for the average size. Why is the smaller Livyatan approximation a modern sperm whale silhouette? Are the two modern sperm whales the biggest recorded above and the average size below?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The only difference between both Brygmophyseter pics is the presence of grid lines, the colours and the file format. An yes, the larger sperm whale represents the longest reliable measurement, while the smaller one represents the average male length. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, where’d the silhouettes of the Livyatan come from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Gamma 124, do you wanna go ahead and add them or should I? I prefer the black silhouettes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Here's the original drawing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Livyathan.jpg. You're free to add them if you think they look good enough. I'll add them in the Portuguese Wikipedia then. Gamma 124 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Gamma 124, Ornitholestes has created a new image of Livyatan. It seems to be more accurate, but I am kind of dubious about the dorsal fin: [1]. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, the dorsal fin does seem kinda fishy... However, the dwarf sperm whale does have a similar fin, but not as dramatic as this one. And Brygmophyseter (the main reference) doesn't seem to have it. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You made the larger Livyatan to be 17 m long instead of 17.5 m (the actual upper end of the estimates) Also, the largest reliable record is 20.5 m for sperm whales, not 21.

• Uh... it is 20,5 m long. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a conversation with User:Ornitholestes, and he said that about the Livyatan size comparison here: "See for example the current Livyatan size chart on wikipedia, which someone based on my old reconstruction by just scaling its silhouette to 17.5m and 13.5m respectively. The problem is, a 13.5m Livyatan would be proportioned completely differently from a 17.5m one, because these are two estimates for the same specimen, with the same fossil remains, namely a 3m skull, irrespective of the different conjectural proportions and the resulting total length. We can’t just scale the same picture to both lengths and call it a day."

After reading that, I was searching Livyatan size comparisons on the net, and I found this one: https://namufile.alphawiki.org/6b9245d8db3971ca6001753a2613c44d5a3debca.jpg It's made by a deviantart user with the username of bLAZZE92. I asked User:Paleocolour on deviantart if he would be able to ask for a license from bLAZZE92, as he gave Palaecolour a license for his Daeodon size comparison, but he haven't responded yet. However, I think the usage of these silhouettes would improve the current size comparison, as it takes into account that it has to have different proportions for the different estimates.

Macropredators

Hi guys, I saw this chart on Commons, and thought that it might be kinda fun to create something like this. I noticed that it got removed from the articles it was in, so I thought that it could possibly be useful to create a chart like this. Any input? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to make it, although it needs some changes, for starters the Saurophaganax and Allosaurus seem kind of random as we already have Spinosaurus as the large theropod, and as for Spinosaurus itself it's the reason I removed the chart. It just looks way too insanely robust and massive. I think the other silhouettes are fine, and with these changes this could be an interesting size chart. I do like the idea of a "Macropredators" comparison, I could also perhaps add a marine predator in there? Also, I don't know for certain why the skulls and some limb bones are showing through, perhaps to better illustrate the teeth and jaws for differing eating habits? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... Shastasaurus and Shonisaurus are the largest marine reptiles. However, Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus are also both pretty big. Not to mention Pliosaurus. We have plenty of choices. Might be nice to have Arambourgiania, too. Andrewsarchus may not have been as big as originally thought. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, since we both want to do something like this, maybe we could do a collaboration somehow. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Moanasaurus

Is this Moanasaurus worthy of making an appearance in the article? I made it using MS Paint, only the water reflections were done in Adobe Photoshop. The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 20:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Would look more appealing if the hard pixels were smoothed out. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd recommend using GIMP's smudge tool or something like that. GIMP is an excellent Free Open-Source Software Program. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many anatomical inaccuracies like the width of the body or tail and flipper shape. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with IJreid here. The placement of the flippers seems to indicate a very short torso and long tail. Hindflippers should be somewhat in front of the larger tail wound. The torso itself also looks rather flat. It should be more cricular in front view as opposed to the tall elipse you have at the moment. It is kind of difficult to discern where the torso ends and the water begins on the underside as is due to your colour choice. I'm not entirely sure on the ear placement either, if mosasaurs would've had visable ears. And finally in regards to anatomy your tailfin does not match any known from any mosasaur specimen I am aware of. As for the art style your mix of hard pixels and soft transitions is kind of confusing to the eye. Jonagold2000 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything else? The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 19:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Er, why was your edit on this page reverted? Adding the updated reconstruction is definitely constructive. I think that the tail might still be in need of updating. There may be more problems, I'll let the people who brought them up in the first place discuss them. (By the way, instead of uploading more and more files, you can just click the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file page.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added your newest image. Actually, I'm not to sure about my comment on the new tail, it at least is better than the old one, but the skull morphology may still be incorrect. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the skull too wide or too short? The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 16:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths 11:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus

Artist's impression of a Dunkleosteus.

Hello! I've been very busy.
But now I had the time to make another 'Artist's impression'.
Any thoughts?
Triangulum (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Which species is this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I often tend to forget to add a species. I've tried to make D. terrelli, which was op to 6 metres in length. Triangulum (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not directly related to accuracy, but it would appear that there's a little gray smudge just above the head/body transition, presumably an artifact from photomanipulation. Should be an easy fix. I'll let someone who better understands fish comment more. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not an expert on these fish, but I don't think I've ever seen this genus depicted with such large scales on its flanks before? Is it base don any fossils? FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reactions. I will delete the smudge. And I will look om the internet for fossils of the body. When you search for Dunkleosteus fossils on the web, most of the results show the skull. Indeed I used the skull, but I haven't looked at fossils of the skin yet. Triangulum (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've searched the internet but I can't find any fossils of its skin. However, I found one website where they said this: The posterior of placoderms, where known, is thinner than expected for the equivalent osteichthyan or shark and generally scale-less, although there are exceptions.

Also on this wikipedia page, Placodermi, it doesn't say specifically that the Arthrodira (Dunkleosteus is an Arthrodira) had scales. And because none of the other Dunkleosteus restorations have scales I'll just try to erase them. Triangulum (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The head of Dunkleosteus would have likely been quite a bit fleshier than most popular art suggests. The bony plating and big gnashers may have been hidden under skin. Take a look at lungfish, which have a skull very similar to Dunkleosteus which is practically invisible under fat and muscle. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation and I didn't bring my laptop with me, so I will work on the restoration when I get back. Thanks for your feedback, I'll see what I can do. Please let me know what you think when I've uploaded the newer version. Triangulum (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I FINALLY edited the Dunkleosteus. Any thougts? Triangulum (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That looks pretty realistic to me with the skin. Is there anything on lips or is that a stretch, like how much tooth would be visible?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m glad you like it! I do not know for sure, but I think the fossils of Dunkleosteus don’t show any skin. So I think everyone is just guessing what its lips would have looked like. I might be totally wrong though! Maybe Fanboyphilosopher can give an opinion on the reconstruction. Triangulum (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that it looks very well done. The dorsal fin and overall texturing certainly look less "digital", and I think there is the exact right amount of flesh over the skull. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you! And now one more thing: How about gills? I guess the dunkleosteus had gills, right? Should I take a look at that? Triangulum (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Can the image be added to the Dunkleosteus page? If yes, where in the article? If no, what should I change to make it better? Triangulum (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it has passed review. It can probably replace the Nobu Tamura life restoration. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Updating Gorgonops torvus reconstruction from 2008

Updated Gorgonops Torvus, original art by Dmitry Bogdanov

A palaeoart trope in many stem-mammal reconstructions is to expose the teeth and parts of the skull, nothing seems to suggest that these animals have these features. So, I've done an edit of this G. Torvus reconstruction that removed these emaciated features and I want to know yours thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... that's pretty nice. You may even want to sheath the canines, it seems reasonable enough: [91]. Shrink-wrapping is annoying since the nares and other fenestrae are not visible even on shrink-wrapped animals like crocodiles, so I fully support their removal. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Mark Witton and his article did inspire me, although I must admit that I haven't read that article in sometime. I'll probably edit those canines out, I initially left them out because I thought they were similar to Tasmanian Devils, but clouded leopards might be a better analog. I hope to do this with other Synapsid genera, many are in dire need of some updates. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have sheathed the canines and removed the pointy chin, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice - I strongly support some realistic padding, that shrinkwrapped coyote from All Yesterdays continues to haunt my dreams... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. By the way, I think that it's a cat(!), not a coyote. The "explanation" for their association with humans is that "the killer Cats wandered into their lairs before slaughtering their hapless victims." (pg. 73). Someone could use this art technique to make quite a terrifying movie. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, and gorgonopsian teeth are probably short enough that they could have been covered. I don't buy the idea of covered Smilodon teeth, though, that whole "enamel needs to be hydrated" theory was bogus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't a supporter of that idea for Smilodon either, unless it had a big chin pouch, but that seems more likely for Barbourofelids or Thylacosmilids. I'll start working on other Synapsid reconstructions with similar features. Monsieur X (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a huge task, though! Since we don't know whether these guys had exposed teeth or not, there might be other images that need fixing more urgently, but it's of course your call. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously those are also high priority, but I have a lot of free time at the moment and I want to fix some reconstructions based on some more well known genera as well. Monsieur X (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely considering working on some gorgonopsids once I'm done doing mosasaurs. There are quite a few genera that lack life restorations, and not many hidden-toothed restorations of these guys on the wiki. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Now we're at gorgonopsians, I drew this image years ago (was reviewed here[92]), and I'm kind of not sure whether the eggs were a good idea. The specimen it was based on has also since been moved to another genus, which is kind of annoying, and you can see the head is quite more elongated than in other specimens (though none of the specimens look identical). Any thoughts? I see only the tips of the fangs are exposed, fortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Phoberodon life restoration

I just made a life restoration of the odontocete Phoberodon which was previously assigned to Squalodontidae but might not be a squalodontid according to Viglino et al. (2018).Extrapolaris (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Looks a little... Rough? Simple line art is fine, but the proportions should at least match the fossils. Compared with the skeleton here[93], there is a good deal of issues (size and shape of head, teeth, eye, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Parabalaenoptera life restoration

A life restoration of the primitive rorqual Parabalaenoptera

I just created a life restoration of the primitive balaenopterid Parabalaenoptera and I want you to consult Nobu Tamura to see if he wants to make some adjustments to the restoration so he can make a life restoration of Parabalaenoptera.Extrapolaris (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

In very rough terms this fits alright with the anatomy I would expect, but it doesn't meet the minimum standard requirement of being usable due to its very unfinished or simple appearance. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries

Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries until 2007

The timeline is outdated and should be updated because it doesn't include new specimens reported by Foth et al. (2014) and Rauhut et al. (2018).Extrapolaris (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Request: Carcinosoma restoration

If anyone is interested in restoring a eurypterid, a restoration of the currently GA-nominated Carcinosoma is needed. I would have just put together a line drawing as I have done with other eurypterids (such as Ciurcopterus and Brachyopterus) but Carcinosoma is unique in that (1) its entire family is lacking restorations with the exception of colorless drawings made with a top or bottom view and more importantly (2) that we actually know the pattern and color of one species of Carcinosoma (C. newlini) which should make a color restoration important.

The article should contain enough reference images of fossils and body parts to allow for a restoration and there is a description of its inferred coloration and pattern as well. There are also several restorations of Carcinosoma that can easily be found through google images for inspiration but beware that these seem to almost exclusively actually depict the closely related Eusarcana (one obvious difference being that Eusarcana had a scorpion-like stinger and Carcinosoma did not). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems you could actually make one by stitching the three fold-out pages here together: https://archive.org/stream/CUbiodiversity414805-8541/#page/n121/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems the cropped infobox image is also a mistake, the original isn't cropped: https://archive.org/stream/CUbiodiversity414805-8541/#page/n118/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the case with other images from that source, could be worth a check up. Seems they are all available in higher res than what has previously been uploaded to Commons in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Some proper artwork was what I was getting at here but making the images in question not have a cropped out telson would of course be good too and I could have a crack it. Looks like the telsons have been reconstructed wrongly in those images though (not surprising considering they were made in 1912), leaving out the "post-telson" it seems to have had.Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded the full version of the taxobox image. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it would be good to have some reconstruction to show its color as well, might have to see if I can find some artist willing to do it elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Apokryltaros or Triangulum? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I may be able to put one together: we have some good images of the original fossils?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We've put all the images of Carcinosoma fossils in this category on commons. In particular, these images should be of use: 1 and 2 (both seem to be part fossil and part reconstruction). The telson (tail spike) of the second image has been reconstructed wrongly and should look somewhat like in this sketch; 3. The article contains a description of its inferred coloration. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Carcinosoma size diagram

This one was tougher!

Here it is!

Add J. howelli

Because why not?

A little different...

Carcinosoma could also use a size diagram, there are measurements for all species in the article (with seven species of varying size assigned to the genus depicting several would probably be best) though I'm not sure if depicting the smallest one (20 cm long) is possible on account of the size of the largest (2.2 m long). Either this or this might be useful for creating a silhouette, with the telson (tail spike and such) being based on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll do this sometime soon maybe today but most likely tomorrow. I assume that the species would all look more or less identical from above? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Yes, the main difference between them lies in how pronounced the serration is on parts of the swimming leg but it would look virtually identical in a diagram since it's barely visible in the fossils without looking close. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Here it is! I was unsure of some aspects, such as telson size, torso width, spine shape, etc., so I hope that this is acceptable. And man, C. punctatum's one heck of a eurypterid! By the way, I'm wondering if maybe it's time to further divide the eurypterid size comparison category on commons? It's getting pretty crowded with all of the images you and Super Dromaeosaurus have requested, making it the group of invertebrates with the most size comparisons of all, in fact, probably more than half of all our invertebrate size diagrams are now of eurypterids! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks great! The aspects you mention look to be right in the diagram referencing with reconstructions in papers and the fossil images we have available. Dividing it a bit is a good idea, I have created new superfamily-level categories which should work. Of course most ended up in the "Pterygotioidea size comparisons" category but that category is now also "complete" unless new genera are described. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Slate Weasel: An idea; maybe you could do a size chart of some select giant eurypterids (in the vein of this)? Your size charts already cover the largest species, e.g;

• Jaekelopterus rhenaniae (2.5 m), in this size chart.
• Carcinosoma punctatum (2.2 m), in this size chart.
• Acutiramus bohemicus (2.1 m), in this size chart.
• Acutiramus macrophthalmus (2.0 m), not in a size chart, but just needs a slightly smaller Acutiramus silhouette.
• Pterygotus grandidentatus (1.75 m), in this size chart.
• Pentecopterus decorahensis (1.7 m), in this size chart. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, I was just thinking about this too! I'll get to work on it as soon as I can. Also, for every eurypterid I make, I give it its own unique color, which is a tint/shade of the base genus color, which makes compiling them together much easier! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, is Erettopterus grandis worth inclusion or should I just leave it out (since its size is somewhat dubious). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally support this idea. Yes, I think we should also add the hypothetical Erettopterus grandis (2.5 m, size chart), as well as Megalograptus shiderleri (2 m, no size chart). Super Ψ Dro 11:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I would leave out both Erettopterus grandis (not talked about in the paper that declared Jaekelopterus the biggest which is odd, seems woefully under-researched) and Megalograptus shideleri (2 m size estimate seems to be wrong) for now. If the situation with either is cleared up, they could both be added later anyway, right? The list I put up here should be good for now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Super Ψ Dro 11:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Here it is! Also, I'm wondering if J. howelli should be added to my Jaekelopterus size comparison, as it's known from good material. By the way, what's the next focus for eurypterid expansion, now that Pterygotioidea's nearly/almost complete? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice! J. howelli could be added, yeah. I do not have a huge focus at the moment but as I've already done 2 of the Carcinosomatoidea I think I'm going to keep working on them and I might be doing stuff with the main Eurypterid article as well (where I have added your new diagram). Judging by Super Dromaeosaurus's latest ones I think it is safe to say that most of the expansion efforts are within the Diploperculata suborder (which includes Pterygotioidea, Carcinosomatoidea and two other superfamilies) for now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the giant Hibbertopterus scouleri should also be included since there are only eurypterines. The exact size seems to be unknown, but it was a little less than 2 m. It would be enough for a separate size chart since the size of H. hibernicus is unknown. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Could definitely be added. Because Hibbertopterus and its relatives are unusually three-dimensional by eurypterid standards, it might be helpful to have a view from the top to work with when adding it to the "giant eurypterids" diagram, there is one on page 565 of this paper (figure F). If you make one for just Hibbertopterus as well, I would actually (for once) recommend a side view due to how deep-bodied it is (this should be accomplishable by basing it off the restoration in the Hibbertopterus article and perhaps also this image from a 2008? paper). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have created a size comparison of Orcanopterus, so all families in Diploperculata now have a size comparison. And thanks for the barnstar! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Here's a Hibbertopterus. I'd sort of been obsessing with the idea of creating a size comparison for this guy, the only thing holding me back was the lack of images, but with that out of the way, here it is! I used a different format for this one. It seems really awkward in shape and too short lengthwise. The carapace also seems to be considerably larger than 65 cm. Any advice? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The silhouettes look good and the shape should be right (Hibbertopterids were unusually short and broad). The "almost 2 meter" estimate is from 2008 so should be accurate which is weird if this does not match up with a 65 cm wide carapace, especially as the top-view reconstruction of Hibbertopterus was published by the same author as the almost 2 meter estimate. This should be fine though as "65 cm wide carapace" is the only true measurement we have. Could this be added to the mega-eurypterids chart? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So the current silhouette is accurate? Also, can this potentially be turned into Campylocephalus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The lateral view should not have the walking legs in that position, it seems that the animal is swimming when the stylonurids were terrestrial animals. I think the 2008 image that Ichthyovenator linked could be used to correct this. But apart from this, yes, it is accurate and could be used for Campylocephalus. Super Ψ Dro 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Correction; Stylonurines were not terrestrial (above water) animals. Hibbertopterus itself was not very good at moving in a non-watery habitat (as discussed in the now expanded Eurypterid article under "Locomotion"), they probably spent most of their time in water but were capable of short periods of time in terrestrial environments. Other than that, yes the legs of Hibbertopterus would probably not be in that position normally (something as heavy as Hibbertopterus probably couldn't swim) but I think it's fine as it is directly based on a figure in a 2011 paper and that it keeps the pose the same as all the other eurypterids in their size diagrams, which would help make it seamlessly fit in with others in compilation size diagrams (such as the mega-eurypterids one). The body of this silhouette should probably work for Campylocephalus as well, but the carapace of Campylocephalus doesn't look like it was as broad. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to at least one not so posterior position, but I suppose that in this case it is valid. Thanks for the correction. By the way, the telson in Campylocephalus seems to be somewhat longer than in Hibbertopterus and the pretelson (12th segment) is noticeably different. The second pair of appendages is also strangely different (following this). Super Ψ Dro 09:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that the dorsal view of the Hibbertopterus could be excused as the animal just laying on the seafloor, but I'll see what I can do for the lateral view. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this look like its walking or is it just weird? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The inferred walking "pose" is what was in the 2008 image (legs positioned forwards, tail-dragging), the dorsal view is fine but if you're going for a walking pose in the lateral view it might need to be amended. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be better just to delete the legs from the lateral view? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would you delete them? I think either they should be as before (same pose as in the dorsal view) which would be completely fine in my opinion or the lateral view needs some more edits. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A dorsal restoration is not the same as a lateral restoration, the artists most of the time try to make the appendages visible dorsally, this is the case with all the dorsal restorations that I have seen so far. I would not erase the appendages nor return them to their original state, for me the best thing would be to try to reproduce the image of 2008. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Does this look more like it's walking (as opposed to crashing down a slope? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I forgot to take a look at this page. I think it looks better, but the legs should be less straight. It has occurred to me to leave the legs in a way that seems to be hanging, maybe that would make it easier? Super Ψ Dro 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Nundasuchus

This low quality and strangely drawn restoration of Nundasuchus is concerning. 2001:569:782B:7A00:28D8:7D68:B793:B05B (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It certainly isn't easy to the eyes, but could it maybe be fixed with some edits? FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The quality is acceptable to me, albeit a bit unusual in terms of lighting. It seems to be based on the silhouette published in the Nundasuchus paper. There's not really enough conclusive info about Nundasuchus to really remove the image for accuracy-based reasonings, as it could be anything from a Ticinosuchus-grade suchian to an ornithosuchid-grade basal pseudosuchian. I might expand the article within the next month, so I may have more to say once I start on that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hard to see, but the claws seem to be taking up too much of the finger length. The osteoderms seem a bit cartoonish, but who knows. The background could certainly need to be wiped... FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Decuriasuchus

• The pose reminds me of this Decuriasuchus image I encountered that has never been reviewed, but probably needs some editing too. Again, the claws take up to much of the finger length, there is a signature on top of the animal, and other parts seem a bit wonky too. But seems salvageable. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed proportions. Paleocolour ❯❯❯ Talk 22:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Two Dimetrodon reconstructions from Commons

• 
• 

I found these on commons. I'm not sure about the accuracy of first one, due to its age. However, the last one is definitely inaccurate as it's missing digits! Monsieur X (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything made by the author of the last one is inaccurate, so they should pretty much all be tagged. As for the first image, the main problem is that it doesn't state which species is depicted, so it is hard to use, especially since we have so many other, better images... Not sure if it is that inaccurate, but it may need the sail pulled a bit back. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, seems it is labelled as D. limbatus here:[94] FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the shape of the animal's torso in Ryanz's image looks like a disposable water bottle that someone stepped on. The sail isn't even made by the vertebral spines. I think that this image is beyond any hope of being editable into something useful. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I must say the new colour of the left one's sail looks more unnatural than the original one, almost neon-like, and with terrible compression artefacts... FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Slimonidae Size Comparison

One more.

Excellent job on getting Pterygotiodea to GT, Ichthyovenator and Super Dromaeosaurus. To honor this occasion, I give you a belated size comparison for Slimonidae, the last article in the superfaily (besides Necrogammarus) to not have a size comparison. It's an older one, so it might not be the most accurate one I've ever made. Is it acceptable? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs)

Thank you very much! It looks good to me. Super Ψ Dro 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! On a stylistic note, is it possible to change the color/shade of Salteropterus as the small size combined with the light color makes it a bit difficult to make out? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't recommend too bright neon colors on a white background for size comparisons, it's rather unpleasent on the eyes and makes the outlines of the animals harder to make out. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Salteropterus also somehow looks blurry. I'm not sure of its sizing either does it match well with the diagram I made earlier? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be 15 cm now. Any more problems or is it ready for the article now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Could a second colour other than a similar green be selected? I can't tell which one is which at all. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Westlothiana and Hylonomus Size Comparisons

• 
  Westlothiana
• 
  Hylonomus

A bit of an odd section, granted, but basal amniotes could use some love (and I could use a "W"). Are there any modern non-DP skeletals of these guys? If not, an old Hylonomus skeletal should suffice. Is the skeletal at the bottom here: [95] good for Westlothinana (I don't even have a clue to what Peters restored it as...)? Fanboyphilosopher may, know, as he seems to have been expanding the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Curse it, that one was also by Peters. Are there any other skeletals of Westlothiana? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably in some technical papers, but someone with an overview of the literature probably knows best. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Peters Westlothiana is not that awful, it just could use a bit more flesh on the top and bottom of the torso. Using its proportions should be fine, and then you can use other skulls and different limb views. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems like people are in need of someone familiar with Westlothiana's technical literature, and I'm happy to help. Westlothiana hasn't been considered a basal amniote since before 1993. It's probably a basal lepospondyl instead. Also, Peters steals many of "his" skeletals from the literature. The palaeos skeletal is directly copied from Robert Caroll's, as featured in "Westlothiana lizziae from the Viséan of East Kirkton, West Lothian, Scotland, and the amniote stem" by Smithson et al. (1993). It's a pretty good skeletal complete with scale bar, so Peters' reuse isn't problematic. If you want the original source, you can find it on sci-hub with the doi 10.1017/S0263593300006192 Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the size comparison of Westlothiana. Hylonomus will be delivered soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The limbs (particularly the front ones) seem a bit thin for a supposed skink-like burrower. I'd assume that the body would be more sprawling in posture, and that the tail would lay flat on the ground rather than stay in the air its whole length. I also think that the 20cm estimate for total length is a bit underestimated considering that the tail is incomplete. 20 cm is a good ballpark if it had a short-ish tail (as Smithson and others may have assumed). However, in Carroll's skeletal reconstruction the vertebrae don't taper off in height, so a long tail seems more likely in my reckoning. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I did the updates that you recommended (I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who thought that the leopard gecko style tail looked pretty weird). Is this old skeletal good for Hylonomus: [96] (in addition to the skull in the article). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. All of the small reptiliomorphs/early amniotes kind of look the same anyways. I haven't done much research on Hylonomus, so I can't give you many details the same way I could with Westlothiana Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the Hylonomus. Is it accurate? And, by the way, do you know of any good Vancleavea skeletals? (I think that I found my "V") --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't vouch for issues with Hylonomus, but it looks good in a general sense. As for Vancleavea, try figure 20 of this [97] source. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Clidastes Size Comparison

Life-sized

I've returned to mosasaurs, and I've create this scale diagram for Clidastes. Is it accurate? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If there's nothing wrong with this image I'll probably add it to the article sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 00:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A Mixopterus image

I recently asked the author of a restoration of Mixopterus kiaeri from DeviantArt (link) if I could upload his image to Wikipedia and he said yes, but I do not know what license to add in these cases and I have also heard something about removing signatures. Can someone help me in this? Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You would have to ask him to change it to a free, commercial CC license. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to get the copyright holder to send a permission statement (declaring they’re changing the license to a free license) over email to the OTRS Board at [email protected], but seeing it’s on DeviantArt, it’s probably just easier to ask him to change the license to CC-BY and then upload   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, he has not responded so I guess he doesn't want the image to be here. Thanks to both for responding. Super Ψ Dro 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of eurypterid restorations, this Slimonia image[98] was never reviewed, is it accurate, Super Dromaeosaurus and Ichthyovenator? Perhaps all other unreviewed eurypterid restorations should be added here for evaluation. If wrong, we can try to modify them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At first glance it looks good, maybe the second pair of appendages could be slightly more backwards (like here) but I think it is not so necessary. I do not know if all or some of the appendages had spines. Ichthyovenator knows more about the slimonids. And yes, I think that a review of all the restorations would not be bad. Super Ψ Dro 22:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If not all (many of them are probably fine), at least the ones that seem "suspicious". Those that are beyond fixing should be tagged as inaccurate, so they are not used on other Wikipedias. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• On this note, is there any most wanted eurypterid restoration you need, Super Dromaeosaurus and Ichthyovenator? Because I've never restored an arthropod for Wikipedia... And any request for its colouration? FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is of course Carcinosoma (particularly interesting since its coloration is known) though I'm unsure if that was being worked on by someone else already. Other than that there are several superfamilies with limited images, particularly the Waeringopteroidea, Onychopterelloidea and the Kokomopteroidea. The Moselopteroidea (Moselopterus, Stoermeropterus and Vinetopterus) don't have any images at all. I was planning on expanding Stoermeropterus eventually and since there are loads of reference images (fossils and reconstructions) available in a paper, that one might interest you? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course, now I remember you had requested Carcinosoma already. Pinging Apokryltaros (who responded to the earlier request) to see if he has already begun it, otherwise I'll take it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I practically forgot until now, gomen. For Carcinosoma, what improvements should I make to this?-Mr Fink (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The body looks accurate but the telson and the limbs need adjustments. The telson is not curved and scorpion-like as depicted (this is true for its previously synonymized close relative Eusarcana, Carcinosoma is different) but would have this structure (seen in scale with the rest of the body in this size comparison). The swimming paddles look to be right but the other limbs (first 4 pairs) need to be adjusted, this should be good to go after. The limbs (other than the first pair) go from long to short rather than short to long as depicted and the distribution of spines is different. There should also be four full pairs of spiny appendages (though the first pair were small) rather than 3. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if Apokryltaros saw this answer? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late, yes, I would like a restoration of Bassipterus virginicus as I have commented on the GA review page. This one could be complicated, but the genus is very well known and described in detail in its original description. It could be based on Parahughmilleria since they were very similar. Super Ψ Dro 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so that's number one on the request list after Carcinosoma? I might take that then. Any links to good life restorations? Any request for colour scheme? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If I base Bassipterus on Parahughmilleria, Super Dromaeosaurus, what differences should it have from that genus? The article has a lot of images already, and not even a size diagram yet, so I wonder how much room there is left in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The prosoma could be based on this Pittsfordipterus image, since it is its closest relative. The eyes (of Bassipterus) were very long and narrow, as in Pittsfordipterus. The ocelli were placed immediately below the eyes, and perhaps the eyes could be very slightly closer to the ocelli than in Pittsfordipterus. The shape of the carapace was more or less the same as in Pittsfordipterus, but the marginal rim was not that big (my restoration is wrong in that aspect). Since Bassipterus was a more basal genus than Parahughmilleria, it probably had the walking legs (second to fifth appendages) of Hughmilleria-type (with a single pair of short spines on each podomere, here is a restoration of Hughmilleria). The chelicerae would not be visible in a dorsal view. We already have a restoration of the swimming leg. The rest of the podomeres would not be visible due of the carapace. The mesosoma (first to sixth segments) was tapered. The first segment was narrower than the rest. The metasoma (seventh to twelfth segments) followed the taperation of the mesosoma. Practically the same as in Parahughmilleria. It should be noted that all the adelophthalmids had an epimera (a kind of "spikes" that protrude from the seventh segment, are not very well appreciated in the restoration of Parahughmilleria, so maybe these two of Nanahughmilleria or Adelophthalmus could be more useful). Finally, the telson had the shape of a dagger and a keel in the dorsal part (again, it is better seen in the one of Nanahughmilleria). The original description is full of measures that could be useful, for example the width of most segments. I do not know if you have access to it, if not, I will publish here all the useful measures. I think we could replace the terrible image of the metastoma with that of the restoration, so there is no problem with that. Super Ψ Dro 11:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Eldeceeon life restoration

Eldeceeon

Even though Dmitry Bogdanov is (or was) Wikipedia's most prominent Palaeozoic artist, I noticed that he did miss this specific Carboniferous animal. It's obscure but also interesting, and the article deserves some kind of image to compete against the Dave Peters renderings clogging up google images. I really wanted to base the coloration off of a Yonahlossee salamander, but I never liked how it turned out, so instead I used a red tegu as a basis. Any issues? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Could use a bit of shading on the underside, and make a change so the claws look like claws and not finger extensions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure if Eldeceeon had claws. Its distal phalanges are unknown and other "reptiliomorphs" are inconsistent. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't say anything qualified about this (looks nice), but since you mentioned it, DBogdanov still occasionaly uploads restorations, using two different accounts.[99][100] FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but he's not as regular as he once was. To answer IJReid's request, by shading do you mean providing a shadow, or does the throat need more depth? The dark feet were a coloration choice, not a consequence of shading, if it seems weird that they looked to have a shadow but the belly did not. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean adding shading to all aspect of the restoration to give it a more realistic "3D" feel. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've added shading and shine. I admit I'm not that great at it, and I was deliberately trying to avoid a "slimy" look, but I hope that it looks okay. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the shine is ok; as long as there is a discernible scaly surface, I don't think people would confuse it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing, reptiliomorphs were probably neither scaly or slimy. Their scales were likely embedded in the skin, which would have been rough-textured by itself. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok, there seem to be some large, hexagonal scales or similar in the image. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just a texture I put in to give the skin kind of a 'knobbly' look. I switched to a new illustration software, so I'm still working out the kinks. Overall I'm pretty happy with the result, though I could see how someone would mistake it for scalation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps too late now, but might be a good idea to make them smaller another time. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the texture would allow that, but there seems to be a lot of customization available, so I can look over the possibilities once I have time. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Lisowicia

So seems we've had a restoration of the new giant dicynodont Lisowicia since 2008. The image appears to have been based on a skeletal in a preliminary report[101], which doesn't show as much known material as the new description. So at firs glance, the tail seems too long. And what's the current thinking on dicynodont hair? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, Lisowicia is the size of a large elephant, so whether or not other, smaller dicynodonts had fur, it would seem to me that the safer bet for it to be depicted as hairless. I think the general consensus among synapsid researchers has generally been that dicynodonts were probably not furry, so I would consider hairless interpretations more appropriate for Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is an unpublished Lystrosaurus "mummy" which shows hairless skin and possible scales, confirming the conventional interpretation. I'm also working on a reconstruction of Lisowicia on my own, so if a new reconstruction of it is needed, I might upload mine for review. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I think I can fix the image pretty easily. FunkMonk (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This one is also free[102], so maybe we should spare the work... FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Xenocyon lycanoides illustration

Build based on this outline. Colour partially based on this near monochromatic Lycaon pictus specimen. Not sure about first metacarpal (dewclaw), as it is absent in Lycaon. Also planning to do illustration of Cynotherium sardous. Any advice on possible colouration, considering its mediterrannean island habitat? Mariomassone (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think William Harris is the one to ping! FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@William Harris: Mariomassone (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

'morning lads. We will not know what its colouration was until someone manages to extract DNA from an ancient fossil, which may take decades. Its probable descendents, the Asian dhole and the African hunting dog, might provide illumination - colourings are very unlike each other and therefore are adaptations to the local environment, so I would lean towards Mario's point on Mediterranean shades. The outline appears to be ultimately derived from that used by Mauricio Antón along with Wang & Tedford in their classic book Dogs: Their fossil relatives and evolutionary history, so the outline is sound. He also illustrates the large prehistoric canids with a tendency towards the tan colours, so the offered illustration is sound. Good work, M. William Harris • (talk) • 20:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Request: Hesperocyon size chart

Here are the templates:

• 
  Hesperocyon. Shoulder height is said to be 20 cm according to Tedford and Wang 2008, but this illustration is shown crouched.
• 
  Something more or less like this maybe?
• 
  Size comparison

Mariomassone (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Mariomassone, I have created it. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's just what I've been waiting for. It's perfect. Thank you! Mariomassone (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Request: Onychopterella size diagram

Done

I need a size diagram for Onychopterella. One of the three species (O. pumilus) may not belong to the genus, so mark it as dubious. O. pumilus measured 4 cm, O. augusti measured 7 cm and O. kokomoensis measured 16 cm. Images for the silhouette: [103]. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this, it's been awhile since the last time I did a eurypterid diagram! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 18:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that you wrote "pumilis" instead of "pumilus". Can you please fix that? Super Ψ Dro 18:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It is fixed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Now looks fine. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)