Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[7], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Nasutoceratops, Gremlin

Nasutoceratops

Gremlin

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As with the Gremlin immediately above, if the frontal ridge is present I don't see it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion Nasutoceratops looks correct, but I can't imagine how this ridge can be presented on a reconstruction. Aventadoros (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just checking, UnexpectedDinoLesson, did you take into account the known skin-impressions from the forelimb of Nasutoceratops? Can be seen here (f, g, and h):[8] Also, would be good to add citations to the description, as I will submit the article to FAC soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was aware of the known skin impressions, but didn't go into that level of detail on this full-body reconstruction. I use a pattern layered over each main body part (head, torso, legs, etc.), which do vary in size between each other, but since I'm not specifically focusing on minor variations in individual scales, it doesn't seem worth the amount of work that would take with my style/technique. I realize the resolution allows for individual scales to be visible, but I don't think people generally look that closely at it in a full-body reconstruction.

  If you think it's necessary that I add that level of detail to this particular piece, let me know. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would just check that the size and shape of the scales in your pattern are consistent with the known impressions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the level of the detail is already there, it just has to conform with the fossils, at least in the parts where the exact pattern is known. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Another thing, UnexpectedDinoLesson, why is the tail of the Nasutoceratops so short? It is pretty long in the official skeletal[9], and I assume this is because the tails of centrosaurines were generally longer than those of chasmosaurines, but the tail here looks more like those of the latter. Maybe Slate Weasel who made the scale diagram has input. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with ceratopsians, but the tail on the Nasutoceratops skeletal might be a bit on the long side, compared to Centrosaurus. Granted, even following Centrosaurus, I think it still probably should be somewhat longer here, roughly approximating from this skeleton suggests that caudal length is about equal to dorsosacral length. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tail of Nasutoceratops has a good length. In fact, centrosaurines have longer tails than chasmosaurines and this may have been due to the size of the skulls. Centrosaurines had shorter and weaker frills than chasmosaurines, which must have had better developed muscles at the front of the body. Aventadoros (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops integument matches scale size shown here [10], and I've added citation to the description. It seems we mostly agree the tail is ok, so I've left it as is. If I need to make it longer, let me know. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson, as far as I could see, both SW and Aventadoros indicate it should be longer, but just not as long as in the skeletal. But I'm not sure if Aventadoros was referring to the skeletal or the life restoration in their comment? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The length of the tail of the Centrosaurus specimen of YMP 2015 on the Randomdinos [11] reconstruction is 200 cm, which is about 40% of the total body length. I also calculated the tail length for AMNH 5351 and also came up with a value of 40% of the whole body. So let's assume that the tail in centrosaurines is 40% of the whole body length. While this is easier to show on a skeletal reconstruction, it will be more difficult to show on a life reconstruction. Yes, the tail may be gently longer, but by exaggeration as shown in the publication by Sampson et al. (2013). Aventadoros (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened tail to match proportions [12] UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I will soon nominate its article for GAN and FAC, so its accuracy is important. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• UnexpectedDinoLesson, also see Jens Lallensack's comment at the Nasutoceratops GAN: "Midline epiparietals are otherwise only known in chasmosaurines – The life reconstruction also seems to show epiossifications along the suture between squamosal and parietal, which would result in five rows of epiossifications. Is there any evidence for that? I don't see them in the reconstructions from the paper." FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In adittion to this, I think the restoration should more clearly indicate the squamosal ridge which is a defining feature of Nasutoceratopsini, which is clearly shown in these diagrams:[13][14] I'm also not sure about the way the small nasal horn seems to be depicted as merging into a ridge over the premaxilla; the sources only show the nasal horn being restricted to the short bump, and the pachyrhinosaurin-like interpretation here seems to be unpublished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The nasal horn is small and repositioned as it should be, but it merges with a structure called the rostral nasal scale and thus appears so large. If this makes the nasal horn appear too large then maybe separate it? Rostal nasal scales are also seen in other centrosaurines.

[15] Aventadoros (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Rostral scales are fine, there is just no reason to show them blending with the nasal horn. FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So the best option would be to separate the nasal horn from the scales. Aventadoros (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression was that those were not meant to be epiossifications, but the supraorbital/squamosal scale row seen in centrosaurines: [16] But perhaps it could be recoloured? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a different colour would avoid confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed squamosal epiossifications, and emphasized squamosal ridge; separated nasal horn from rostral nasal scales. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

These structures that were previously between the squamosal and the parietal bone were scales, not epiossifications. In my opinion, they can be placed on the squamosal similar to this reconstruction [17]. It also includes the characteristic ridge on the squamosal and the scales themselves. After all, there was a 2009 study that showed the presence of these structures in centrosaurines. Aventadoros (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The confusion was mainly due to the colour being the same as in the epiossifications, yeah, so try to give them a different colour if they are returned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffrent colour for squamosal and parietal scales is a good idea. I think they should come back, but similar as reconstruction I posted above. Rostal nasal scales should also return, but should not contact the nasal corner. As you also pointed out earlier the claws should be blunted.

By the way here I will also touch on the tail of Menefeeceratops. Dalman et al. (2021) based their creation of the Menefeeceratops skeleton on the Nasutoceratops skeleton from the publication by Sampson et al. (2013), making the tail of Menefeeceratops have strange proportions. It should be erect like that of Nasutoceratops, in addition, the claws should also be blunted in Nasutoceratops, and the scales should be given a different colour so that they are no longer confused with the epiossifications.

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops - toe claws blunted, squamosal and parietal scales returned with color change.

Menefeeceratops - toe claws blunted, made tail erect, squamosal and parietal scales color changed UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In Menefeeceratops I would else change the appearance of the jugal along with the epijual to a more triangular appearance similar to that of Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry to keep harping on this, UnexpectedDinoLesson, but the midline bar of the Nasutoceratops frill only had five undulations, whereas you show a lot more, so they should have the same distribution and size as in the skull diagram:[18] Other changes look nice. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  FunkMonk, these are not undulations but scales 🙂. See also the region already above the rostral, small undulations are visible there. It's good visible im figure 1D in Lund et. al 2016. My impression is that during life there may have been rostal nasal scales similar to those in the 2009 study, but they did not contact the nasal horn in Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

But the "official" artwork doesn't depict these as scales but as individual bumps, see:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have seen the "official" graphic and it is, in my opinion, the best in terms of reproducing the details. Compare still the same areas near the rostral in Nasutoceratops and Centrosaurus. If you don't see the similarities, let it stay as it is currently. [20][21]

By the way, I will bring up Menefeeceratops again, this time its squamosal. Don't you think it should have the ridge that was previously added in Nasutoceratops? It is under C [22] Aventadoros (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That diagram confirms what I said, though; it shows five such scales, corresponding to the five undulations on the skull. Problem is our restoration shows about ten of such scales, with completely different sizes than what's indicated by the undulations on the actual skull. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that scales in midline parietal line should be corrected. Check also rostal region Centrosaurus and Nasutoceratops whether they are similar, because Centrosaurus had rostral nasal scale. Some reconstructions of the related Furcatoceratops are depicted with these scales.

In my opinion Menefeeceratops shoud have this ridge in squamosal [23]. Also I would correct epijugal, it should be more triangular, similar to that of Nasutoceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Midline bar of frill updated to have five undulations, reflecting Zimmerman reconstruction [24]. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks better! If you can correct also Menefeeceratops jugal with epijugal such has your Nasutoceratops and add squamosal ridge shown in the graphic below, marked C [25]. These will be the last corrections for Menefeeceratops and I apologise for constantly reminding you of them. The ridge is marked with red lines.Aventadoros (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Menefeeceratops squamosal ridge added, jugal adjusted to resemble Nasutoceratops. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

T. rex, Sinotyrannus, Gigantoraptor, Brachiosaurus

• 
  Tyrannosaurus
• 
  Sinotyrannus
• 
  Gigantoraptor
• 
  Brachiosaurus

Please review for accuracy. Specifically, fuzz on back of T. rex neck? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

T. rex fuzz is plausible and I don't see any issue there. We don't have any skin impressions from the neck or back of Tyrannosaurus. Both fuzzy and scaly are equally likely imo. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The fuzz on Tyrannosaurus for me is acceptable, most importantly it is not completely feathered. Aventadoros (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Gigantoraptor, the head crest is a little speculative in my opinion, because its a stem-caenagnathid and the plesiomorphic condition for oviraptorosaurs is to be crestless, but we don't have the skull so it could go either way. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

the neck and tail musculature on the brachiosaurus look a little strange. it also looks almost overstretched horizontally. the gigantoraptor having a full feather coat seems unlikely based on size, i feel display feathers on the arms and tail and thin fuzz over the rest of the body is a more plausible integument. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would change the Sinotyrannus, based off what we know from Yutyrannus we can likely say that Sinotyrannus was fully covered in feathers. Also the face would have less of a nasal crest and more pointed lacrimal crests like how Yutyrannus does SirBlameson (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sinotyrannus updated. I hope the shaggy look is ok! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Seems there are still unaddressed issues in this section, UnexpectedDinoLesson. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking of, what skeletal is the Brachiosaurus based on? The Morrison Man (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  My Brachiosaurus is based on Hartman's Brachiosaurus, Hartman's Giraffatitan, Bivens' Brachiosaurus, and Bivens' Lusotitan. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why not just base it off the Brachiosaurus skeletals? Just curious The Morrison Man (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  In order to avoid copyright issues, I always try to take parts from as many different samples as possible, to come up with my own original shape. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's great, but just make sure it isn't done at the cost of less accurate anatomy. Lusotitan may very well not even be a brachiosaurid. There isn't anything known from it that would really be informative when reconstructing Brachiosaurus. Keep in mind that a skeletal reconstruction (especially for a fragmentary taxon like Lusotitan) is one artist's interpretation of an animal's skeletal anatomy—you have to look at what we actually know. Since there are gaps in our knowledge of the skeletal structure of Brachiosaurus, it makes sense to go to a close relative to fill those in (in which case Giraffatitan would probably be the best option, being relatively complete). But don't skip to a distant relative to "come up with your own original shape". Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx zoui new restoration

In article

New

Hello everyone, slowly making a comeback. I'm here to discuss a new restoration that I made for Caudipteryx zoui in order to replace the one present in the article. Several aspects of this reconstruction have issues, including the strange depiction of the feathers banding pattern, a countershading body coloration that is not reported in specimens, and the lack of feathers in both first and second hand digits. Comments? I also intend to expand the article a little bit. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson is usually very responsive to proposed fixes, so I'm sure it could be improved. But I can't help but think that since there are two species of Caudipteryx, wouldn't it be nice to label them as different species, so that they can both be used potentially? That could also explain away differences in colouration. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a good explanation for coloration differences. The holotype of C. dongi preserves dark feathers [26] right at the lower area of the shoulder region that presumably extends to the neck and belly. Needless to say that the "wing" feathers are virtually the same as those for many specimens of C. zoui, such as PMOL AD00020 [27]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, any inaccuracies should of course be fixed, but my main point is that we could certainly just retool UDL's into the other species. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything on this, UnexpectedDinoLesson? FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've thickened the body feathers so it's not as skinny-looking as it was. Eliminated the countershading, and updated the banding on the secondary and tail feathers. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx zoui really did not have any secondary feathers. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Multiple specimens of Caudipteryx [28] [29] preserve impressions. There could be multiple reasons regarding why the holotype of C. zoui does not have them, one thing does not negate the other. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Albert Chen (personal communication), multiple specimens do not preserve secondaries. He also says it’s possible that the secondaries were present but simply unpigmented (see here) Atlantis536 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I wasn't aware of such comprehensive analysis! That was a good read, and the presented evidence is quite compelling. The only point in which I differ from Smithwick and the reconstructions by Bob Nicholls is the depiction of feathery feet, as feather impressions are reported as far as the lower-middle tibia. Other than that, these are great news that went unnoticed; I'll be soon making changes to my reconstruction. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Changes made. The color scheme follows the analysis by Smithwick [30]. As it turns out, the best information regarding the color pattern of Caudipteryx is restricted to C. sp. (IVPP V12430) and C. dongi (IVPP V12344), however, the study considers the latter species to be a synonym of C. zoui. Regardless, there seems to be two color morphs, one with depigmented secondaries and uniform primaries (e.g. C. zoui holotype or paratype) and a second with banded secondaries and tip-banded primaries. I choose to depict the second morph because of the variety of features. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bashanosaurus

• 
  Skeletal
• 
  Size
• 
  Armor

(Continuing well from previous topics), after several months of intermittent progress, I am happy to present my illustrations of Bashanosaurus. As those on the Discord server might remember, scaling the fossil material for the skeletal proved to be quite tricky, but I was eventually able to map them all onto a single silhouette. The ribs and dorsal vertebrae are not well-figured or labeled (beside the quarry illustrations), so their placements are largely conjectural. Osteoderm arrangement is similarly speculative. As for the size chart, it ended up a little over the describers' estimate of ~2.8 metres (9.2 ft). As usual, I appreciate any comments and critiques! Thanks, -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If most early stegosaurids from China had shoulder spikes then maybe Bashanosaurus should have them too. Aventadoros (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a fair assumption, but I don’t think it would be appropriate to depict an unpreserved bone in the skeletal where it could significantly obscure known material. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your decision, this being a rigorous skeletal and all. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The only stegosaur from China that is known to have parascapular spines is Gigantspinosaurus. No shoulder spikes are known from any other stegosaurs besides Kentrosaurus and (maybe) Alcovasaurus. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not only did "Gigantspinosaurus" (I wrote this name in inverted commas because it should rigorous be considered nomen nudum) have shoulder spines, but also Yingshanosaurus and Huayangosaurus. Aventadoros (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would Gigantspinosaurus be nomen nudum? I can only imagine you mean Yingshanosaurus, and even then both of them have descriptions. Ddinodan (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus is a nomen nudum, has not been figured, and the specimen's whereabouts are unknown according to Maidment and Wei (2006). Huyangosaurus definitely did not have parascapular spines. No shoulder spines are mentioned in its original description in 1982 or in the re-description in 2006. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus isn't missing though - it's currently on display at the Chongqing Natural History Museum. The material is also figured in its original description - from my understanding, it was listed as not figured and lost in Maidment and Wei (2006) because they didn't have access to the description.

The rediscription of Huayangosaurus also does indeed note parascapular spines from the same horizon as the Huayangosaurus holotype. Ddinodan (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From the 2006 re-description (p. 949-950), "Several parascapular spines have been recovered from the Dashanpu Quarry, but they have not been found in association with either the type specimen or ZDM T7001. Since there is evidence to suggest that there was more than one stegosaur present in the Dashanpu fauna, there are reasonable grounds to doubt the assumption that the parascapular spines are associated with Huayangosaurus." --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. "Huayangosaurus definitely did not have parascapular spines" is not descriptive of that - there are parascapular spines from the horizon (and stegosaur osteoderms are famous for dissociating from well-preserved skeletal remains), it'd be more fair to say 'Huayangosaurus may or may not have parascapular spines'.

Regardless, parascapular spines are known across many stegosaur genera. At the end of this discussion, the speculation on their presence in Bashanosaurus remains unchanged. Ddinodan (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of reconstruction, adding new bones that we have no direct evidence for is inappropriate was my point. I'll concede that "definetely" was hyperbole on my part. Parascapular spines are known from three stegosaur genera. Giving all stegosaurs parascapular spines should not be the default treatment. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Shoulder spikes certainly had Yingshanosaurus, Gigantspinosaurus, Kentrosaurus and Loricatosaurus, so four genera Aventadoros (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Four out of 24, so my point still stands. A comparable number of ceratopsian genera have elongated epiparietals, but we understand that even in taxa where the full skull is not known, it's inappropriate to add extra bones to the reconstruction for the purposes of an encyclopedia. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It would probably also be wise to consider where Bashanosaurus falls phylogenetically in comparison to these other four genera. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• For my expansion of the Bashanosaurus page I also made an illustration of the preserved dermal armor. Since it's more or less taken from the description's figures, there's not much else to say, but I'll leave it here anyway. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Minqaria

Minquaria - new lambeosaurine from Africa. Reconstruction based mainly on Ajnabia.

Please review for accuracy.

Minqaria

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an overlaid diagram showing how the fossil skull matches up to your reconstruction? I'm wondering if the back of the skull could potentially be taller to account for the frontoparietal dome (if I'm reading the description of Arenysaurus right, this seems to be a separate structure posterior to the crest), and the dentary deeper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be a useful reference? The Morrison Man (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

(Also see section below). -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I used the Ajnabia skull as a reference, you can see here. Let me know if it needs to be adjusted.

Also, whatever @The Morrison Man linked, I can't see. Looks like it goes to a blocked Twitter account. Screenshot? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would change it to follow the dedicated Minqaria skull reconstruction further down on the page. Shouldn't be too far off but doesn't hurt to verify. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What I linked is the Minqaria skull reconstruction by User SuspiciousHadrosaur. Luckily, it can also be found slightly further down on this page now. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Here it is with the Minqaria skull projected over it. I think it looks fine, but let me know if anything needs to be changed. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, works for me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Updated stegosaur recons

Going to use this thread to post my updated stegosaur reconstructions as I update them. If it doesn't get archived I'll just continually post them through this thread. First up, Yingshanosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus.

• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you reconstruct Yingshanosaurus plates on the basis of this mount skeleton?

[31] Aventadoros (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially - mostly though I referenced the figured plates in its description. Ddinodan (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Three more -

Ddinodan (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion all your stegosaurs look good. Aventadoros (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Couple more -

Ddinodan (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Miragaia looks fine to me. Why did you change the appearance of the Hesperosaurus plates when the previous one was correct? [32] Aventadoros (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The plates here still follow the general shape of the bony core and only differ in the length/shape of the keratin, so I see nothing wrong with them. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it looks like the old one had too many plates. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed the "old" had too many plates. Aventadoros (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Jingia

Jingia

New Mamenchisaurid sauropod. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the bluish-purple is a little too unrealistic? Try making it more grayish. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the "bluish-purple" is actually just an illusion due to the contrast with the greens and browns. It's already a gray color. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked the color in Procreate and it came out as #766F79, which colorhexa.com describes as “dark grayish violet”. I suggest it should be made a more brownish gray or something, so the contrast isn’t too off-putting. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It was actually 888899 before texturing and shading. I was going for gray with a very slight blue tint. Anyway, updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Jingia" skeletal

"Jingia" skeletal

Here is a skeletal for "Jingia". Quite fragmentary, and not much to speak of. Comments appreciated as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll assume you've based the silhouette off other Mamenchisaurs? Looks good! The Morrison Man (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and the references I mostly used are in the file description. Chuanjiesaurus was a pretty good match proportionally. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A couple of minor details regarding the vertebrae: First, the posterior margin of the neural arch of the more anterior dorsal is complete, not broken, so you should remove the gray indicating reconstruction there (the neural spine being placed posterior to the pedicels is a genuine feature of some mamenchisaurids, e.g. Klamelisaurus). The more posterior dorsal's prezygapophyses are broken off, so you should put restored prezygapophyses in. It also looks kind of like you have the preserved parts of the caudal vertebrae backwards. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. It's always the vertebrae, lol... Somehow I missed that the caudal photographs were in right lateral view. That might explain why they were so confusing to reconstruct. I'll make those updates as soon as I can. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Corrections made. Let me know if anything else should be fixed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me! Ornithopsis (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Various

-New dinosaurs: Eoneophron & Datai
-various other dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

Eoneophron

Datai

• 
  Maiasaura
• 
  Oviraptor
• 
  Pachyrhinosaurus
• 
  Edmontonia

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I believe ceratopsid hind claws would have been blunt, and not sharp claws, which seems to be a general issue for your ornithichians. So could probably be looked at in older uploads too. Also, be sure to state what species is depicted when illustrating genera with multiple species, like this Pachyrhinosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In the description of the reconstruction you should write that it is Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis, besides that the nostrils should be slightly lower in a similar place as your Styracosaurus has. Aventadoros (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Made Pachyrhinosaurus hind claws more blunt, repositioned nostril, named it Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've only just noticed it now! Ear hole should be gently closer to the head, see your Nasutoceratops or Styracosaurus how it looks. Aventadoros (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The dip in the curvature of the plumage of the neck on Eoneophron is throwing me off but I don't see major anatomical issues otherwise. Datai has gular osteoderms (don't know if you'd want to differentiate the throat region), and the forelimb has associated scales but no associated osteoderms. I'm not sure what the latest is on this but I don't think the way in which the cheeks extend past the cheek plate on Edmontonia looks right. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Repositioned Edmontonia cheek plate, and added rougher texture on face to hopefully make it look more natural. Made rear claws more blunt. Also named it E. longiceps in description. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The long bright plumage over the hip on Eoneophron might be a little too speculative and distracting for Wikipedia purposes. Also, the fossil skulls of Datai are noted as being taphonomically flattened, but I wonder if you have 'un-flattened' it too much here? (compare to the commissioned life restoration). Finally, since Edmontonia rugosidens already has two usable illustrations, would it be possible to have this one be the type species, E. longiceps? -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Elongated/"flattend" Datai head, removed arm osteoderms, made hind claws more blunt. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Amargasaurus and Bravoceratops skeletals

I have added reconstructions of Amargasaurus and Bravoceratops skeletals by Gunnar Bivens. I think they may be useful for Wikipedia articles. As far as their correctness is concerned, I have no objections.

• 
• 

Aventadoros (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem accurate enough to me, but I'm more concerned with the large amounts of text on the images. Maybe that can be removed? It would also allow for the skeletons to take up more of the image space. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Things I notice with the Amargasaurus: it has the wrong number of presacral vertebrae—it is depicted with a missing cervical and missing dorsal for a total of 13 cervicals and 12 dorsals, even though the specimen, which I believe was found in articulation, has only 12 cervicals and 11 dorsals. It is also depicted with gastralia, but there is no undisputed evidence for gastralia in sauropods and they were probably absent. The left wrist looks somewhat anatomically improbable. The dorsal rib placement is also wonky-looking; the capitulum should be tracking the placement of the parapophysis but instead it's remaining at the base of the neural arch throughout the series. Other than that, it looks good, as far as I can tell. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, text looks unprofessional. Less is clearly more here. I would even go as far as to remove all text, and even the human and the baseline; that could look much cleaner. When embedded in an article, those elements do not add anything (the Amargasaurus article already has two scale charts featuring humans). If you like to add it to Amargasaurus, note that it is a Featured Article, so we have to closely follow the guidelines (e.g., watermarks/author names on the image are discouraged). But yes, looks very good otherwise. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing I note—three chevrons of the holotype of Amargasaurus cazaui are preserved, but they're not depicted here (Two dorsal ribs are also preserved, but they appear to be from the left side of the animal so I suppose they wouldn't be visible here). Ornithopsis (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• I went ahead and cropped out the extra text and "clutter". -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Though I wonder if it would be smart to at least include a measurement next to the scale bar? The Morrison Man (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Gastralia in Amargasaurus? Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but the existence of gastralia in eusauropods is controversial. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Chakisaurus

Newly described elasmarian ornithopod.

Please review for accuracy.

Chakisaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd buff up the underside of the tail. It's said to have significant hypaxial caudal musculature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fukuiraptor hunting Tyrannomimus

I drew a reconstruction of Fukuiraptor hunting Tyrannomimus. Please review for accuracy.

Sino-Pteryx (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the Tyrannomimus could have a bit more of a tail fan of feathers, as has been proposed for at least Deinocheirus, same for your single restoration:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been updated as a version with more feathers on its tail. Sino-Pteryx (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice, could that be done here[34] too? FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I made similar changes to this file as well. Sino-Pteryx (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Fukuiraptor should not have feathers on its body, we have no evidence for this. Aventadoros (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have evidence against, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when we don't even know what megaraptorans are. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If 'we have no evidence', we follow the null hypothesis and the null hypothesis for a theropod is that they did have feathers. Especially if Megaraptorans are coelurosaurs then they would almost certainly have some kind of feathers. 'no feathers on the groups of theropods where we haven't found direct evidence of feathers' is quite problematic for groups which haven't been found in the few rare places where feathers are preserved. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, megaraptors are probably coelurosaurians and this was magnified by the recent analysis by Aranciaga Rolando et al. (2022) and Naish and Cau (2022). Early forms may have had some sort of feathery cover on the body similar to basal tyrannosaurids. Does the null hypothesis also assume that non-celurosaurian theropods like Ceratosauria, Spinosauridae or Carnosauria had feathers? This seems very strange to me, especially if mainly coelurosaurs had feathers. Aventadoros (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what a null hypothesis means, feathers until there's evidence otherwise because that's what phylogenetics tells you. You can't discard results because they seem "strange" to you, this isn't how it works. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Tyrannosaurs are Coelurosaurs. Second, we have feathers (or structures homologous to feathers) on Ornithischians and Pterosaurs, so it is extremely likely that the common ancestor of all dinosaurs had some sort of feathers. I would expect that at least the smaller and/or earlier members of non-coelurosaurian theropod clades were feathered, with the larger ones possibly having reduced feathers as an adaptation to gigantism. In other words, Fukuiraptor having some sort of feathers is very likely, and the level of feathering depicted on this illustration is plausible. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the ancestors of dinosaurs and pterosaurs must have had some kind of plumage, since they were present in theropods and in ornithischians like Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong. Large theropods like Tyrannosaurus were not required to have feather coverings, but with a high probability they may have had some residual ones. So you are right that Fukuiraptor may have had them, since the larger Yutyrannus, which lived at a similar time, had them. Aventadoros (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Gandititan, Yanbeilong, Yutyrannus

• 
  Gandititan
• 
  Yanbeilong
• 
  Yutyrannus

Catching up on my 2024 dinos: Gandititan & Yanbeilong

Also, Yutyrannus.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For me Yanbeilong looks good, but neck could be slighty longer such as has this Stegosaurus [35]

Aventadoros (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The teeth of Yutyrannus, or any other theropods, would probably not have been this free of soft tissue, but their bases at least partially hidden by the sides of the mouth/lips. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Extended "lip" tissue. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened Yanbeilong neck. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Back to Home

• 
  Jinzhousaurus
• 
  Brighstoneus
• 
  Omeisaurus
• 
  Buriolestes redo
• 
  Astrophocaudia
• 
  Baotianmansaurus
• 
  Lepidus
• 
  Anhuilong
• 
  Chakisaurus

Hello, I'm back here, I was updating my drawings and scanning them for the last month after a resurgence of my passion for editing Wikipedia, uploading drawings, photographs and categorizing on Commons (I must thank the paleoartists Ventura Salas and Joschua Knüppe for my total reactivation of the passion for paleoart). The pandemic and quarantine hit me very hard (I think like everyone else) and I was very depressed for the last 4 years. Anyway, I'm back home (here), and I discovered that the Wikiproyect is more active on paleoart and images since I became inactive, good to see that, forgive me if I didn't respond to the times some of you tagged me. Now I'll read most of the archives from 2021 to present, I've read a few of them, and I'm not going to lie when I say that when I read Miracusaurs' comment about the Tlatolophus drawing in Archive 5 I laughed for a whole minute, you made my day, thank you! Well, I will ask you to please review some of the latest updates of the drawings and other new ones that I made. Any comments, advice or constructive criticism is welcome, thanks in advance! --Levi bernardo (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've also been working on an illustration of Banji, I saw that a miniature Banji illustration by Matt Martyniuk from a plate was cropped, extracted and enhanced with AI by a Russian biologist, the illustration changed a little with it, but It looks decent, maybe we could ask Matt for the original file or something to improve that image even more,I am trying to learn more about Oviraptosaurs to review the facial, mandibular and keratin details to give more coherence and improvement to my current illustration and perhaps the old ones of Huanansaurus and Hagryphus.

I was also working on editions and anatomical arrangements for Lepidus, I couldn't believe that I had the physical update done for 4 years and that the drawing is almost a decade old and that I had not yet edited it since 2015. I haven't finished editing the head and hands yet, the right leg needs a slight shortening. Levi bernardo (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Given how fragmentary Lepidus is, any Lepidus illustration will be heavily based on more complete ancestral theropods such as Coelophysis or Megapnosaurus, but based on those the neck is proportionally way too thick. These animals had both slender bodies and slender necks. As for Banji, could you clarify what you mean by "enhanced with AI"? At the very least this seems like it is based on Matt Martyniuk's copyrighted work, and would not be clear-cut case of Fair Use so it is not suitable for Wikipedia in this form. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact it was updated following the anatomy of Coelophysis and the skull of Megapnosaurus. I had already thinned the neck by 25%, I will try to review in more detail how thinner the neck can be, but also perhaps one reason why it looks so thick is that it has some filaments that increase its apparent thickness. Thank you!

Banji By Matt

The specific image I am referring to that is here in Commons, you can look at the version history and you will notice the changes between the first version and the updated one and you will notice the changes made, it would be necessary to analyze whether or not it is really improved with AI . That's why I mentioned that image, to know what to do in these cases and review its cranial anatomy. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the metadata of the image, it was apparently retouched with Paint.NET, so I may have been wrong in relating it to an AI alteration Levi bernardo (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding filaments on Lepidus, I see no reason to put a thick layer of filaments on the neck and a much thinner one one the body itself. Coelphysoids largely have similar proportions, so Scott Hartman's Coelophysis skeletal is a good reference. Note that many reconstructions based on older skeletal reconstructions have the gastralia too high, with insufficient dorsoventral space for internal organs. As for the retouched image, it can only be used on Wikipedia if both the original work and the modified version are freely licensed. The original version (Matt's) is freely licensed but I don't know about the one retouched by the "Russian biologist". It would have to be published under a Wikipedia-compatible license to be used here. The illustration you have linked seems to be a life reconstruction digitally layered below the skull diagram already used in the article. No copyright status on DeviantArt, and in my opinion wouldn't add value to the article. Skye McDavid (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep Lepidus comments in mind, in fact I was editing the portion of the area that goes from gastralia to pubis, but I certainly omitted that detail, thank you, I had only enlarged the pubic section and ignored the gastralia portion. As for the filaments, I will see how to solve it and give it a better appearance. --Levi bernardo (talk)

March 27 revision of Lepidus looks nice. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I will continue to gradually modify more details step by step. Thanks for the help. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As for Banji:, I think I've already created a confusion. I mean that my image is my complete authorship in the artistic aspect and based directly on the skull diagram in Xu & Han 2010, (and I want to upload it to Commons, but first review it here). I leave a video of the SpeedPaint as proof. I suppose that by wanting to mention the other illustration I generated this confusion. What I wanted to know was if we could use the illustration or renew it, and if necessary ask Matt to update it, I recently saw him on Facebook mentioning an illustration of his that was published in a newspaper and I thought maybe we could ask him for an image of that work of yours in better resolution. Excuse my errors, I am not a native English speaker and even though I know how to speak it more than the last time I was here, I still cannot apply the exact terms and in the proper grammatical order. Levi bernardo (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I improved Banji's illustration, I corrected the mouth area and found the appropriate way to reconstruct it, and also increased the keratin of the crest and beak by percentage. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Banji.

Banji illustration almost ready. Levi bernardo (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an progress of Lepidus. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Modifications applied to Lepidus, I will add details to the hands and others to the head later. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Chakisaurus now has color. --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The background individuals are admittedly a little distracting. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The plan was to make a non-lateral illustration that will also show the refieres juvenile specimens to the genus. I think I will have to add details to them so that they are better aesthetically and also if possible some more background. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Details added to Brighstoneus. Levi bernardo (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Adelolophus

Adelolophus.

Hello again, now I will try to go in alphabetical order of the illustrations that I had left unfinished, I will start with Adelolophus and this is the progress I have, I increased the size of the crest so that it becomes a true parasauroloph adult and not a subadult. I think I need to review and correct the medial process area of the premaxilla. comments? --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the keratinous part of the beak extend even further downwards, as we know from at least one Edmontosaurus specimen? The shape of the beak didn't really follow the shape of the jaw tips closely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, Funkmonk is correct. Beak should be shaped like a hoe rather than a duck's bill. Additionally, someone should digitally clean up the scanner noise. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Provisionally ready and added the beak modification mentioned by FunkMonk, plus I corrected what I had said was missing. Thank you. I made the correction digitally, then I will do it physically. Comments? Levi bernardo (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it's well made. Aventadoros (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's fine as a speculative Parasaurolophin but I don't think something this speculative is appropriate for an infobox photo. Skye McDavid (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Well, i wasn't the one who added it, but we'll definitely have to make a fossil illustration or find a photo of the fossil that has a CC license. Levi bernardo (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Huanansaurus

Huanansaurus

Since I was illustrating Banji I decided it was time to fix and improve the illustration I had of Huanansaurus as I had already said I would do. Comments? --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Abrosaurus

Abrosaurus

I have made basic updates to Abrosaurus illustration, added lips, (I'm not sure if the way of how the tongue look is appropriate. Maybe not) filled and matched the fenestra areas and added skin to the lower part of the jaw - neck, as well as improvements to the eye area and around it. I will also update the full body illustration later. Now that better photographic images of the skull are available I will redo the illustration I made of the skull. Levi bernardo (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Qiliania

Clumsystiggy (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that, it's a well made. Aventadoros (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The portion of the ilium anterior to the acetabulum is missing in the fossil, but this illustration represents it as if it were complete rather than broken at approximately the midpoint. Also, the linework is very shaky: consider using a digital stabilization tool. I don't think this is suitable as is, and I think a rearticulated illustration of the holotype hindlimb would be preferable to this layout. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hesperonyx

Hesperonyx

New dryomorphan ornithopod from Portugal.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hesperonyx have less "muscular" cheeks? It seems to me that the "muscular" cheeks have very many of the ornithopods you have made. FunkMonk recently updated Tanius in terms of the open snout. [36] Aventadoros (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The margin of the "cheek" could probably be moved back, as you have already done on your ceratopsians. Personally I wouldn't follow the muscular margin inferred in the relevant papers slavishly, as there are examples of skin not having to follow the muscles in the California condor and Panoplosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there will be future publications on the presence of soft tissues in the mouth area in dinosaurs. If ceratopsids already have a posteriorly displaced 'cheek' margin then this can also be done in pachycephalosaurs and ornithopods. Cheeks in ankylosaurs are the most acceptable to me, I don't know how it looks in stegosaurs and early thyreophors. Other than that I think Hesperonyx looks correct. Aventadoros (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Santanaraptor

I was going to modify an old sketch into something useful, and saw it could fit Santanaraptor, which has no proper restoration. Here it's modified to match that[37], should of course have feathers and so on, it's just a base drawing. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that it's only known from a foot and it's phylogenetic position isn't certain, I'm not sure how insightful a life restoration would be. The mount that is currently used in the article is incredibly speculative, and it would be better to be replaced with a drawing of the foot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's of course an entire discussion in itself, but I think every valid genus warrants a restoration that will give the reader some general idea of what the animal in question could have looked like in life. In this particular case, if made generic enough, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether it ends up being classified as a sort of basal maniraptoran or an early tyrannosaur (or heck, even a nosasaur), the restoration wouldn't really be too different either way. So no proceratosaurid-like crest, and the fingers can be made shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Udelartitan

Udelartitan

New saltasauroid titanosaurian sauropod from Uruguay.

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but shouldn't the ostedoems be bigger and similar in size to those at Igai? Aventadoros (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus

• 
  Skeletal diagram
• 
  Size comparison

So...Thyreosaurus is weird. It might be better (as suggested on the WP:PALEO Discord) to exclude the "traditional" stegosaur plates and spikes, seeing as none are known from the holotype (um, here's how that looks...). Comments on that? Besides the weird osteoderms, the rest is generally straightforward stegosaur verts/ribs. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Thyreosaurus is a very weird stegosaur. If no plates or spines have been discovered with it then I wouldn't add them to the silhouette, but I will admit that it looks very strange. Cisiopurple has done a reconstruction without the traditional plates and spines and it really looks like an unusual stegosaur. [38] Aventadoros (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sad naked stegosaur... (dorsal osteoderms removed). -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, Wikiproject Paleo have a Discord server, do they have a link? Levi bernardo (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's on the project page. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus

New dacentrurine stegosaur. I know the osteoderms are a big mystery, so I just kinda used my imagination here. Let me know if something is way off.

Thyreosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean this politely, but I'm not sure how usable this is for Wikipedia in its current form, where a life restoration for such an enigmatic animal should include the fewest speculative elements. This seems to largely ignore much of what we actually do know about the osteoderms. Where are the characteristic "shield" osteoderms (refer to the skeletal above, they should be significantly larger than the bottom row of flattish osteoderms illustrated here). Also note that the osteoderms would have been concave in relation to the rest of the body. And what is the reasoning for the multiple rows of giant broad-based spikes? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a cool design, but its definitely too speculative for use on Wikipedia. If you are going to restore it, it should basically just be Dacentrurus with a few extra osteoderms to keep the speculation to a minimum (i.e. only include unique elements that are specifically mentioned in the paper). --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus is a really strange and difficult dinosaur to reconstruct, but in my opinion it should have a back covered with distinctive osteoderms and without any spines. Joschua Knüppe had an interesting idea for its reconstruction [39] Aventadoros (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think it's ok to depict badly known taxa if they can be made as generic as possible and still work for multiple interpretations, but in this case, the unknown features are restored in such a novel way that it's basically WP:OR, which is problematic for Wikipedia. In this case, I think we'd have to wait until there's some more "official" restoration published we can follow. An example of this is Jakapil, that while the published restoration is very speculative, that is what we should follow, simply because it's published, and not make our own interpretations. If other interpretations of it are published, we can make versions following that as well, of course, but not until then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am of the opinion that even fragmentary and poorly known dinosaurs should have their reconstructions on Wikipedia. By the way, I would like to bring up the appearance of Dacentrurus. It should not have a parascapular spine, since there is no evidence of its occurrence. Miragaia also does not have them, so in my opinion it should be removed. This is a skeletal recontrucion of Miragaia [40]. Also, I don't see the elongated neck in Yanbeilong that I mentioned earlier.

Aventadoros (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree all valid taxa should have restorations (as indicated in an earlier section), but in cases like this, it's probably best to wait until there is something published we can follow, instead of something without any precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can this reconstruction of Thyreosaurus be considered "official"? [41] Aventadoros (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those images are reconstructions of Thyreosaurus... -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like an old restoration of Stegosaurus. I think Bakker had an idea about flexible plates way back, for example. Also, that arrangement is what "roof lizard" refers to anyway... But if a restoration is published in tandem with something more scientific, it could be used as a precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Qiliania v.2

(Big thanks to Skye for her advice.) Clumsystiggy (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think if you've done as Skye suggests it should be fine, but it's best if she reviews for herself how correct the diagram is. Aventadoros (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in contact with and got her input while I was updating the image and we agreed on this finished product, but it would be beneficial to get approval again on the record. Clumsystiggy (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Titanomachya

Titanomachya

New saltasauroid titanosaur from Argentina. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tail is slightly too thick. Aventadoros (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you base the skull on Rapetosaurus? It noticeably differs from the one in the paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tail made thinner.

I used the skull from the paper, see here. I rounded out the snout with "soft tissue" so that may be why it looks different. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Perijasaurus lapaz

Perijasaurus

I have a drawing of Perijasaurus drawn at the beginning of this year, and I want to present it for discussion. Путаниум (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was rescued from this awkward situation.. Путаниум (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an excellent drawing, very well done! However, the area of the atlas and the first cervical vertebrae look a bit strange, perhaps too high, and the hip portion a bit high and swollen for the angle. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And for noting some details. I based it on reconstructions of some more or less complete eusauropods. Путаниум (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There's something off about the limbs that I can't put my finger on. Is it the gauge of the hindlimbs? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

maybe too tucked in, only a small percentage in the femur portion, the lower area looks good. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus, Stegosaurus, Maraapunisaurus

• 
  Parasaurolophus
• 
  Stegosaurus
• 
  Maraapunisaurus

A few dinos I had not yet uploaded. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of reconstructions of Parasaurolophus walkeri, so I think it should be replaced with another species. I propose Parasaurolophus tubecin, as it will receive the best chance of being used in the article. The beak looks rather strange, see what it looks like in Adelolophus by Levi B. Martinez-Reza, this issue was addressed there see selection.

Stegosaurus looks like it has too short a neck, look at the skeletal reconstruction by randomdinos [42]. This issue is still unresolved in Yanbeilong.

The tail in Maarapunisaurus seems to me to be too high, it should be positioned more or less like in Sidersaura.

Aventadoros (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus beak adjusted, and renamed to P. tubecin.

Stegosaurus neck lengthened.

Maarapunisaurus tail lowered. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus tubecin has a slighty different look crest on the head than P. walkeri, see this skeletal [43]

The layer of keratin from the upper part of the beak should overlap the lower part and obscure it, look closely at Adelolophus, which is above, or the lambeosaurines from here [44] I think your earlier hadrosaurids will need beak enhancement to look like the examples I gave.

Aventadoros (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Images by User:Alexandra.bratkowska

• 
  Alvarezsaurus
• 
  Wellnhoferia
• 
  Chungkingosaurus
• 
  Concavenator

I found those uploads after seeing Random IP user adds reconstructions to taxobox, any opinions or inaccuracies for these? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

They all have some oddities that would preclude their use for now. Chungkingosaurus even has dewclaws! FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Tietasaura

• 
  Skeletal diagram

Simple skeletal diagram of the new ornithopod, Tietasarua, from Brazil. Only known from a distal femur, and it seems pretty averaged-sized for an elasmarian. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The arms seem a little small but I suppose it varies within the group. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, some like Talenkauen have proportionately longer arms, but I tried to go off of Notohypsilophodon and secondarily Gasparinisaura since they seem to be more similar and more closely related. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Brachiosaurid and the Morokweng impact

Paleoartistic reconstruction of a brachiosaurid, moments before the Morokweng impactor collides with Earth

Made this paleoartistic reconstruction of a brachiosaurid witnessing the Morokweng impact, dated to about 146 million years ago, in the Tithonian stage. This is supposed to accompany the Tithonian page or the Morokweng impact structure page, but I hope it is still worth putting it here for review to evaluate its relevance. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The brachiosaurid looks fine but should the meteroite not be burning? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as the interpretation does not show that the asteroid is not entering the stratosphere, it is not necessary to show meteorite friction. Obviously for dramatic, graphic and artistic effects it is something more convenient to show it. Levi bernardo (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is whether it's the asteroid is the right size? If it has yet to enter the stratosphere, then it is 15 or so km above earth's surface at an absolute minimum, and that's if it's coming down immediately vertically. If we assume the Morokweng impactor is around 5 km wide or so (half the size of the Chicxulub impactor), would it really appear so large in the sky at that distance? It absolutely looms over the the mountain in the background, even though the mountain is both larger and closer to the sauropod. NGPezz (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an excellent illustration of an excellent idea for the event, however it has certain details that require attention, the most logical being the absence of the claw on the front leg. The hind leg has 4 claws when it should only have three and should have them thicker and taller by a little. The ulna portion should be more prominent, but that of the hind legs just a little thinner. The nostril should be a little further forward and in a way that denotes a passage. If your artistic style allows you to illuminate the scapula and hip area with a little difference in textures and luminosity, it would be excellent.

Now with the asteroid, well, it would be something that we would leave to the astronomers and geologists. But it would be necessary to specify an estimate of where it is represented. If it is in the exosphere or in the thermosphere, since it is noted that it is not in the atmospheric entry zone, since it is so enormous, it is not possible that something 5-10 kilometers in diameter is simultaneously on the Karman line and in the exosphere. For the exact dimensions for the representation of the asteroid, there are calculations of the apparent size of an object in our sky and its luminosity with the apparent magnitude. But it would be going into a lot of detail, apart from specifying the location of the asteroid in the atmosphere, the calculation would have to be done to make a faithful representation. Perhaps something quick and simple would be to review the appearance of the brightest and most enormous comets that have passed close to Earth in the last century, and see photographs of what they look like in panoramas to get an idea of the appearance and apparent dimensions in the panorama. Obviously, an asteroid right in our exosphere would apparently be larger in the sky than a simple comet. But we have to take into account so many factors to be cautious. Again, very good illustration, excellent idea and great performance! Levi bernardo (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated

I have updated the illustration to go in accordance with the observations. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. Hopefully now it works. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis & Titanomachya

Hello! Here's my life restorations for the fairly new Tyrannosaurus species and the new Saltasauroid Titanomachya. Please let me know your thoughts on them!

Ceratopsid present with T. mcraeensis are Sierraceratops.

Other animals present with Titanomachya are generic sea birds, a beached Sulcusuchus, and a young Carnotaurus.

Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis

Titanomachya gimenezi & The La Colonia Formation

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The downward slope over the hips of Sierraceratops seems to be too sharp, giving the impression of a relatively small torso compared to the head. The left forelimb on the Titanomachya also looks dislocated to me. I can see that it's a step backwards from the pectoral girdle but it's displaced too far laterally. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Images by User:PaleoNooby

• 
  Ceratosaurus
• 
  Langenberg Quarry Megalosaurid
• 
  Fylax

Found those images by @PaleoNooby:, especially Fylax is added without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs

Redid my Protoceratops, and a few various. Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Protoceratops
• 
  Stenonychosaurus
• 
  Ankylosaurus
• 
  Gryposaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The usual comment, as half of these are multispecific genera (and one is in flux); always include the specific names in the descriptions, otherwise they are hard to use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk is right. Vague dinosaur species names make it difficult to use reconstructions. Judging by the appearance of Protoceratops it is a type species of P. andrewsi. I don't see the two teeth on the premaxilla that it had. The nostrils should be closer to the beak, similar to the other cerstopsians you have done. Additionally, the frills of protoceratopsids were undulating and Protoceratops should have them. The lower part of the beak should be gently flattened to make the snout look open. This information comes from the publication by Chiba et al. 2023. When doing the armour in Ankylosaurus, did you suggest the reconstruction from the Arbour and Mallon 2017 publication? I will send photos of the protoceratops frills by email.

Aventadoros (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Antarctopelta

Life restoration

Fossils

Now that the redescription of the genus was done, I improved and colored the illustration I had of the fossil remains based on a photograph, adjusted the sizes of the dentary and teeth so that they were the real size equivalent to the rest of the material, added size scales and this is the result, I am also updating my Antarctopelta life restoration from 4 years ago so that it is now up to date with what we have already known since the description of Stegouros. Any comments? Levi bernardo (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)