WP:PALEOARTWP:PALEOART

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Discontinued yearly archives:
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them 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 paleoart 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, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. 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^[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

Per project consensus, AI-generated paleoart is not accepted, and will be removed and nominated for deletion when encountered. From our experience, AI paleoart is always inaccurate, and since it derives from copyrighted, human-made artwork, is is both unethical and legally questionable.

Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page:

Criterion sufficient for using an image:

If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria sufficient to remove 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: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
- Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
- Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
- Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
- Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
- Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
- Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, 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.

Click here to submit a new image for review

^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Images in review

Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni skeletal reconstruction

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have decided to contribute the various skeletal reconstructions I have done for Azhdarchidae. May extend to other works in the future. LancianIdolatry (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To predict a possible question- dorsal view is largely schematic-ized, if you will, as the available cranial portions are laterally flattened and in various states of post-mortem deformation, and the pelvis is too poorly preserved to illustrate in dorsal, and is only figured in lateral anyways. However, I found value in demonstrating the proportions and an approximate articulation of the mostly complete wing skeleton all the same, and so it is provided all the same. LancianIdolatry (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I'd say pass if nobody else has objections. The Morrison Man (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also saying a pass on this. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Looks good Skye McDavid (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yubaatar

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Found that this was just added to the page without review so here. Olmagon (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass I see no issues. The actual skull is quite distorted, and the shape given here is reasonable. The postcrania is pretty standard for a taeniolabidoid. I don't have access to the description, so I can't see if there's any skeletal reconstructions, but nothing seems off just from the photos of the actual fossil. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_32#Tsaganomys, review of previous works by this user added without review. this user also added image to Tsaganomys which is uploaded by different account of same user, in previous review considered it "eyes too small". Apparently this user have not looked at paleoart review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it have spurs, as known from Catopsbaatar? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Purussaurus and Voay robustus

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rigorous life reconstructions, Purussaurus was closely based in other living caimanines in regards to integument and details, same with Voay robustus and modern species of Crocodylus

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need Armin Reindl to sign off here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comments, its a pass from me. Armin Reindl (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prozostrodon

Fail suggested revisions were not made. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello all. May I ask for another review for my reconstruction? This time I made Prozostrodon. The skull mainly based from this paper https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cranium-of-Prozostrodon-brasiliensis-CAPPA-UFSM-0210-from-the-Late-Triassic-of-southern_fig4_367552559 . As for the body, I mainly based on "generic" triassic cynodont especially Chiniquodon and similar taxa skeletal image that can be found on internet. For the intergument, I dont want to go too crazy on the fur like two other recon (from the paper and one from PaleoZooBr) because I don't know if Triassic synapsid escpecially nonmammaliaformes already have extensive fur on its body. So I just made it kind of sparse more like mole rat albeit more hairy.

For the color, sorry if it is quite dull. But I just want to follow the saying from recent paper that said early mammaliformes is dominantly dark color... So I presume their predecessor that is also small and don't live very far behind also have similar coloration? But that is just me. I am sorry for my ranting again.. Is my image good enough to be put on the page? Thank you in advance!

Prozostrodon is a genus of prozostrodontid that lived in Brazil during the Late Triassic period

DD (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I am wrong, but I assume for now there are no major issues? If so, I think I will put it into the page. But as always, if it is deemed inaccurate and need to be fix, please just take it down... DD (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think this needs significant revisions before it can go on the page. The shape of the head and neck looks wrong to me, with the most obvious problem being that the shading implies that the head-neck transition is much further forward than it should be. The placement of the ear canal also looks off. The perspective on the upper right illustration also seems off—why can I see both nostrils in what looks like a largely lateral view? It should probably have mammal-like whiskers, based on the presence of a distinct infraorbital canal in the skull. The amount of hair you've given it seems acceptable considering how much debate there is on the topic, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Still got have a lot fix then.. If so, please just take down the image that I made. I will try to make a better one if I am approaching this animal again. And thank you very much for pointing them out.. DD (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Annulitubus

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey. Annulitubus is a Devonian tube worm from Brazil. Looks good?

User:Paleo Miguel (talk)

What is the reason for the extremely flanged discs? The reconstruction accompanying the description of this taxon does not depict these structures as being quite so extreme. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fish recons

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notagogus denticulatus
Macrosemiocotzus americanus
Laugia groenlandica
Iniopteryx sp.
Seminotus elegans
Italoalbula pietrarojae
Ichthyotringa furcata
Hispanamia newbreyi
Dercetis triqueter
Dapedium pholidotum
Apateopholis laniatus
Coelacanthus granulatus
Ticinepomis peyeri
Quebecius quebecensis
Luopingcoelucanthus eurylacrimalis
Stensioella heintzi
Chinlea sorenseni

These are a bunch of recons of fish I've done over the last month or so a mix of things that have never had art on this site (or in ever) and replacements of inaccurate/out of date reconstructions. SeismicShrimp (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay between this being posted and me leaving my feedback. I can't comment on the coelacanths or ganoids in much detail since I'm not super familiar with the taxa, but the overall anatomy looks good and the Chinlea's caudal fin is definitely an improvement over Tamura's restoration. One issue I've brought up before is that in some of these the scale patterning cuts off very abruptly, and I do worry viewers may misinterpret this as incomplete scalation rather than just an artistic shortcut. If that's made clear, or if you feel like going in and making the cutoff a bit less abrupt for e.g. Laugia and Luopingcoelacanthus, then that is a non-issue. I'll suggest minor revisions on these in light of the scalation, but it might be better to get other user's feedback as well to see if that's really an issue.

The Iniopteryx is a very good representation of a female individual (which looked indistinguishable in both species), and is an improvement over the restoration currently in use (which has a head and whorl configuration more like Promexyele, among other issues). You mentioned offsite having gotten advice on Stensioella from Richard Carr, and I trust his approval. The external "spurs" of armor that are present on most restorations of this taxon and the Pseudopetalichthyifomes seem to be a misinterpretation, and yours correctly(?) does not include these. I give these a pass and think both are improvements over the existing recons. Also, all of these are really pretty and have very nice colors, but that goes without saying. Gasmasque (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added note since I forgot to say this: I think all the aulopiformes look good and give them a pass. I appreciate the coloration and designs being inspired by shallow-water fishes, it is a common mistake to give these fishes deep-sea associated features because of their living relatives despite that not being the most reasonable ecologically. They seem to be correctly depicted as scaleless, and while I am not an expert on the articulation of teleost cranial bones these all seem to be arranged correctly too. Great work on all of these, reconstructions for some of these taxa are rare or nonexistent. Gasmasque (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is typo in file name, it should be Semionotus rather than Seminotus. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be Luopingcoelacanthus rather than -coelucanthus. Correcting the filenames may make these easier to search on Commons? Gasmasque (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what @Gasmasque said about the abrupt end to the scales. I think these could be adjusted to "fade out" more in order to better communicate that the scales cover the whole body. Otherwise, these reconstructions look artistically excellent, although I am not familiar enough with the specific anatomy of these fish to comment on that aspect. Wiki.Ichthys (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize what has already been said: Iniopteryx, Stensioella, Ichthyotringa, Apatopholis, and Dercetis have been passed. Minor revisions for the scales on the other taxa have been suggested. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alienopterus

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The wings are incomplete so they were inferred in part from Caputoraptor. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ta-tea-two-te-to any thoughts? This looks good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine as I see. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cycliomedusa

Pass no revisions necessary.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reconstruction of Cycliomedusa jiangchuanensis.
Top-down diagram of Cycliomedusa jiangchuanensis.

Another Ediacaran reconstruction from me, this time of the recently described Cycliomedusa jiangchuanensis, of course based on Zhao et al. 2025. Also decided to create a top-down diagram as well. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you use for this reconstruction? I'm having difficulty finding it to assess this artwork. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source I used for the reconstruction. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a pass from me after a review of the primary source. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hippopotamus Behemoth

Pass after suggested revisions were made. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi i made this art of Hippopotamus Behemoth, is it accurate enough to use? Also i can make changes to the art based on the feedback here ˆvˆ

Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nostrils are very far to the sides compared to the living hippopotamus, is this an actual feature of the extinct species? If not, that should be corrected. There are other differences with the extant species. and from what I can read, there don't seem to be dramatic differences between their heads, which is all that's shown here, so they should not be drawn so differently in proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it,is that better? Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot, there are other differences in details of the head, I wonder if these could be modified by referencing modern hippos more directly too? FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. it might take longer tho 😔 Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So i tried looking for inaccuracies but i couldnt notice them. Can you tell me where they are so i can fix them Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare with this photo from a similar angle, the dorsal surface of the head looks very different in "topography" and details, especially between the eyes:[7] The nostrils also look quite different. Perhaps Hemiauchenia has something to add, I believe they have worked on extinct hippo articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hippopotamus behemoth is clearly closely related to Hippopotamus gorgops and Hippopotamus antiquus and has been suggested to be synonymous with both of these species in different publications. Both species display clear anatomical differences in the skull from the modern H. amphibius, such as elevated orbits, so one can't just look at the living hippotamus as guidance for whether the head is correct. This paper which contains a 3D reconstruction of H. antiquus [8] is probably good reference for what. H. behemoth should look like. There's also reference for what the upper surface of the head of H. gorgops should look like in this paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at those, it seems the issues that separate this restoration from the modern species are similar to what separates it from the extinct ones, it lacks the kind of "stalked" appearance of the eyes, with lines leading from the middle of the skull to the area around the sockets. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so should i make the eye stalks higher? sorry im a bit confused 😓 Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm having a hard time tracking down any images of the skull of H. behemoth. I think part of FunkMonk's issue is perspective. Given the flat-shaded nature of the drawing, the "3D-ness" of the eyestalks is not readily apparent given that they are not shown against the background but other parts of the skull. I personally think the skull looks fine when compared to H. gorgops from fig 9 of Van der made et al 2017 (the second paper I linked). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making them a bit more apparent, does that help? Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm referring to, and which is apparent in dorsal view in both the photo of the live hippo and in the photos of the related fossil skulls, are the lines running from the midline of the skull towards the eye area, and the dorsal area of this continuous, while it seems disconnected in the drawing, with a midline demarcation running from the back of the head which isn't apparent in the photos. I've marked it here.[9] It should be visible in the drawing as well if it's both visible in living and fossil hippo images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the drawing according to this Ilovehippopotamuses (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice to me! FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stenoplesictis

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recons of a few species of the Quercy feliform genus Stenoplesictis, with a size chart

Stenoplesictis cayluxi
size chart

Triloboii (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about the restorations elsewhere earlier already. Just giving the greenlight here. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chaunoides

Pass after suggested revisions were made. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added by @Driptosaurus: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to living screamers, the beak seems too blunt and the claws too long and curvy. So actually opposite of what each other should be. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the beak to make it pointier, but screamer claws do get quite long. In northern screamers, the claw on the first digit is about half the length of the hallux, as depicted. Claw size in general is quite variable individual-to-individual among screamers. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pulmonoscorpius and Omnidens

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A digital reconstruction of Pulmonoscorpius kirktonensis feeding on a Westlothiana.
A reconstruction of the giant Cambrian predator Omnidens amplus.

A Pulmonoscorpius reconstruction. I know theres already two on the page, but lemme know if this one should be added. Also, now that there are more fossils of Omnidens than just the mouth, it might be time to include a dedicated reconstruction. I did not include the possible cephalic carapaces, as these are still only tentatively associated. Prehistorica CM (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Omnidens looks good to me, I agree with leaving out the supposed carapaces, as they might not even belong to O. amplus. The talons on the frontal appendages look quite nice, and I also agree with the fact that the page would benefit from a recon now that we have more then oral elements. As for the Pulmonoscorpius, It looks good from what I can see, but I would rather let someone more knowledgeable on arachnid anatomy look at that. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anatomy of Pulmonoscorpius is accurate enough. This one can be added for visualising the ecological interpretation. I agree on the reconstruction of Omnidens (I will update the size diagram later on). Junnn11 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulmonoscorpius looks excellent to me (Pass), and I don't know enough about Omnidens to contradict other opinions. NGPezz (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pterodaustro guinazui

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ddinodan (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me comparing to reference material and other art. Labeling this a Pass unless anyone else has issues. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite nice. Can I ask what specimen/reconstruction you based your illustration on? It doesn't quite match some of the skeletals I've seen but those may be fallible and I recognize there is some proportional variation between Pterodaustro specimens. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass, looks good. Skye McDavid (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tewkensuchus, Skull roof diagram and life reconstruction

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twekensuchus life restoration
Skull roof diagram of Tewkensuchus

I am not really sure if it's worth to add the skull diagram reconstruction but i tentatively ask here aniways LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good for showing the material in context, which would otherwise be hard for most readers to understand. Can't say much about accuracy, though. Would it make sense to make the preserved part lighter in the shaded reconstruction as well? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i did actually try that once, but made it really hard to understand what was being looked at LiterallyMiguel (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a pass from me. The material is relatively fragmentary, but it matches the reconstruction here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dsungaripterus weii

Pass, discussion ended with no further revisions demanded. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ddinodan (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The skull looks great, and the feathers are good. The arm segments are proportioned correctly relative to one another, but the legs as a whole are a bit too short. The tibia and femur are correctly proportioned relative to one another, but the tibia should be longer than the wing metacarpals (in this drawing the tibia is shorter). I'll leave it up to everyone else if that's too nitpicky for a pass. The limb proportions I suggested are based on figure 37 from this publication. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused what is being referred to here - I don't use Wikipedia Library so the link doesn't work for me (I wish people would use direct paper links). So I followed the DOI from the url to the Dsungaripterus postcranial anatomy paper, but that doesn't appear to have a figure 37? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 37 shows that the lengths of the limb elements of Dsungaripterus are as follows:

Humerus ~ 150mm
Ulna ~ 200-210mm
Wing metacarpals ~ 250-260mm
Femur ~ 200mm
Tibia ~ 300-310mm

Per these measurements (based on isometric scaling of a 3-specimen composite), the tibia is the longest limb bone. In this image, it is of comparable length to the femur or the ulna. Figure 2 is a full skeletal diagram (in dorsal view), which shows the arms and legs to be of roughly equal length. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding the figure is on me; looking at it, it is definitely correct to say it is misproportioned. I would definitely say that minor revisions to fix this would be very appreciated, but I do not personally think it is significant enough an error to fail the reconstruction if they don't happen. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Witton at least suggests the keratinous parts of the crests of dsungaripterids would have been considerably taller than the bony core (see figs 20.1 and 4.1 in his pterosaur book), much more than shown here (with no visible "spike" at the back, it's just part of the base, like in tapejarids). Online examples here:[10][11] FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, and plausible, it is ultimately speculative in the case of dsungaripterids and there's plenty of depictions without such extensive crests. I don't think it's grounds to challenge a reconstruction here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of restorations doesn't really mean much, especially if not made by researchers and just copying older works, basically palaeoart memes. Few if any others than Witton seem to have published on it, he states in his book "All dsungaripteroids possess fibrous bony crests along their snouts, although their proximity to the jaw tip is rather variable (e.g., Buffetaut et al. 1998). Dsungaripterids also bear thin supraoccipital crests projecting from the posterodorsal regions of their skulls. Both crests almost certainly supported soft-tissue crest components in life, although they have never been recorded in a fossil." and in a comment in one of the links: "While a soft-tissue crest has not been found in Dsungaripterus, the supporting bones (the low, ragged crest along the skull midline, and the small posterior crest) have. Exquisitely preserved pterosaur fossils show that these structures are associated with soft-tissue crest growths in pterosaurs, so we can be confident that Dsungaripterus had such a crest. It's exact shape and size is still mysterious, of course, but the rocks bearing Dsungaripterus do not preserve soft-tissues, so we are unlikely to ever know this for sure." We should follow the most likely published suggestions, not earlier artworks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policing exact extents of keratin extension is not a good idea for a standard in my opinion. This an understudied area with limited direct fossil evidence and going off of the opinions of a single pterosaur scientist as definitive in the lack of more extensive literature on the topic does not seem like a good standard to me. Dan's reconstruction clearly has a degree of keratin extension beyond the bony crest, and I think the current level of certainty surrounding pterosaur soft tissues make that acceptable. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, going by the standard of "most likely published suggestions", the only "published" content is a sentence in Witton's book saying the both the bony crest and the strut "almost certainly supported soft-tissue crest components in life". There is no comment on the exact extent or shape of it, and I would say it is accurate to describe Dan's reconstruction as showing soft tissue on the strut. What Witton says in comments doesn't count as "published" (and, again, emphasizes we don't know about the size and shape precisely). In my opinion it is overstepping to take what Witton has published and hold all pterosaur reconstructions to the standard of matching one artist's interpretation exactly in the lack of any detailed published interpretations on the subject whatosever. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have more than doubled the height of the preserved bony crest with keratin in this reconstruction. This is well within the realm of possibility. And on the point of following the 'most likely published suggestions' (which coming from a self-published book doesn't really mean much), the quote included states "It's exact shape and size is still mysterious, of course, but the rocks bearing Dsungaripterus do not preserve soft-tissues, so we are unlikely to ever know this for sure".

The giant, round crests that I imagine are being expected here are the most *extreme* example of an 'unknown shape and size'. I am not adjusting my reconstruction based on what is at best the most extreme anatomy, and at worst a paleomeme. Ddinodan (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is not the exact shape of the crest, but that all evidence points to the "spike" at the back of a crest-base is never just a spike in life, bit simply the back lower margin of the keratinous crest, as seen in Tupandactylus among others. I don't see any compelling reason why we should risk a restoration becoming outdated very soon just because we conceivably can. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Very soon" seems rather nebulous. This was last commented on in dsungaripterids over ten years ago in a book. If we've got ten years without any development in this area and no indications of some amazing soft tissue preserving dsungaripterid on the horizon, I don't see why we should expect sudden change. Even if it happened, we could change it at that time instead of trying to anticipate it now. All we currently have is reference that a soft tissue crest would be present, and that's depicted. Anything further is our own preference, and Dan's is obviously not for an enormous crest. If you want my take, it's probably rash to assume a taxon taxonomically distant from Tupandactylus and with a crest that is utterly dissimilar save for the existence of a backwards projecting element necessarily has to have an identical crest as it. I think we should be cautious of assuming we know more about pterosaurs than we do and I don't think this particular element is a reasonable standard to hold our art to. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crest is fine personally, I think when it comes to issues that granular and subjective, we shouldn't be quite so specific in what we ask of artists. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Various animals for review

Hi! I've got some animals for review. Some are from last year so there was a change in lineart/shading style for the latest two.

Tapinocaninus
Collinsium
Achanarella
Vishnuictis

Raingerr (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to let @Prehistorica CM: and @Junnn11: to review Collinsium, as I see lobopods may be too long compared to Fig.3 here[12] but not sure if this is acceptable range, as some fossil seems have longer ones. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could take issue with the exact form of the cephalic sclerite pair, or with the the thickness and length of the walking legs (I think they should be thicker, and probably shorter as you suggested), but I suppose those are minor complaints until there is an alternative, and given the drawing is a year old I doubt there will be changes made. Prehistorica CM (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, the walking lobopods are way too long and not thick enough. Also It seems that some of the medial spines aren't long enough (specifically the first five and some on the posterior of the trunk), comparing it to fig.3 In the paper. Also It looks like that aside from the head and neck regions, the rest of the trunk doesn't have enough of the hair-like setae, but that could just be me. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, the description does say it has small tufts of setae associated with occasional papillae on the main trunk, which is what this drawing depicts. Prehistorica CM (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the posture on tapinochephalids be more upright? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Vishnuictis, the species needs to be specified in the file description before it can be used. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Achanarella gets a pass from me. It matches the reconstruction in the paper and the figures of the fossil. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traskasaura

Traskasaura

I added Traskasaura by @ShamuBlackfish: found on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. If theres anything I need to fix, I will do so as quickly as possible. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the neck so robust? The cervical ribs are extremely short. Is there something in plesiosaur research that suggests neck dimensions that robust? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is blubber preserved in plesiosaurs, it's within the realm of possibility that the blubber created a more hydrodynamic profile in life, where it would extend the soft tissue further than what just muscle and skin would do otherwise. But if there should be necessary changes, I'll take the time to do some tweaks. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link me the source for that? If its published, then I don't think changes are necessary, I just want to make sure that its in the literature. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235466_A_new_polycotylid_plesiosaur_with_extensive_soft_tissue_preservation_from_the_early_Late_Cretaceous_of_northeast_Mexico

They found a thick layer of subdermal tissue is present within the fossil. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, the thick subdermal tissues are limited to the cervicodorsal transition, meaning these tissues would be lacking at the anterior-most cervicals and the neck is probably too thick here and needs revisions. If the neck is just narrowed to the same or just below the thickness of the skull before thickening gradually along its length, it should be good to use. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
/media/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Traskasaura_sandrae.jpg

Here's an update version of my restoration of Traskasaura sandrae. As always, if there's any other tweaks I should make, I will do so as soon as possible. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This update looks better, i give it a pass. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is all the white space above and below necessary? Also, I see you have one other dinosaur restoration left unrewviewed here[13], could be good to send it for review at WP:Dinoart. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which dinosaur you're talking about in particular but I do remember submitting my work of Yanbeilong ultimus last year.

As for the white space, are you talking about the coloration of my restoration or the background surrounding it? If its the background, I have a png version of my work instead of the jpeg, which is where the white background came from. The white background was by accident as I tried to make it transparent. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that if you look at the image thumbnail, there's a lot of empty space above and below the plesiosaur which makes the frame unnecessarily tall. Not that its not allowed. And yeah, the Yanbeilong didn't seem to be linked from a review page, so doesn't look like it was reviewed? FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Houcaris (Ramskoeldia) consimilis

Hi, I've made another recon, this time it's a radiodont. When I was making it, I didn't plan on uploading it to wikipedia but after presenting it on the project's discord server I was informed that doing so would be possible. The head, neck, and anterior trunk region is based on the NIGPAS 162527 material presented in a dissertation. The posterior and caudal part of the body is unknown and speculative here, it's partially covered by the perspective except for the caudal region which is based on other amplectobeluids.

I'm unsure what to name and where to put this image; this species was previously linked to the genus Ramskoeldia, however based on numerous shared traits it has been reassigned to Houcaris by McCall, 2023. It has been acknowledged in the Houcaris article, but as of now it doesn't seem to be confidently stated until more studies say the same. Let me know if there are any problems. Wawrow (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including both is fine and future-proofs the reconstruction sufficiently. If some crazy generic reassignment happens in the future, the file can just be moved. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might be biased, but I think this should be placed on the Houcaris article, as Houcaris consimilis shares no real similiarities with Ramskoeldia platyacantha. They were distinguished from other radiodonts based on having 3 podomeres in the peduncle/shaft - however, this has never been proven in Houcaris consimilis, and it appears to bear only a single shaft podomere (see also Moysiuk and Caron, 2021). Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what @Junnn11 thinks of this reconstruction. Wawrow (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall reconstruction is ok, except the symmetric endites. In the original description, the lateral endite row was claimed to be shorter. I'm not sure if that's still the case.

For the name, I think including both is better, at least for now. Junnn11 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Holocephali

Pass no revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elasmodectes avitus
Iniopteryx rushlaui and nonspecific Gorgonophontes-like stomatopod
Ornithoprion hertwigi
O. hertwigi skeletal (updated)

Several holocephalan life restorations, and an updated version of a previous one that received very few comments last time around. I'll include my writeups from the Commons files for these, along with links to papers when possible, so that anyone unfamiliar with the literature on them can get acquainted:

My Elasmodectes avitus reconstructions are largely based on specimens photographed in Duffin et al. (2025) and Villalobos-Segura et al. (2023), as well as life reconstructions and descriptions in Popov et al. (2013) and Popov (2014) posters. In addition, several high-res photos from Commons were consulted, with the exception of this mislabeled Ischyodus specimen. The anal fin is not included in the reconstruction featured in the Popov posters, but it is noted to be present by Duffin et al., and is visible in a couple of specimen photographs. Details of the male reproductive anatomy are based on descriptions and photos in Villalobos-Segura et al. A detail not included from that study is the alleged Rhinochimaera-like rostrum, which the authors themselves state is based on unfigured material from a different locality, has not been noted by other authors (quite the opposite, other descriptions all suggest a short, blunt snout), and goes against the preserved soft-tissue snouts of the numerous photographed and described specimens. If the long-nosed specimens are published and indeed found to be the same species as E. avitus I would be more than glad to update the recons, but at present I do not find the suggestion in Villabos-Segura et al. convincing enough to override every other published description of the species' head.

The Iniopteryx rushlaui is a male, and is based on skeletal illustrations and descriptions in Zangerl & Case (1973) and skull illustrations in Stahl (1980) and Zangerl (1981; not available online). Ceratotrichia on tail and labial cartilages are speculative for this taxon, but inspired by suggestions in Grogan & Lund (2009) about other members of Iniopterygidae, and comments by @EvolutionIncarnate. The homocercal shape of the tail is also speculative, and whether the tail was large and forked or fan-like in life is unknown. The fin-like neck frill in many restorations posted online is misinterpreted (all of Nobu Tamura's work makes this mistake), Zangerl & Case (1973) and Zangerl (1981) explicitly state the fringe of cartilage around the lower jaw supported a chimaera-like opercular cover as in my reconstruction. The size of eye is based on preserved ring around the orbit and is not speculative.

Iniopteryx's green stomatopod prey is intended to be low-detail enough to represent a generic spearer-type species, but is most closely based on Gorgonophontes perlon as defined and illustrated by Schram (1984) and G. fraiponti in Huag et al. (2010). Both Iniopteryx rushlaui and Gorgonophontes perlon are known from the Stark Shale member of the Dennis Formation, where this scene presumably takes place. Some limbs and the telson of the tail are not drawn because of being out of frame in this pose, and nine body segments are intended to be present, but dark shading near the back of the cephalothorax may give the impression of eight. While Gorgonophontes was the primary base, this is really meant only to be a generic Pennsylvanian stomatopod prey item for the sake of illustrating that arthropod remains are known from the gut of I. rushlaui. With that in mind, arthropod editors can choose how harsh to be on it, since I am very doubtful it's a particularly good representation.

Ornithoprion hertwigi has a head based on Zangerl (1966) and a body based on figures and descriptions in Zangerl (1981) and Mutter & Neuman (2009). The lower tooth whorl is based on radiograph in Zangerl (1981). Non-whorl dentition is disarticulated in the described specimens, but is interpreted by Zangerl (1966) in a configuration like that shown here (posterior bar-shaped pavement, anterior whorls). The V-shaped teeth are not speculative, and are explicitly considered to form a midline row in the upper jaw. Both Zangerl (1966) and Mutter & Neuman (2009) describe the taxon as having either five or six gill arches, with Mutter & Neuman suggesting the sixth may have been vestigial in eugeneodonts. Five externally visible gill slits are used here a that is likely the most parsimonious. The large eye is based on the size of the socket and the preserved scleral rings described by Mutter & Neuman (2009) and Nielsen (1932; not available online?) in the close relative Fadenia. Zangerl (1981) explicitly states that the shape of the body varies extremely little in members of Caseodontoidea, and the group is morphologically conserved. Body shape in this illustration is closely based on that of the caseodonts Romerodus orodontus, Fadenia crenulata and F. uroclasmato as featured in the aforementioned sources (The F. crenulata body diagram is also widely reproduced in e.g. Janvier's Early Vertebrates, Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology, Benton's Vertebrate Paleontology, which may be more accessable?). Coloration is entirely speculative, but based loosely on leopard sharks and members of Scyliorhinidae (catsharks) because of inferred ecology. Solid brown or gray on top and light on the bottom would have been a "safer" bet, but I prefer a more visually striking pattern, and published eugeodont illustrations frequently opt to give them slightly more varied patterning (works of Jesse Pruitt or Ray Troll in e.g. Tapanila et al. 2013; 2020).

The skeletal diagram is based on the figures in Zangerl (1966) and the modified versions in Moy-Thomas and Miles (1971; still up on IA for now, read it while it lasts!!), Zangerl (1981), and Janvier (1996). The outline of the body is inferred from the same pool of related, similar-looking caseodonts figured in Zangerl (1981), particularly Romerodus, and the rationale is the same as in the life recon. The grayed-out pelvic fin is included because the above authors express uncertainty about their presence or absence in this group. An alternate version of this same file was uploaded for review a few months back, but since I've made some not-insignificant tweaks since then I thought it would be appropriate to resubmit it.

Hoping for some kind of in-depth review or discussion, and I hope the provided links are helpful! Gasmasque (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These all get a pass from me. I haven't identified any noticeable issues and you seem to have been very thorough in sourcing these reconstructions. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xilousuchus Head

Pass minor revisions implemented.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wanted to do an illustration of Xilousuchus as the page lacks one but I wanted to stick to the head and neck as it’s the only part of the body with any sort of substantial material. I based it largely on Arizonasaurus for the absent material. Please let me know if it could use some edits. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor corrections: The premaxilla _ Maxilla junction (below the nasal cavity) should have a slightly upward arch. The front of the skull has a more downward arch, the upper jaw teeth are slightly larger. It is better if the skull and neck are in the same line.

Source of skull and neck information from the article "A sail-backed suchian from the Heshanggou Formation (Early Triassic: Olenekian) of China"

Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I have updated the image to match them as best I can. I wasn’t able to access the full publication unfortunately, so I based what I could off the abstract and available figures. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It got better, but there are still edits left at the tip of the skull.

On this page, the bottom part of the second photo shows a schematic drawing of the discovered Xilousuchus remains. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for providing the reference image. I just updated the tip of the skull in the image, it should be closer to the actual skull shape now. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's great now. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not follow a reference from reptileevolution, that's David Peters. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no, that’s one of his several websites, I wouldn’t use any refs from there or any of his other websites. Fossiladder13 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the point. In this case, the actual image of the article is on this site, so it was a valid reference for the reconstruction. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops, must have missed that. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, should I go ahead and post this on the page? Driptosaurus (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iranshahi.Amir Ali tagging you since I believe you have the ability to 'pass' the reconstruction. Driptosaurus (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can give the reconstruction a pass. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the figures from Nesbitt et al. (2010), this gets a pass from me. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dichobune

Pass no revisions necessary.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey folks, here with more recons and a size chart for another tiny European artiodactyl, Dichobune

Dichobune jehennei
size chart
Dichobune leporina

The only thing I'm a little unsure of here is how to refer to the hindlimb that Cuvier describes in Cuvier 1822. Afaik this specimen is not associate with the holotype, is lost and was never given and ID number. In the size chart right now I just have it as "Montmarte leg specimen" Triloboii (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with a lot of the specimens Cuvier studied before, the postcranial fossils of D. leporina have seemingly been lost to time indeed, unfortunately. Anyways, looks about good, so here's an approval. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winneshiekia youngae

Pass with provision of noting lack of legs. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's my Winneshiekia recon, it seems like it hasn't gotten one in 10 years, even outside of Wikipedia. The telson is mostly speculative. The eye size, head structure, and dorsal tubercles are based on the largest specimen (SUI 140289), and the rest of the body is based on the holotype (SUI 140288). Let me know if there are any problems. Wawrow (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is somewhat tricky to reconstruct due to its incompleteness. The speculative telson is generic enough and acceptable IMO. Other parts matched the description pretty well. So far I see no problems. Junnn11 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive arthropods aren't really my forte, but shouldn't it have legs? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The legs weren't preserved, so I think leaving the carapace only would be better than giving it entirely speculative legs. Wawrow (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as Junnn said this guy is pretty fragmentary, given the fact we don't have the legs, I don't see it as an issue that this recon lacks them. Aside from that, the anatomy match what the description paper states, so I see no immediate issues with this. Fossiladder13 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion on the legs. Afterall, I don't think we even have any reliable speculation on it, even based on its phylogenetic position (intermediate between "synziphosurie"/xiphosuran and chasmataspidid/eurypterid, which have diverse leg morphology as a whole). Junnn11 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees, then I'm not opposed. Although I do think its worth mentioning in the caption or file description that this reconstruction deliberately omits the legs. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?

Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.

Requesting carnivorous mammalian paleoart

Hello paleoartists! I'm working on Apataelurus and I would love a piece of art as the primary image. Please let me know if you could help me out. Thanks! Csarhelicopterfan (talk · contribs)

artists can find examples here and here. Draco phyllum 01:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to look into this! Triloboii (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harpactognathus skull reconstruction

Pass no revisions necessary.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harpactognathus, filled in using mainly Angustinaripterus.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from WP:DINOART to here because its not a dinosaur. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thank you, I totally forgot there was a separate page for non-dinos! Any thoughts on the recon itself? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I give this a pass. The figures in the description are so bad that its honestly hard to even tell which bones are which, but the general profile seems to be correct. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isotelus

Pass no revisions necessary.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A reconstruction of the famous Ordovician trilobite Isotelus maximus.
A reconstruction of a gathering of Isotelus maximus, stalked in the distance by a large endocerid.

Hello. I updated the Isotelus page, and made a reconstruction for it. I am working on a larger piece with this model but am also uploading the solo version. I am uploading this one now because I'm impatient. Prehistorica CM (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Looks great to me, I don't see any obvious discrepancies in comparison to the fossils. Maybe the dedicated arthropod folks will have more detailed feedback. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Same as well, nothing looks off from what I can see, love the addition of setae. The coloration looks good based on known material, and the claws on the limbs are a nice touch, I'd wait for others to voice their own opinions on this. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass I see no issues as well. I like the pseudopupil, something should be common (but somehow rare in reconstruction) in the coloured compound eyes of a living arthropod. Junnn11 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added the full piece. Prehistorica CM (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass as well, considering its the same model from the separate reconstruction, there are no clear issues with the Isotelus. Also I think it is a good choice to have the endocerids being partially obscured in the background due to uncertainties with their anatomy. Also the various background elements (phyllocarids, aulacerids, crinoids, etc) look quite nice. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diagrams of Cambroraster and trilobites

Comparison of Cambroraster species H-element
Reconstructions over time of the legs of the trilobites Ceraurus pleurexanthemus and Flexicalymene senaria

Qohelet12 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might check the literature regarding the trilobite limbs over time but I'll trust your diagram for now, it looks good. As for Cambroraster, I have some issue. You've reconstructed it to show the difference in length/width ratio of the H-element, but even the paper states in the description,

"Given these similarities, the Shandong specimens are at least a similar species to the type species C. falcatus, and considering that the reticulate of the new specimen is also obviously shorter along the sagittal axis, we consider that the difference in the length-to-width ratio of the new specimens is most likely due to taphonomic deformation, specificly, from depositional compression of the shield into the sediment plane in a forward tilted posture." (Sun et al., 2020)

Given that this difference is then probably just down to ontogeny and perspective, I dont think its wise to present it as a certain morphological featrue via a diagram. That said, I do appreciate your efforts to make more diagrams. Prehistorica CM (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!, so I guess I can either discard the diagram or just keep C. falcatus and C. sp. nov. A. Qohelet12 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do the latter. African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietericambria

The original description didn't provide any diagrams or anything, so I tried to interpret it from the fossils. Any comments? Qohelet12 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s certainly leagues better in quality than the images of other Orsten pentastomids, although that’s probably because those are quite old. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archeothyris florensis

Pass no revisions necessary.The Morrison Man (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reconstruction of A. florensis showing how it would’ve looked like. Yet Deadly (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a pass from me. Its leagues and bounds better than NT's current reconstruction and more accurately reflects the anatomy of an ophiacodontid. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uintatheriin skull diagram

Put together a diagram comparing the skulls of Eobasileus cornutus, U. anceps, and U. insperatus. I have basically no experience with skeletal diagrams, and will admit that uintatheres were probably a very bad starting point. Borophagus (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass from me, these all look excellent. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reptiles from India

Fail, beyond point of revisions. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kuttysuchus
Samsarasuchus

Created by User:Unofficial Jurassic World who is blocked in Wikipedia. At least Kuttysuchus looks rough... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed very rough, and definitely too cartoonish and too simplicized to correspond to the academic quality standard of a Wikipedia article. Larrayal (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail: Gonna have to agree with Larrayal, they are simply too cartoonish and lacking in detail to be of much use in an encyclopedia. It feels almost pointless to go beyond that but on the Kuttysuchus the head is a very poor representation of paratypothoracin skulls, the skeleton doesn't really consider the division into the paramedian and lateral osteoderms and the "spikes" are too pronounced for what we have of the dorsal eminences. I do hope the artist keeps practicing to improve, but they are not there yet. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail the joint anatomy of the legs is completely wrong. Samsarasuchus should be plantigrade, for one, and the Kuttysuchus doesn't appear to have knees. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail for Kuttysuchus primarily due to the head anatomy, it's far too flat in the front and the shape is too boxy for an aeotsaur. The claws are also far larger than what we see in typothoracines as far as I am aware. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kaprosuchus

Fail removed for possible copyright infringement. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just found that it is added by @AlbertoLeoni01: without review. Why it lack any of osteoderms? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is based on a study from 2022, the osteoderms are there, but are covered by a layer of skin

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.21536 79.55.240.20 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The head looks like it might be a bit too long and I'm sure one could argue against the lips (tho thats not something I'll hold too much against it). I'm assuming that the "smooth" integument is based on the whole subdermal osteoderms idea of Sena et al., tho I'm not sure if this might not be a little too smooth with no visible scales at all given that theres still texturing on the body going on. So having at least hints of scales like the often non-osteoderm ventral scutes would help it feel a little less uncanny. Tail I'm assuming follows the same logic and is based on the more smoother osteoderms of Caririsuchus?

Just an aside its interesting that the ear seems to be based on the 2016 interpretation of baurusuchid ears. Not sure if that can be applied to mahajangasuchids, they are generally closer to uruguaysuchids which iirc have different ear morphology, but its something worth looking into.

It could be a bit leggier based on mahajangasuchus, its slightly overcompensating for the old stilt-legged Marshall version, but given the lack of postcrania it doesn't have to be 1:1 the same proportions. Armin Reindl (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks so much for the advice! This artwork is a slightly old commission, it's already two years old but I uploaded it only recently. Honestly, if I had commissioned it now, I would have changed some parts, for example the slightly longer legs. Yes, the ear was inspired by the study by Montefeltro et. al (2016), I asked a couple of paleontologists who studied crocodiles and they told me that it is a plausible speculation so I decided to include it. The skin has some small scales but actually the quality is not as high as in the original file so it is less noticeable 109.54.206.17 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm not going to argue against the ear. I think going with somewhat larger scalation would go a long way if you are up for the change, especially around the throat and underbelly, same with adding a bit of length to the legs. I am curious as to what other changes you yourself would make, because I do think this would make for a useful piece to have and its of course very well made artistically.Armin Reindl (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the artist I commissioned this peace is currently unavailable for other commissions, but hypothetically I would have made the legs a bit longer and added more evident ventral scales. Regarding the lips I hypothesized them as a feature left over from the more terrestrial ancestors 79.55.240.20 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait if that was a commission by another artist then that raises a whole different can of worms in terms of liscensing and copyright that needs to be discussed.Armin Reindl (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah according to description, this art is by Cristian Bacchetta. Needs evidence of permission, indeed, although I cannot find artist uploaded it to other place. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a commission, unfortunately I am not very up to date on Wikipedia licensing and I apologize for the inconvenience. Obviously before uploading it to Wikipedia I asked permission and he told me that since I paid I could do whatever I wanted with it as long as I credited him. If I remember correctly some time ago he had uploaded a reconstruction of Argentavis here on Wikipedia, which in the meantime has been changed 109.54.181.248 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it effectively has no confirmable permission, I've tagged it as such, where instructions on how to document permission can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think it's best to remove the image, in the future I will have the commission modified and I will update the permissions properly. I'm very busy at the moment and I don't have enough time to look for how to fix the issue, I apologize 95.250.240.77 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail There are no osteoderms. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, the osteoderms were probably not visible in life

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10107732/ 95.250.240.77 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you linked does not say that they wouldn't have been visible. Its a huge leap to go from "they were likely covered by thick skin" to "they would have been completely invisible externally". Modern crocodilians have skin covering their osteoderms, and yet they are still visible. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We suggest that this feature is associated with the presence of a leathery dermis layer covering the osteoderms, similar to that covering the shell plates of recent soft‐shelled turtles and the marine leatherback turtle. Because of that we suggest that Armadillosuchus arrudai, Itasuchus jesuinoi and baurusuchid indet. Also had their dermal bones firmly anchored within the dermis covered by a leathery layer." 95.250.240.77 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read that, but nowhere did they suggest that the osteoderms would have been invisible. The profile of the osteoderms on both leatherback turtles and softshell turtles are still visible beneath the skin. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metriotherium

Hey folks, more dichobunids, this time Metriotherium mirabile and minutum

Metriotherium portrait
size chart

Triloboii (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @PrimalMustelud: can sign off on this one and the other one by Trilo further below? FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olgunids

Reconstruction of all olgunids.
Reconstruction of Funisia dorothea.
Reconstruction of Vaveliksia velikanovi and Vaveliksia vana.
Reconstruction of Olgunia bondarenkoae.
Size chart of all olgunids.
Size chart of Funisia dorothea.
Size chart of Vaveliksia velikanovi and Vaveliksia vana.
Size chart of Olgunia bondarenkoae.

Reconstructions and size-charts for all the olgunids, Funisia, Vaveliksia, and Olgunia itself. Thought I'd do these whilst I was creating and tidying up the articles for these lot, as there is (much to my surprise!) no reconstruction of Funisia on Wikipedia despite its importance, and also no recon of V. vana, and so forth.

Here are the sources I used to make the reconstructions and size charts :

- Funisia Source

- Vaveliksia velikanovi Source - "Non-skeletal fauna of Podolia, Dniester valley" Fedonkin, 1983 (Note: I am unable to access this, so I am going off of descriptions and previous recons right now.)

- Vaveliksia vana source

- Olgunia source DevonHalDraedle (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They all look good so far. I'm hesitant to make suggestions if only because of my own personal artistic choices. Mr Fink (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primicaris

Reconstruction
Diagrammatic reconstruction

Updated. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very nice based on the recent paper, I don’t see anything wrong here, but I’d wait for others to voice their opinions. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, no issues from what I can see. It's a great shame we can't use that nice 3D model image from the paper, but your restorations are the next best things. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Razanandrongobe

Life reconstruction of Razanandrongobe, crushing and feeding from a dinosaur's femur

I'm mostly asking if, would it be worth to add this reconstruction? LiterallyMiguel (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. There's not an illustration on the page that directly shows the animal crushing bone which is a well-evidenced behavior. It also shows a pretty nice angle of the teeth and I think that's valuable. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are generally really short on restorations that show behaviour based on sources, so it's welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass from me. This taxon is mostly known from cranial material. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass good to have behavior illustrated, don't see any issues from a quick glance. Armin Reindl (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squamacula clypeata and Zhiwenia coronata

Here's my new recon, I made it as I was informed that the existing one has some copyright issues, and is based on an older interpretation with 10 thoracic tergites. Tried to reconstruct it in a bit different style by making it in 3d what also makes my work quicker, I think my next recons will use that style too. If there are any issues with the recon, inform me. Wawrow (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick reconstruction, Zhiwenia coronata. Wawrow (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both reconstructions look good, both in terms of accuracy and aesthetics. Pass from me. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both reconstructions are excellent, and I see no major issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, these looks great, I don’t see any noticeable issues right now. Fossiladder13 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhaphicetus

Image added by @WarmSweater without image review. It seems that the image was originally made for Spanish Wikipedia page of this article back in 2023. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaphicetus_valenciae Junsik1223 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been adapted from a figure in the description. Should be good to use. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very rigorous skeletal reconstructions of Junggarsuchus

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass with flying colors! This is excellent! A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A colored-pencil drawing of Equus ovodovi

Updated art of Equus ovodovi, to replace the current artwork. Dynamoterror1011 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass from me. Nothing wrong as far as I can tell. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:E20E:898F:1EE1:1C9F (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Machaeroidinae

Hi folks, here with reconstructions and size charts for two machaeroidine oxyaenids, Apataelurus and Machaeroides

Apataelurus kayi
Machaeroides eothen
Apataelurus size chart
Machaeroides size chart

Triloboii (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajangasuchus, rigorous skeletal reconstruction and specimen guide

asking for the formating

Skeletal in lateral and dorsal view, arrangement and amount of rows of osteoderms unknown
specimen guide that includes the holotype and referred specimens

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gets a pass from me, I have no comments. Though I'm curious what reviewers with more specific knowledge of crocodyliforms will say. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odontogriphus

I have been improving several of my old reconstructions, most are just art style improvements, but in this case I have redrawn it. Any comments? Qohelet12 (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

[a]