Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 29

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Lanthanosuchoidea

Hello everyone. Can I get some review for another of my reconstruction. This time I tried to restore some of Lanthanosuchoidea species especially the acleistorhinids. The species are (top left to bottom clockwise): Delorhynchus, Colobomycter, Carbonodraco, Feeserpeton, Lanthanosuchus, and Acleistorhinus. Most of the reference are available on their respective page. But some of them are on paper that I will mention if some of you want to see the reference.

For the Lanthanosuchus, at first I feel it kinda strange and wonder why it looks like some crocodile or temnospondyls. But from the lateral view of several image (like this one although it is not from paper [1]) and after keep measuring the length from the tip of the snout to the eyes of several reconstructions like those of Dmitry Bogdanov, I reached this reconstruction.. But as always, I will gladly welcome any correction.. I want to upload this image to Lanthanosuchoidea page. And if not all of them are acceptable, I can just upload some of them.. Thank you in advance as always..

DD (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but I presumed that there are no major error for the reconstruction? I am going to upload it to the Lanthanosuchoidea page. But as always, just take it down if there are glaring inaccuracies that I am not aware to. Thank you.. DD (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They look good from a quick glance, though I do have a few minor questions or concerns:

I would double-check Feeserpeton to make sure that breakage or other taphonomic factors are not giving undue influence to the shape of the snout.
This is a very minor concern, but I'm not sure if it's ideal to figure Lanthanosuchus in lateral view, simply because the skull is so distinctly flattened. Lateral view is more conjectural and less anatomically useful than something like dorsal view for that genus. We don't know exactly how much compression occurred during fossilization, while most of the others have great 3D preservation thanks to the conditions of Richards Spur.
If Colobomycter has exposed fangs (and I don't disagree with that choice), then Carbonodraco should as well. You should also clarify in the description which species of Colobomycter you're illustrating.
A lot of acleistorhinids (especially Lanthanosuchus) have distinctly pitted skull bones, which may imply a very thin skin texture more akin to temnospondyls or gars than to lizards. But that's just something to keep in mind, there isn't a pressing need to alter the art accordingly.
I would recommend covering up the external ear holes with skin. Unlike neodiapsids, most parareptiles had thick squamosal and quadratojugal bones which covered up the quadrate, the bone which supports the eardrum in most modern reptiles. There were some parareptiles with embayed skulls which may have had ear structures on par with modern reptiles (nycteroleterids as the biggest example), but for most I would doubt that they had exposed ears. NGPezz (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response and input. Regarding thoses:

- Ah I see. To be frank, I am also kind of uncertain whether the conture of the skull upper part is like that or it is taphonomical. But since I can't find reconstruction beside the CT scan of the skull and the image from the Wiki, I am sorry that I made it that way

- Ah I see. I thought that I want to show the side view of the animal since most of reconstructions show them from their dorsal side..

- For the Carbonodraco, I think that its fang are not as elongated as Colobomycter and want to give a variation like in the case of Tasmanian devil and quoll. Although their skull and canine length are quite similar, only the tasmanian devil that have canines that are visible from the outside (as far as I know)... Oh and I am sorry. The species is C. pholeter. I will add it to the description..

- Ah I see. I will keep in that in mind

- Wow, I am not aware of that! Thank you very much for the new and interesting information...

I will try to fix the things I can like erasing the ear holes and think again about the exposed fang.. DD (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries about Feeserpeton, taphonomy is just something to always be aware of. In the original 2012 description,[2] I can see that the little droop at the tip of the snout is mostly limestone with only a few "uninformative fragments" of the premaxilla. So it does seem to be taphonomic rather than anatomical. Are you able to access the description? If not, check around to see if you have access through wikipedia library or your university system, or if all else fails pursue other means.
I don't have too much of a problem with illustrating Lanthanosuchus in side view, I just wanted to bring up how dorsal view is typically the most rigorous and informative perspective you can take for animals with flattened skulls. If you're intentionally trying to avoid that cliche, I fully respect that choice.
Proportionally, Carbonodraco and Colobomycter look about the same in terms of fang length, at least to me. Their fangs also seem to poke down beyond the edge of the lower jaw, which to me seems to be a classic case of the fangs not being covered. The skull texture (thin skin?) I mentioned earlier is another contributor to my perspective, mammals and lizards and other tetrapods with thick-skinned or muscular skulls are not the most ideal model.
The tasmanian devil/quoll analogy is an artistic choice which is perfectly acceptable by itself, but it's not fully compatible with Wikipedia's mission and role in science education. A very important thing to consider for Wikipedia paleoart is that it is often the most visible and most accessibly licensed art for obscure species, and much of the populace cannot easily distinguish artistic license from scientific interpretation even if context is provided. Introducing speculative flourishes inspired by the eccentricities of specific modern species (like strong variation in lip depth among close relatives) is far from a bad thing in the wider sphere of paleoart, I'm fully supportive of the All Yesterdays approach. However, in an encyclopedic resource like Wikipedia, this high degree of specificity may give people the wrong impression that your artistic choices are informed by definitive evidence. It's the same reason why we had to reject visually appealing art pieces like this one:[3]. The composition could not function without bioluminescent Amiskwia, an artistic choice which was partially inspired by the fact that a few modern arrow worm species have bioluminescent organs. The problem is that the lines of inference were stretched extremely thin: Amiskwia was not necessarily close to arrow worms, most arrow worms are not bioluminescent, and those that do use bioluminescence have it concentrated into only a few tiny spots rather than the whole body glowing green. In any other context, this is fine, since it's not demonstrably "inaccurate" and it makes for a nice piece of art. But in Wikipedia it strayed way too close to WP:Original Research; we don't want people to assume that Amiskwia was bioluminescent because of one artist's idea for a fun composition. NGPezz (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I am really sorry for my late reply

- Ah I see. I will try to take a closer look at the original description from that link..

- Thank you very much for your understanding of avoiding the cliche.. But yes I guess you are right. I am not taking account of the fact that the skull could he flattened becauae of geological process..

- On closer look, I have to admit that yes their fang proportion is kinda similar.. I guess the next time I redraw them, I have to stick to either lipless or lipped look for the consitency

- Ah I see. I guess you are right about not taking all yesterday approach to heavily when it comes to wikipedia reconstruction eventhough it is still plausible..

Well, I guess my reconstruction of them need to be fixed then in many aspects.. Please put the inaccurate label in my image so it can be taken down. I am okay with that since it got many major issues.. Once again, thank you very much for the input and a lot of new information about them! DD (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Acanthostega Restoration

Restoration of Acanthostega gunnari

Wanted to do an updated restoration of Acanthostega, the cranial reconstruction is based on "Descriptive Anatomy and Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of the Skull of the Early Tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik, 1952" and the postcrania is based on "The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution", was wondering if i needed to fix anything before uploading SeismicShrimp (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Older restorations of Ekaltadeta by Nobu Tamura

Ekaltadeta ima (older version)
Ekaltadeta ima (new version)

Now that a new illustration has passed, maybe it is time to consider reviewing the two previous illustrations. If the shape of the skull seems on par with our modern understanding of their anatomy, the body shape seems extremely speculative, more evocative of modern macropods than to its direct modern relative, the musky rat-kangaroo. The forelimbs in particular are remarkably long, something that does not seem to be substantiated in the litterature. Larrayal (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably not worth editing them now we have a better one, so could just be tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Toxoprion restoration

So I noticed that this restoration of the eugeneodont Toxoprion by Gasmasque was never formally reviewed. Are there any issues with it?. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think tail fin of Eugeneodonts are mostly symmetrical, so not sure that shape like modern shark would be possible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to that is true, but aside from that, I don't really see that many issues with it. It correctly lacks anal and secondary dorsal fins, it has a caudal keel, and I believe the number of gills is correct. I'll ping @Gasmasque about it. Fossiladder13 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, I've not been as active on the site as of recent. The chimaera-like eye on this reconstruction is not plausible for what would most likely be a shallow water fish, the whorl anatomy is not consistent with that of an adult of this species, with a small number of comparatively very large teeth, and the aforementioned caudal fin anatomy is not consistent with Caseodonts (although given the caudal anatomy of Helicoprionids is entirely unknown I think this is actually the least pressing issue here). This was among my first contributions to the site, and in retrospect I don't think it is appropriate to use a life restoration at all for a taxon known only from whorls.

Also, regarding all future reviews of Eugeneodonts, it is entirely plausible they did retain pelvic fins, especially Edestids and Helicoprionids, and that those of Caseodonts were simply reduced and quick to decay or become damaged, and I don't think reconstructions of them should be struck as inaccurate because of including those. It is also totally plausible, given the recent description of Cosmoselache, that extinct Holocephs (or stem-chondrichthyans that were originally considered Holocephs, I should say) potentially including Eugeneodonts really did have a chimaera-like operculum after all, considering Symmoriiformes appear to have had one. It may be too early to say for sure, but it is entirely likely this reconstruction has incorrect gill and pelvic anatomy as well as the problems more definitively addressed. Gasmasque (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you for replying 👍 Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Timorebestia

Noticed this image by @Cambrian dude52: was added without review. I think it looks fine, maybe image is bit too dark to see, what do you think @Junnn11: since you have worked on Japanese article of this taxon? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the image is a little dark, but to be fair, that is how deep the Sirius Passet site is. Although one thing to note is that the restoration in the paper shows the animal with "eyes" (though that may be artistic license). Also love the red coloration of the creature. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the image is too dark. Regardless of the realism of such an environment, it is almost useless on the page if you can hardly make out the animals' forms in a small thumbnail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the image is a 3D reconstruction, perhaps we can just use the model for Timorebestia. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The morphology looks good, but as noted, the darkness is a major issue to make it useful.

So far there's no evidence of eyes in Timorebestia (stated as unknown in the character coding of the original description), so perhaps its still ok to make it blind, but I think it's also worth to note that modern chaetognath have a pair of simple eyes. Junnn11 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and sorry about adding the image without review, I didn't know about this page until now. I will be remaking this without an environmental reconstruction for better clarity. Cambrian dude52 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

How does this render for Timorebestia look? I'm still uncertain about it having eyes and I don't recall the paper mentioning anything about it's eyes. So I am deciding to leave them absent until further notice.

Cambrian dude52 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks good now! Thank you for the update! The eye was stated uncertain in the supplementary materials, as well as other fossil chaetognaths ("character 51. Head with cerebral eyes" from page 7 of the pdf file). Junnn11 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Pterygotidae members

Pterygotus
Pterygotus
Erettopterus
Erettopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Jaekelopterus
Ciurcopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Ciurcopterus (with inaccurately segmented chelicerae)
Jun's pterygotids
Acutiramus cummingsi, I think this still works as historical art
Bonus: Eurypterid diversity image by Qohelet12, it descript shorter pedipalp of Acutiramus

Recent study about pterygotidae Acutiramus shows new 3D reconstruction,[4] more anterior insertion of appendages II–V, a near-horizontal orientation of appendages II–VI coxae, the presence of reduced appendage II (which was evident for Erettopterus and Ciurcopterus), and a labrum and epistomel region. For chelicerae, length of stem and placement got revision, it looks like became longer. Jun will update their reconstructions later, but what about other reconstructions? If it is hard to edit maybe just tag outdated and replace it into Jun's one would be fine? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, replacing them with Jun's restorations if they are hard to edit would work, but as you mentioned that Acutiramus diagram could work as historical art. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Qohelet12 did some very good edits before, maybe they can rescue some? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is also a possibility, however I have not heard from them for a while, so it seems that they may be busy at the moment. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Now Qohelet sent me fixes of these images, I will try to upload them. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the DB and Abelov images with Qohelet12's versions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Size charts

Acutiramus
Ciurcopterus
Erettopterus
Jaekelopterus
Pterygotus

Works by @Slate Weasel: and @Ichthyovenator:. These works probably needs update as well, putting legs other than paddle more forward and make pedipalp much shorter, and possibly longer stalk of chelicerae. Especially Acutiramus, Erettopterus and Cirucopterus are ones with known all legs so would be helpful.

Acutiramus shape can be updated to shape based on 2023 study. Since A. cummingsi (species used in original shape) is small species, I think A. macrophthalmus is more reasonable for shape of A. bohemicus.
Ciurcopterus shouldn't have segmentation on stalk of chelicerae. There is fossil preserved anterior body,[5] which show anterior placement of legs.
Erettopterus have same issue on chelicerae stalk. In addition this genus is one with known shorter pedipalps, probably good to see reference used in this reconstruction.[6]
Body shape of Jaekelopterus chart here is just based on art by Dmitry Bogdanov, but for body shape reconstruction in 2007 paper is more reasonable.[7] I think I have seen screenshot of reconstruction of Jaekelopterus in older paper (on tweet of @Junnn11:) and it was similar to reconstruction in 2007 paper.
Pterygotus which got update recently is fine for body shape, just legs need update probably.

It will be so hard to fix all of them, but I hope this will help. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentions @Ta-tea-two-te-to! Recently I've updated all of my pterygotid works based on Bicknell et al. 2023. Hope it helps.

Another notable issue is the proportion of chelicerae (which was fixed in the new study as well):

The bases should be concentrated anteromedially instead of seperated laterally like decapod chelipeds, since the attachment points (sides of epistome-labrum) are very close to each other and located just immediately behind the anterior margin of prosoma.
Some of them seemly have a mesially-located movable fingers (again, like many decapod chelipeds). However as a chelicera's chelate in general, the movable fingers are more likely have a lateral position instead.

Junnn11 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of these size charts are pretty old, and, to be blunt, pretty bad (the Jaekelopterus stands out as particularly egregious, made before I had any understanding of arthropod anatomy). My current project is to update my ceratopsids, but I'll try to get around to these guys this December too (I already had plans to update Erettopterus soon anyways). I see that the Jaekelopterus article shows various nearly complete specimens; have any of those been described in the literature? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the specimens had been formally described since I don't have access to most of Størmer's papers, which have detailed descriptions on Jaekelopterus rhenaniae (Pterygotus rhenaniae at that time) according to some recent literatures.

The famous full-body reconstruction by Braddy et al. 2008 seems to be largely based on a traditional drawing (Størmer 1944 Fig. 10. 1 as far as I know). Carapace and partial opisthosoma was described by Poschmann & Tetlie 2006, but these are juveniles and some features (especially the eyes and telson) are considered quite different from the adult, thus I think it's not a good reference for maximun size diagram. Recently, some large fragments of J. howelli was described by Lamsdell & Selden 2013. Junnn11 (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to & Junnn11: I've updated the Acutiramus chart with new silhouettes; how does this look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice! As a minor detail, I think the pretelson can be widen a bit (just like the previous reconstruction). Junnn11 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've broadened the pretelson, does this look better? I've also made corrections to the limbs of the Pterygotus, do those look okay? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates! Another details, I think the proportion of Pterygotus appendage II-V can be reconstructed like those of Acutiramus (II very short; III~V subequally long), although appendage II are still unknown in Pterygotus & Jaekelopterus, these 4 pairs of appendages seems to have no significant differences across pterygotids (except Ciurcopterus, which were a bit more robust). Junnn11 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is appendage II actually unknown in Pterygotus? This specimen: [8] seems to preserve all four walking legs on one side, and is what I used as reference for limb proportions, though as I'm not very familiar with arthropods I may just be misinterpreting how it's preserved. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting... I'm not sure if any subsequent studies had take notes on this conflict, or perhaps just taphonomic effect of disarticulated appendages? Interestingly, the reconstruction from the same publication considered only 3 pairs of long legs, precede future research. Also be aware the purported "short appendage II of Pterygotus" illustrated by Huxley & Salter 1859 is those of Slimonia, which were classified under Pterygotus at that time.

The idea of all pterygotids have reduce appendage II was started from Selden 1986. this was further supported by the discovery of unambiguous appendage II in Ciurcopterus and Acutiramus. The reconstruction of Pterygotus in King et al. 2017 also follow this idea and propose a sensory function. It seems unlikely that Pterygotus could be an exception, based on its overall resemblance to other pterygotids and relatively derived phylogenetic position. Junnn11 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that II of Pterygotus should be safer to make short like Acutiramus. By the way you mentioned that some length estimations of pterygotids (e.g. Braddy et al. 2008) are excluding telsons on Twitter. I also found that mainly because estimated length difference of A. bohemicus between Chlupac (1994)[9] and Braddy et al. (2008)[10] even through used same reconstruction from Ruedemann, 1912 (A. cummingsi recon above). I am not sure how to treat that because I can't find paper clarified to exclude telson from length, probably just treat it as total length including telson is safer here? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah...a modification of all diagram is required if that's true. As for Pterygotus, the ratio (free ramus:body length=1:9) was based on Woodward's description according to the same paper. When measuring the specimen mentioned above (minus the disarticulating gaps between some tergites), It's certainly that the ratio could only reach until pretelson, a 1:>10 ratio is required to include the whole telson. I still haven't check either the same goes for other eurypterids (i.e. the inclusive size estimation of Lamsdell & Braddy 2009) so recently I can't say for sure. Junnn11 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've shrunk appendage II in Pterygotus; I can also rescale the silhouettes if need be. I'm currently working on Erettopterus, hopefully I'll have that done before the end of Sunday. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! About the body length issue, one of the author clarified that telson was included (via twitter). But under this measurement, the opisthosoma (except pretelson and telson) of Pterygotus, Acutiramus and Jaekelopterus would need to shrunk a bit relative to other body parts (which have approximately consistent ratios across the whole family). Opisthosoma of Erettopterus might not need to change if the ratio follow the reconstruction by Ciurca & Tetlie 2007. If the 4 genera scale down to identical size of free rami, the proportion difference might roughly look like this. Junnn11 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Junnn11, Ta-tea-two-te-to, & Super Dromaeosaurus: I have updated the Erettopterus; how does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Thank you! Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks again! Junnn11 (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Junnn11, Ta-tea-two-te-to: I have updated Jaekelopterus, my apologies for the delay. I do not know when I will be able to fix the other images (I'd also like to update my Ciurcopterus, Pentecopterus, and Slimonia before doing so), but I'm hoping I will at least be able to do these over the summer, if not earlier. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 11:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the update! Glad to see the differences of chelicerae between the two species.

Additionally, according to Braddy 2023, J. rhenaniae might had been more likely up to 2.6m (this time strictly based on the ratio of Pterygotus, which was purported to be closer relative of Jaekelopteus in that paper). But I think the 2.5m estimation is still more reliable (an average number of Acutiramus and Pterygotus-based estimation), since the alternated basis is yet to be confirm by any phylogenetic analysis.

It's ok to delay, just take your time and no pressure. Junnn11 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks nice indeed! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Colossosuchus

DNB XD (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a good base, though some corrections are needed. Try to get your hands on a copy of the original description by Datta & Ray (2023), it has a lot of great figures for reference. If you can access Wikipedia library, here[11] is a link. As for the room for improvement:

The nostrils need to be visible in the rear part of the snout like other phytosaurs (fig. 5A and 23 A).
It's not entirely clear whether the tip of the snout is fully visible or submerged in the mud. If it's not submerged, then the tip should be visibly expanded into a terminal rosette, once again like other phytosaurs (fig. 5A and 23A).
I'm also not sure what the bulbous growth on the snout is meant to be. Colossosuchus does have a little bump in front of the nostrils (most easily visible at fig. 23C), but it's much more subtle and is shifted much further back than what is depicted here.
The eyes are probably a bit too widely spaced, the space between the eye sockets is narrower in the fossil (fig. 5A and 23A, again).
The paramedian osteoderms (i.e. the two rows above the backbone) are too small and narrow, available osteoderm fossils are broader and lumpier, with some overlap from front-to-back (fig. 22A, also note the skeletal at fig. 27).
Colossosuchus apparently had some lateral osteoderms forming a row (one per side) next to the paramedians. The lateral osteoderms would have been smaller and more elliptical (fig. 22D), and were very sharply angled (fig. 22G).
Finally, and this is just my opinion on the aesthetics rather than a scientific issue, but the art would benefit from some more color contrast between the phytosaur and the surrounding mud and pond scum. Clarifying the visual impact would help the average reader understand its anatomy at a quick glance. NGPezz (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @DNB XD:, I just wanted to notify you to ask whether you wanted to make the edits I recommended for this art piece. NGPezz (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't see it! I will! DNB XD (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you've created a new version here:[12] It's greatly improved, though the bump on the snout is still too prominent in my opinion. Also, to upload revised versions of a file, use "Upload a new version of this file" in the file history on its wikimedia commons page. That will overwrite the old version of the file and prevent the clutter created by having two separate file pages for basically the same piece of art. NGPezz (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Jormungandr

Made this reconstruction of Jormungandr walhallaensis a while back, now adding it to wiki for review. Based mostly on the material figured in its description paper, with missing elements filled in primarily by Clidastes (believed to be its closest relative). Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I don't know much about mosasaur reconstructions. I'm gonna reach out to some people and get back to you. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay I spoke to one of the authors who described Jormungandr and they said it looks great, no notes. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was Zietlow, I did communicate with her and ask for her advice on it as I drew it. Olmagon (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

lmao it was, that's funny, small world. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Peltocephalus maturin

Nothing too fancy, just a quick size comparisson based on the paper measurements (1.7 meters SCL) and the size of the type mandible. Scalebar 50 cm. Armin Reindl (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, it's only known from a jaw but the silhouette looks about right for a modern Peltocephalus scaled up. Olmagon (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

More ABelov2014 images

So I and others have uploaded a few more ABelov2014 images that could need review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Cymbospondylus and Phalarodon
Glyptodon, Doedicurus, and Panochthus
Pachycephalosaurus, Stygimoloch, Sphaerotholus
Illustration that seems to depict Adrienne Mayor's ideas of fossils inspiring legendary creatures
Postosuchus, Coelophysis, Placerias

Shouldn't Cymbospondylus have a dorsal fin? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's probably the safer option, though I'm not sure if it would be visible from this angle. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, here are some images that could be of use but that I haven't uploaded yet because I need some confirmation of accuracy or lack thereof:

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Synthetoceras-Platybelodon-660159972 Synthetoceras, Platybelodon - but were they contemporaries? ABelov2014 has a tendency to mix faunas

According to this paper Synthetoceras is a little too old. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, not really usable either, then. Unless the proboscidean can be identified as some other genus, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose they could be photoshopped into Blancotherium if one really wished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Uintatherium-Hyracotherium-748511482 Uintatherium, Coryphodon, Eohippus - likewise, contemporaries?

According to this paper you can get away with Coryphodon and relabelling Eohippus as Protorohippus venticolum, but Uintatherium is a little too young. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, since Uintatherium is the focal point, probably no use in the image. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Australia-hunting-stories-1021740361 Australovenator, Fulgurotherium, Diamantinasaurus - horns could be removed from the Australovenator

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/orienburg-Uralosaurus-magnus-var-2-1021274370 - seems to be Donguz Formation fauna, older version with genera identified here:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/abelov2014/art/Necks-long-1031928738 - How are these tanystropheids? FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any preserved tanysaur soft tissue that supports the existence of a tail "paddle" as depicted here. Dinocephalosaurus definitely had paddle-esque limbs (they might be too smooth and plesiosaur-like here), but these are almost certainly too long (compare here). -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, doesn't that make the Dinocephalosaurus restorations and size diagram we use in the article inaccurate, then? Also pinging Lythronaxargestes, who wrote the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The size chart is definitely inaccurate; it is, to be blunt, one of the lowest-quality ones I've made. I can try to update it sometime soon (I was planning to do so last week but got sidetracked), but it may have to wait until next weekend. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

...okay, that update went a lot quicker than I anticipated. Hopefully it's okay that I switched things over to the diver-style chart to match the other marine reptile size comparisons. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read the redescription (the article probably needs a lot of work based on it) but this seems reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I could add paddles to NT's restoration?[14] And that colour is perhaps unlikely... FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best to start from scratch. The anatomy is too different. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Odobenocetops

Is this an accurate depiction? The image was uploaded from a website not a reliable scholarly article. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Alerting @Armin Reindl, who wrote most of the current page. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

For context, the issue was brought up at this FAC:[15] Could be nice if some supporting citations could be added to the Commons description. Added our other restoration here which could also need review. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The NT image looks pretty close to the Mary Parrish illustration ([16] Fig. 18) but the flippers and tail fluke look oddly flimsy. The other image seems too walrus-like in morphology, they're missing melons in particular and the tusks are held at the wrong angle (should be parallel to the body in swimming). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I can agree that the fluke and flippers of the NT one could use a bit extra, tho I don't think the tusk is that big of a deal for the Pavel Riha illustration. Sure it would have been held differently habitually, but with the ridiculous range of motion these animals had I don't think its at all implausible that they moved their heads. Cetaceans strike all kinds of poses, so I don't think we should assume that the tusk position would be 100% locked in at all times. The head could use some extra soft tissue as well to resemble Parrish's illustration (and the figure 17 which features the orientation of the nostrils/blowhole), tho of course without going overboard (Muizon notes that tho present in leptodon the melon would still be rather reduced compared to other odontocetes).

Also perhaps its because I'm a little out of it but could someone highlihgt whre in the Nasutoceratops discussion Odobenocetops (or NTs art) becomes relevant? Armin Reindl (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's just me messing up by having several tabs open, here's the actual FAC link:[17] NT's restoration is probably most easily fixable, and is it it just me or does the skin of the Riha image look too wrinkly and not very cetacean-like? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, removed the image in case it's inaccurate. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make the fins of the NT image look less weird. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Castoroides dilophidus

Made a recon of C. dilophidus in a swimming pose, we don't seem to have any images of this species on Wikimedia before this (the other Castoroides pics all seem to be C. ohioensis), leaving it here for review. Olmagon (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The article says "The tail was longer and may not have been paddle-shaped as in modern beavers". Here, it even looks shorter, and definitely paddle shaped. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the book the article cites so I'm not sure if it elaborates on that more, but this paper says "this would give the entire estimated length of the tail very nearly thirty inches", which doesn't sound very long on rodent the size of a black bear. I can't find papers on the tail shape but the figure in the paper linked shows caudal vertebrae that look more similar (though not identical) to a beaver's than a muskrat's or coypu's (which seems to be what most long-tailed reconstructions online base it on). I know this paper is talking about C. ohioensis but all the known differences between the two Castoroides species are in the skull so it shouldn't be a big issue to give C. dilophidus the same tail. Olmagon (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright I changed the tail now, I had originally restored it wrong because I misinterpreted a sentence from Moore (1890). Where he said a 69-inch Castoroides would have a 30-inch tail, I wrongly thought the first measurement did not count the tail (since mammals are often measured like that). Had I read closer I'd have realized it was stated to be the length of the entire skeleton, and at the end of the paper he even straight up calls the tail "long". Also later papers like Barbour (1931) also call the tail long, this one in particular even having a skeletal. Olmagon (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure looks more natural! FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)