Knowledge

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 main page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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

• 
  Protoceratops
• 
  Stenonychosaurus
• 
  Ankylosaurus
• 
  Gryposaurus

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

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

Ankylosaurus should have a slighty larger tail club. Aventadoros (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

The beak of Gryposaurus looks rather strange, I do not see a keratinous coating on the upper part overlapping the lower part. This issue has not yet been resolved in Parasaurolophus with its crest (I mean as a species P. tubecin). Earlier, the appearance of the beak was more precisely addressed by FunkMonk in the Adelolophus section. In my opinion, these reconstructions represent the appearance of the beak very well.

In my opinion, you should now concentrate on improving the current reconstructions rather than creating new ones (the exception may be the newly described ones). The more new reconstructions you have, the harder it is to improve the old ones. I think for the moment it would be worthwhile to focus on improving beaks in hadrosaurids, removing the parascapular spike in Dacentrurus, clarifying the species name in Tarcha and correct ear hole in your Pachyrhinosaurus (closer as have your ceratopsids).

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

Skeletal diagram for the new sauropodomorph, mostly using Riojasaurus as a base. I also included the fibula fragment that was initially found but then lost due to poor preservation, since it is included in the paper's figure. However, if it is preferred to have it excluded, I can do that. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks a little front-heavy? Maybe the tail posture. The femur drawing also seems a bit thicker than figure A2, particularly around the level of the trochanters. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A lot of sauropodomorphs almost seem front-heavy no matter how you pose them. I rotated the body up so it looks a little more stable. Is that any better? I also slightly redrew part of the femur, so it should line up with the figure better. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think so. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see previous versions but this looks good. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I decided to depict the abelisaurid Elemgasem nubilus. Путаниум (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it should have lips and the upper teeth should be invisible. Aventadoros (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lips are controversial, even though I would favor lips. Bigger issue is the occlusion of the dentary by maxillary teeth. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I did a Suchomimus tenerensis reconstruction based on fossil ilustrations of MNN GDF 500 (holotype) and MNN GF501, Dan folkes skeletal (2023) and the digital skeletal reconstruction of Suchomimus from the ''Spinosaurus is not a aquatic dinosaur'' study by Sereno et al., 2022. I think it looks great and more accurate and updated to our interpretation of this taxon than the one old reconstruction that was in the page and the new one they placed in. So what do you think? What should I do to get it reviewd? Sauroarchive (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So this is mine reconstruction I'm talking about by the way

Sauroarchive (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said above, the tail is a bit short so it looks a bit off-balance, but that's a relatively minor issue I think. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to the tail being too short, the neural spines above the sacrum and back look too short. In this regard, the restorations used in the article are more accurate. The antorbital fenestra also seems sunken. FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This user created another reconstruction of Suchomimus, how is this? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Also seems to have too short neural spines for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So I made this Yaverlandia reconstruction, I can make a colored version, but for now this is the general shape

Bubblesorg (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on with the extraoral tissues there. Is that a beak? Lips? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• It seems to have an under-bite. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lips, the gape is just used based on the book "Jurassic Park Institute Dinosaur Field Guide" as some of the theropods still have a gape regardless of oral tissue. --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that the lower jaw and it's lips seem to be jutting more towards the front than the upper jaw, which looks unnatural. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Like what do you mean by unnatural? Sorry I just wanted clarification --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider what the jaws would look like when they are closed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

seems to have mandibular prognathism. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Found in Commons and seems unreviewed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it seem likely that the legs would attach to the body with skin so far down? Seems to be almost below the knee. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is below the knee. I think that's worthy of an inaccurate tag. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

-New dinosaurs: Tietasaura & Musankwa
-various other dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Coelophysis
• 
  Corythosaurus
• 
  Triceratops
• 
  Allosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Allosaurus seems to match A. jimmadseni instead of A. fragilis that it's labelled as. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Allosaurus species changed to jimmadseni. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion all dinosaurs look good, but I would lower the mandible slightly so that the snout is more open. Aventadoros (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

On Tietasaura, manual digits IV and V appear to be very stubby and not in line with the other digits - any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Many basal ornithopods (including elasmarians) have smaller manual digits IV and V, sometimes higher up the manus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The only case where metacarpals IV and V appear to be significantly displaced from the others among those taxa is Hypsilophodon. To my knowledge Mahuidacursor is the only (sensu stricto) elasmarian with a preserved manus , and it does not show this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Tietasaura fingers adjusted. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Featherless Coelopysis is unlikely. Feathers are ancestral to Dinosauria so being completely featherless as depicted is unlikely in a small animal so close to the base of Dinosauria. See also Hartman et al 2022 thermoregulatory modeling of Triassic Amniotes, modeling Coelophysis as feathered. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s an Agrosaurus macgillivrayi I’ve made in Procreate. It’s based on Jaime Headden’s Thecodontosaurus (which may be a senior synonym) and in terms of style I was inspired by both Ddinodan and Raingerr. What do you think?

(P.S. would this file be better transparent, with a white background, or should there be two versions, one transparent and one with a background?) Atlantis536 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The skull seems much more robust than Thecodontosaurus. Any particular reason? Also, I'm not sure the first digit would've been habitually flexed like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I edited the skull to be less robust after rechecking Jaime Headden’s skeletal, fixed the positioning of the hand claws, and added longer lines on the legs. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Some general comments that may apply to multiple of these:

• I personally prefer white backgrounds rather than transparent, but either way I certainly wouldn't do two versions—that could get messy.
• Obviously in life the legs wouldn't be clearly delineated all the way to the pelvis, but there would still have been visible separate musculature. That isn't really apparent in many of these, with the legs appearing to emerge from the abdomen.
• When reconstructing the "farther" manus (right on these images) for bipeds, more attention should be given to the claws/fingers. The soft tissue "pad" should probably be reconstructed as obscuring the base of the claw there. Otherwise it looks like the claws emerge from a symmetrical stump, which isn't exactly realistic.

-SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed there’s no images of Agustinia ligabuei on Commons except for an inaccurate reconstruction by Nobu Tamura, so I made this. It’s based on Bellardini et al. 2022, which reinterprets the taxon as a rebbachisaurid. I used an unpublished skeletal by Gunnar Bivens as the base, adding beak tissue based on Lavocatisaurus and a yellowish color based on Diplodocus sp. as reported at SVP 2023. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What's going on with the digits of the right forelimb? It looks like it's standing on tip toes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a bad attempt at perspective. I corrected it. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s another one: Analong chuanjieensis, based on a skeletal by Gunnar Bivens. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Breaking the alphabetical order with this one, Abditosaurus kuehnei, based on the skeletal reconstruction in its description. Any comments or feedback? Atlantis536 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The skeletal in the paper seems more schematic than rigorous, and as such I'm not sure it should be followed 100%. For instance, the form of the skull and the position of the nostril... Also, the hindlimb claws seem to project from the foot ventrally, and I feel that the osteoderms should perhaps be closer to the midline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the paper's skeletal shouldn't be used as a reference for Abditosaurus (or any other titanosaur, for that matter). I've lost track of how many times it has been used in the literature (e.g. ), and it's never been modified to actually represent the relevant fossil material. That said, the phylogenetic position of Abditosaurus appears to be unstable, so as long as it is restored as a "generic" titanosaur it shouldn't be too much of a issue. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The claws were supposed to be drawn like that, referencing how sauropod hind toes point outwards. That said, I did made them look less obviously jutting out, along with moving the osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

My first non-sauropodomorph—this is Antrodemus valens, a theropod that may just be a synonym of Allosaurus. As such, it is depicted as a generic allosaurid theropod based on a skeletal by Franoys. Any thoughts, comments, or feedback? Atlantis536 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reconstruction of Aoniraptor libertatem, a mysterious theropod, as a megaraptoran, using Ashley Patch’s Australovenator as a base. This follows its original description and most studies including it. Any comments, thoughts, or feedback?

P.S. would it be okay if I also make a bahariasaurid version of this, following Cau (2024)? Atlantis536 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see teeth. Aventadoros (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They’re hidden under lips. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the rationale for this distribution of feathering? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Megaraptorans are depicted often with “capes” of feathers, like this Tratayenia or this Australovenator Atlantis536 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the lip situation here. Even modern reconstructions of lipped theropods often show at least the tips of the largest teeth. Until Cau's results (and "Bahariasauridae" in general) gain any support, it would be best to refrain from creating a version following that for Knowledge. The legs are also definitely not the same size... -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I drew the lips in such a way that even the biggest teeth are covered — I even checked the skeletal to make sure. I also lengthened the leg. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a reconstruction of Apatodon mirus as an allosaurid theropod, after George Olshevsky’s identification of it as a synonym of Allosaurus. Yes, it’s just a minorly edited version of the Antrodemus above, and that’s because as possible close relatives or conspecifics, they would have likely not varied too much. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

All the images marked as “Arstanosaurus akkurganensis” on Commons belong to “Gadolosaurus”, which is probably a distinct taxon, so here’s my first ornithischian—a life reconstruction based on Gobihadros. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Asiaceratops salsopaludalis appears surprisingly often in phylogenetic analyses, but curiously there’s no restorations of it on Wikimedia Commons, so I made one. This one is based on the Leptoceratops skeletal by Qilong and modified by PaleoNeolitic. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Asiamericana asiatica, where to start? This restoration is based on Scott Hartman’s Microraptor, since the possibly synonymous Richardoestesia has been informally referred to Microraptoria. That said, the feathering in my reconstruction is more generic so as not to be too speculative. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing obviously wrong here (the toes are maybe a bit short) but I really have to question the value of restoring a dubious tooth taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened toes a little.

as for why I made this — I have a project in userspace where I’m putting an image of every dinosaur accompanied by its description paper. The images I’ve uploaded (and will upload) here are for that project, representing the dinosaurs that have no standalone images of themselves, whether life reconstructions or fossil images. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

But wouldn't photos or drawings of the holotypes be much more appropriate for such a list? These life restorations have little to do with the description papers that you list. The list is interesting but quite unconventional – if you plan to eventually move the list into article main space, I suggest to discuss it at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs as early as possible. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Holotypes would be better for such a list. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no plans to move the list into mainspace yet. I also think life restorations look better. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Just adding a note that I'll return to this soon, so it isn't automatically archived. A slightly updated version with feather outlines: FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Finally finished this up with colour, after adjusting some features following comments on the Discord server. Pinging Aventadoros who commented there, and Lythronaxargestes usually also has something to say about animals in this part of the tree. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Mostly looks good, but I'm wondering about the rationale for the wrist folding. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's due to the maniraptoran starting point, but I'd like to keep it as "generic" as possible to also go as other interpretations. I'm not entirely sure what the range of motion would be for more basal clades, should the hands jut straight out of the wrists to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

At least a bit less, maybe something like Guanlong ? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know of that figure, in the meantime I had updated it to something that seems similar, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good, but does this wrist actually look correct? Aventadoros (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct in which way (it's not preserved)? I just noticed a much more serious issue, in the actual fossil the middle toe is much longer than the outer toes, so I'll have to shorten those... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Kosmoceratops
• 
  Xenoceratops
• 
  Monoclonius
• 
  Medusaceratops
• 
  Glyptodon

Found in Commons. As I see all fingers have nails, are there any other issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The proportions and poses of the ceratopsians seem very odd overall. The tip-toeing Monoclonius also has a massive lower jaw, while the others seem to have way too small skulls. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The frills also appear to be fully perpendicular to the spinal cord in several of the reconstructions, which would not have been the case. The frills are also just generally too small, especially the one on Xenoceratops. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All these ceratopsids are incorrect. Bad body proportions, too thick tails, badly reconstructed frills, especially Medusaceratops or Xenoceratops. It seems to me that Glyptodon is the best made. Aventadoros (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

New unenlagiine theropod from South America. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Which other unenlagiine is this based on? The paper's skeletal (modified from Pamparaptor) gives it much longer arms. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Pamparaptor is only known from a foot, so it's not exactly helpful here. Buitreraptor seems to be the only unenlagiine known from sufficiently complete arms, which are longer than what is depicted in this image. However, Austroraptor is typically reconstructed with much shorter arms (similar to here), but only a humerus is preserved. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The paper makes the point that its humeral anatomy is more similar to Austroraptor than smaller unenlagiines, but they did still choose to reconstruct it with longer arms. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This reconstruction is based mainly on Austroraptor. Please advise and I can adjust the arms, though I know there isn't much data. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See this figure: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Arms lengthened. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This restoration of Baalsaurus mansillai is based on Gunnar Bivens’ Bonitasaura, a possible close relative. It incorporates beak tissue as hypothesized for Bonitasaura and a yellowish color similar to that hypothesized for Diplodocus as a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between diplodocoids and “antarctosaurid” titanosaurs. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Baalsaurus has a taller dentary than Bonitasaura, see its description . Also, if those are osteoderms, I'm not sure what other taxon has that form. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Dentary deepened slightly. As for the osteoderms, they are based on the lognkosaur Mendozasaurus; Antarctosaurus, which is similar to Baalsaurus, has been recovered as a relative of lognkosaurs in the Jiangshanosaurus redescription, so it’s possible that “antarctosaurids” had similar osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This restoration of Bainoceratops efremovi is based on Scott Hartman’s Protoceratops, since the two taxa have been considered to be potentially synonymous. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Bashunosaurus kaijiangensis. I remember writing its page after finding out that the Yuzhoulong paper cites its once-overlooked formal description. As such, I believe it’s fair to give it an illustration, based on Gunnar Bivens’ Camarasaurus. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

“Beipiaognathus jii” is a chimaeric taxon, and this reconstruction represents the real animal represented by the holotype without the artificially placed additions. It is reconstructed as a “compsognathid”-type coelurosaur based on Scott Hartman’s Compsognathus with coloration inspired by Sinosauropteryx. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I can accept the tooth taxon restorations but I think this one goes too far for me. Cau never said that there was a real underlying basal coelurosaur specimen with additions; instead, his blog post (or its translation, anyway) suggests that the entire specimen is a hodge-podge of small pieces. He only commented about the affinities of the appendicular material, and in doing so identified pennaraptoran apomorphies. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I misremembered. Checking my sources again I found that Mickey Mortimer identified the arms as belonging to an Ornitholestes-like animal, and as such placed it at the base of Tyrannoraptora in his tree. I’ll edit the description to make that more clear. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is Bissektipelta archibaldi, an often overlooked ankylosaurid. This reconstruction is based on Gregory Paul’s Pinacosaurus with slight modifications, colored reddish based on Borealopelta. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cervical half-rings would've been buried underneath skin. I think this style also creates the impression that the osteoderms were simpler than they were in real life; I would at least use outlines to suggest the presence of caputegulae. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Caputegulae and basement scale texture added. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s Bonatitan reigi, a tiny titanosaur. It is based on its close relative, the similarly tiny Ibirania. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The legs appear to be of unequal lengths. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lengthened the left hindlimb to be equal to the right. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Borealosaurus wimani is an often overlooked sauropod that may be a titanosaur. Here it’s reconstructed as a basal titanosaur based on the Huabeisaurus by Steveoc 86, another potential basal titanosaur from Asia, with small osteoderms because Tiamat valdecii proves that even the most basal, Andesaurus-grade titanosaurs had osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Brachypodosaurus gravis is a mysterious Indian taxon that is all but ignored in the literature. The most recent review (done in 1977!) considered it a possible ankylosaur without comment. If this assignment is correct, it may be a parankylosaur, since India was part of Gondwana in the Cretaceous and parankylosaurs are likely the only ankylosaurs known from Gondwana. This hasn’t been explicitly suggested in the literature though, so this reconstruction, while based primarily on Stegouros, is generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here. This image is quite problematic for several reasons, and it raises concerns about much of the series you are creating. Per a recent published comment, the Brachypodosaurus specimen can not even be confidently regarded "as a humerus (or any other kind of bone)". As such, reconstructing it as an ankylosaur (especially given that even its ornithischian affinities are questioned)—and particularly a possible parankylosaur—blatantly crosses WP:NOR (from WP:OI, the principle of "no OR" is that "unpublished ideas or arguments" are not "illustrate or introduce" on Knowledge). Your approach for this particular image ("based on Stegouros" but "generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur") is also an example of the flaw of averages; by creating a "generalized" body plan, you are introducing yet another baseless original concept. Please keep in mind that not every dinosaur needs (or should have) a life restoration on Commons. Per COM:EV, uploaded media needs to be useful for education. An extremely speculative image like this is not. As has already been mentioned, the most useful and informative media for this kind of taxon would be a non-speculative representation of the actual fossil material. Quite frankly, if you want to assemble a gallery of images of controversial, obscure taxa like this—even for a personal userspace project—Knowledge is not the place for it. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If that’s the case, I’ll just remove the images from my project. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s Brasilotitan nemophagus, a square-jawed titanosaur. This depiction is based on my Baalsaurus above, since it may be a close relative, and as such exhibits similar coloration. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a strange approach to picking a color or pattern. Why should two distinct genera from geographically disparate locations, separated by more than 10 million years, have such a similar appearance? Of course, most viewers probably won't care or notice unless the two are shown together, but the logic is fallacious nonetheless. The same applies to other previous images: Bissektipelta (probable coloration for one nodosaurid does not equate similar colors for every other ankylosaur), Beipiaognathus (why should it be restored with a tail ring pattern, just because it's a "compsognathid"?), Agustinia (a rebbachisaurid) and Baalsaurus (a titanosaur!) (one specimen attributed to Diplodocus sp. has melanosomes suggestive of "ginger or yellow". Again, while the colors used for these genera are not inherently problematic, they should not be chosen under the current logic.), etc. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The colors of Baalsaurus are a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between “antarctosaurids” and diplodocids, similar to what Macrophyseter did with his Plesiotylosaurus (giving the mosasaurine a Tylosaurus nepaeolicus-like countershading since the two are phylogenetically distant yet convergently similar). As for why I chose similar colors for distant relatives—it’s because the fossil dinosaurian color record is wildly incomplete, there’s not a lot to base color on (for example, we only have one color record for sauropodomorphs, coming from a diplodocid, so I thought it would be logical that at least diplodocoids and possibly some diplodocoid-mimics would look similar) Atlantis536 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Here’s Bravasaurus arreirosorum, a relatively small titanosaur. Not much to say except it’s based on the skeletal reconstruction in its description (oh, and that I was the one who wrote its page) Atlantis536 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

“Brohisaurus kirthari” is a potential titanosauriform, which is why I reconstructed it after Gunnar Bivens’ Brachiosaurus. It also holds the dubious distinction of being the only validly named non-avian dinosaur from Pakistan (described in a peer-reviewed journal in an article stating it is a new genus and species with a diagnosis) Atlantis536 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the necks of his brachiosaurid skeletals not too vertical? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My version of Lokiceratops. Please review. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably has the same issue as the published skeletal with a too large skull? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, too large skull for body. Looking at the musculature of Matt Dempsey's Triceratops, the forelimbs look too skinny.

Aventadoros (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Head smaller, thickened forelimbs. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Ceratosaurus
• 
  Langenberg Quarry Megalosaurid
• 
  Fylax

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

square decimeters are a very unintuitive unit to use, especially since the Fylax looks like a 50x50 cm square which would be 25dm², not 5dm². If these are to be used, the scale should be corrected and changed to meters or centimeters Skye McDavid (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

removed the Fylax from enwiki page because the scale is clearly wrong. I think this deserves an inaccurate paleoart tag until the scale is fixed, and same goes for the Meglosaur Skye McDavid (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first time adding a topic and I was told to upload here before adding, so I think I am doing this right.

• 
  Guanlong size
• 
  Kileskus size
• 
  Proceratosaurus size
• 
  Guanlong wucaii skull restorations

Attached are restorations of Guanlong and some updated size comparisons of many proceratosaurs. I have already had approved/added some for Sinotyrannus and Yutyrannus, these are just the others.

I plan on editing the visual stuff for the Proceratosaurs as well, mainly the actual material of each aswell as updated restorations like crania reconstructions and more. SirBlameson (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Proceratosaurus size comparison also seems better than the one we have already. Some of us have been planning to expand that article, any chance of a life restoration without background unlike the one we have already? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I can likely find a good one, make one, or commission one SirBlameson (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the graphics by ABelov2014, I saw an image showing dinosaurs from the Judith River Formation and on it was a reconstruction of Medusaceratops. All those that currently rearrange Medusaceratops are incorrect and I think it can be replaced with this one. Do you have any comments? Or maybe some paleoartist might want to make this dinosaur?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Could certainly be added to the article in any case if it's overall correct. The other dinosaurs shown should be named and categorised in the file too. Makes you wonder when someone will suggest that all these albertoceratopsins from the same formation will be considered simply individual variation... FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will name the other dinosaurs that are on the reconstruction and add a category. Medusaceratops is correct and has the frill appearance from the publication by Chiba et al. (2018). I will not be surprised if Lokiceratops is recognised as a synonym of Medusaceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories added, Medusaceratops is ready for use

Aventadoros (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sometime ago I uploaded a reconstruction of feeding enantiornithine birds, but it doesn't have review. Does anyone have any comments? If no, I will put it into articles.

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Restorations published in journals usually don't need review unless we suspect something is wrong with them. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right, but just to be sure, I wanted to post this reconstruction. However, in publications you get strange graphics like the Dornraptor reconstruction or the skeletal Lokiceratops having too big a skull. Aventadoros (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, should certainly be posted when something looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Anatomy based on the published material, with unknown elements following Huayangosaurus (most similar anatomically to the known material) and other basal stegosaurs such as Tuojiangosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good! Aventadoros (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If the skull is indeed based on Huayangosaurus and not Emausaurus (as the paper inexplicably does), then this should be good to go. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The artwork is nice, but there’s already a drawing of it by Ddinodan. The people here seem to be prefer Ddinodan’s work whenever they have to choose between him or others’, so I doubt yours will get to be used. (Don’t let this discourage you, though; you can still draw other new discoveries as long as Ddinodan doesn’t get to them first.) 2001:4453:5A0:E500:85C4:BD28:2114:3E09 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What a strange comment to make. Both artists have different styles but typically produce high quality work regardless. There is no reason why multiple restorations of the same taxon should be dissuaded. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with having multiple restorations of the same taxon (hence the “don’t be discouraged”) above, as long as one artist is not always preferred over others. 2001:4453:50B:D000:15B2:8DAA:A6B:CDD6 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Does this Baiyinosaurus have dermal plates or spines on its back? I don't know what it is, but it looks very similar to the spikes from the tail, only smaller. Aventadoros (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Skeletal
• 
  Skull

Skeletal and skull reconstructions for Baiyinosaurus. Unfortunately no measurements for the cranial material, but the vertebral measurements lined up well with the scale bars. Comments appreciated (especially on the skull, since the published one is...not usable). -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal for me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I've got nothing to share yet but I'm preparing a new illustration for Concavenator (lineart ready to go) which has been on standby for a very long time. I'm here to address some topics about this taxon before finishing this restoration in order to avoid controversy, for example, the ulnar bumps. I know that there have been several anatomical descriptions after its initial publication, however, the bumps remain inconclusive (at least from 2018 onwards). On the assumption that these were attachment sites for protofeathers, or quill structures like those of cassowaries, I think that something like Manusuchus's restoration would make sense, with a thin covering of feathers. On the contrary, if these were attachment sites of quill-like structures like those of basal dinosaurs, a mostly featherless restoration should work. Based on the insane combination of scaly patterns and protofeathers of Kulindadromeus though, I really don't know how far things can be restricted from each other... And I think that deserves a second thought, regardless of whether these taxa are from different groups, as it was once assumed that feathers belonged exclusively to Coelurosauria. One last issue is the elevation of the dorsal and caudal vertebrae. In the original description the sail-like structure is said to have no modern analogues or whatsoever, and the function is not entirely discussed. Fidalgo in her doctor thesis concludes that it represents a caudal hump similar to camels, based on myological reconstruction and overall comparative anatomy. Many paleoart depicts Concavenator with the sail unconnected, almost M-shaped. The included restoration by Raúl Martin in the original description depicts the taxon with a fully connected sail. I'd like to know what is the best move here and what to add into the reconstruction, Concavenator is quite a tricky taxon. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If we want to interpret the ulnar bumps as attachment sites for quills, they would have to be some pretty prominent quills, otherwise there wouldn't be need for strong attachment sites in the bone itself, and not ust downy fuzz. As for a connected hump, since there is already published precedence for it as you post, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the high point of the hump is fully anterior to the sacrum. The sacral vertebrae are dorsally constrained by the curvature of the iliac crest, so the spinous processes did not exceed the height of the ilium. A lot of reconstructions will place the high point in the hump directly over the hips, which is incorrect. The humps of camels are anchored to spinous processes that are continuous in height (i.e. without any "dips" like in Concavenator) and so my personal opinion is that the life reconstruction should be restored without any speculative soft tissue structures between the two humps. The source of this confusion probably stems from the fact that Concavenator has not yet received a full osteological description, and once that gets published, this controversy may be resolved. Until such a time however, I think it would be more appropriate to avoid "filling in" the hump.

Regarding the integument, it's noteworthy that the holotype of Pelecanimimus preserves scale impressions but no feathers. However, as an ornithomimosaur, it is assumed that all ornithomimosaurs had feathers. This has been suggested to be reflective of some taphonomic phenomenon that has failed to preserve feathers. As far as I know, this hasn't been formally suggested in the literature, so it's hearsay at this point, so the presence of feathers is within reason (probable in my personal opinion), but not strictly necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aight, the feather covering may not be that controversial after all. One thing that remains divided is the hump/sail. I'm still not convinced whether it should be connected or not and even though I think that it somehow would look more natural as a whole structure, I don't want to get my personal taste involved. Though the situation is tricky, maybe it's best to leave the sail (calling it sail and not hump) unconnected with a minimal amount of volume/tissue/skin in both dorsal and caudal elevations. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it would look better as a single sail/hump, but I would generally err on the side of caution for restorations intended for WP specifically. If it's been formally suggested in the literature then its a coin toss I'd say. My main point was just to make sure that the placement of the sail is correct (i.e. it begins with the anterior dorsal vertebrae). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm not sure why an unfeathered ornithomimid head would be indicative of no feathers, when we have plenty of birds today with naked heads. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And there's not a single bird alive that is completely featherless, not even fully-aquatic birds, which seems to indicate that feathers, once they evolve, are difficult or disadvantageous to lose. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall it is well made, but I noticed that it has four episquamosales when it should have three. The tail in my opinion is too thick and too short. It also has no scales running through the middle of the parietal bone and on the squamosal. See 'official reconstructions' . Aventadoros (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The tail is just fine.

There is no indication on the skull for a presence of large scales running through the middle of the parietal/squamosal as done in the "official reconstructions".

The image is now updated with three episquamosals. Ddinodan (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the scales on the skull, representatives of the Ceratopsidae generally had them, but in the case of Lokiceratops they are not visible on the skull reconstruction, although their addition would not be a glaring error. I noticed, the asymmetrical appearance of the epiparietals was added on the reverse see skull reconstruction and this should be corrected.

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur regarding the scale rows - parsimony suggests their presence in all centrosaurines unless there is evidence to the contrary, and Loewen et al. do not explicitly comment otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, also with this team advising the restorations, I'd say there is pretty strong published precedence for showing the same scalation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

File is now updated. Edited the epiparietals and added the scales. I'm not going to be updating the file further unless there is a major anatomical error, so any further edits can either be made by someone else, or another persons artwork can be used. Ddinodan (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks very great, but in my opinion limbs are too thick. FunkMonk and Lythronaxargestes what are you think about this? Comparing the limb proportions to the reconstructions done by UDL (eg. his Nasutoceratops or Menefeeceratops), the limbs of Lokiceratops are much more massive. It also seems to me that the tail in the proximal part is further too thick and gives the impression that it is shorter than in the Nasutoceratops and Menefeeceratops reconstructions shown below. As another example, I will give Lokiceratops cisiopurple's

• 
• 

BTW As for the presence of scales on the frill in other representatives of the Centrosaurinae it is highly likely that they all had them, so their reference to Lokiceratops is fully justified. Aventadoros (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The limbs here are not too large. The base musculature is based on Matt Dempsey's musculature studies on ceratopsians - if anything I've made the arms on the more slender side. The artworks you've posted here look more like direct skeletal traces silhouette and all (the Menefeeceratops matches up almost perfectly with the publication skeletal outside of the tail being raised), which ignores majority of the soft tissue which would've been present.

I would also suggest that anatomical edits being suggested starting with "In my opinion" and then just comparing to another artist isn't beneficial in the context of this edit. Ddinodan (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar with Matt Dempsey's muscle reconstruction. Then I no longer have any reservations about your reconstruction. Let me come back to the scales on the frill. In the publication on Furcatoceratops (Ishikawa et al., 2023) there are 4 visible on the scaly bone in Fig. 8, which may say their presence also in more basal centrosaurines. Next, Wendiceratops (Evans and Ryan, 2015) figure 7, these scales are also present on the ridge, which is located on the squamosal. Based on these and the previously mentioned work by Hieronymus et al. (2009) the addition of these structures is justified. Aventadoros (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I've already added the scales. You don't need to keep trying to convince me. Ddinodan (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it. By the way could you also make a new reconstruction of Medusaceratops? The current reconstruction in the article is not correct. Good references for Medusaceratops has GetAwayTrike Aventadoros (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd draw something in between, but I'm sure their bulkiness would have varied across individuals, seasons, age, sex, etc., so I'm not sure any of these are necessarily incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks excellent, good work! The Morrison Man (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say one thing that needs to be improved in Lokiceratops, more specifically the skin. It should have polygonal scales on it, see carefully for yourself the photos of the preserved skin impressions. You did an excellent job of this earlier in Triceratops.

Also, the jugal in Triceratops should be more triangular with the epijugal visible. These are the last issues to be corrected. Aventadoros (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll assume the Triceratops skull is based on a specimen, but I don't think the scales need to be added either. Seems like too much detail for the purpose the image fullfills. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fona is reconstructed using the available material and using Oryctodromeus for what's missing.

Comptonatus is reconstructed using the available material and using Mantellisaurus for what's missing.

• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Aventadoros (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of every single non-cerapod neornithishian being illustrated with the exact same feather/scale pattern as Kulindadromeus when they would definitely have had some variation but I can't say that's inaccurate on any individual reconstruction. Otherwise looks fine as far as I can tell Skye McDavid (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Skull reconstruction.
• 
  Life restoration.
• 
  NT's life restoration on the article.
• 
  Skull cast on the article.

Ok, the images in the newly published paper are under proper CC license. So I already uploaded the files to Commons. Now it would be convenient to review the images of the paper and those of the article. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

NT's ceratopsians are pretty spotty, but until someone else does a fully-body restoration, we might as well keep it. Everything else is good. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All NT's ceratopsians are outdated and should be replaced by better imgs. I would add these new Coahuilaceratops imgs into article. Aventadoros (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate NT's work generally, I don't think this one is good enough to go on the page. What is going on around the proximal end of the femur? It looks like the femur was dislocated. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any new anatomical info about this taxon that makes older skull reconstructions outdated? Or is it just about stratigraphy and evolution? FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No description or anatomical revision, purely a stratigraphy and biogeography paper. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Pyroraptor
• 
  Fukuipteryx

Including feathers in the silhouette of Pyroraptor feels inadvisable since nothing is known of their form for this taxon. The skull is missing the surangular fenestra. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For me Fukuipteryx looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Non-dinosaurs

• 
  Eudibamus
• 
  Eudibamus
• 
  Xilousuchus
• 
  Douzhanopterus

Bunch of unreviewed works by this user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the splaying of the digits in Douzhanopterus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Douzhanopterus looks like it may have stitched together from several existing diagrams. Note how some of the bones have black outlines and others have dark gray, and how some bones don't fit with each other. See especially posterior part of the cervical series and anterior part of caudal series. I suspect this may be plagiarized. Skye McDavid (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not one to judge when it comes to repurposing published diagrams, but the Xilousuchus is problematic. It conforms pretty closely to the skeletal in Nesbitt et al. (2010)'s redescription, right down to the single preserved maxillary tooth (why aren't the rest in the silhouette, at least?) The differences are where the problems lie in my opinion. In Red Natters' version:

• The prong-and-groove premaxilla-maxilla articulation is replaced with a flat margin.
• The braincase appears to be misinterpreted as fragments of the jugal and postorbital.
• The cervical ribs don't actually articulate onto the vertebral rib facets.
• The caudal vertebrae is shaded as if it preserves a complete neural spine (unlike in the fossil).
• The clavicle is misinterpreted as a scapula.
• Some of the other fossils aren't depicted at all (ungual, sacral vertebra, the other caudal vertebra).

This screams to me as someone who tried to recreate a published skeletal without understanding the animal's skeletal anatomy that well. NGPezz (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I hate putting inaccurate tags on people's work but I think this deserves one. Skye McDavid (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Following the published skeletal.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it me or does the eye seem a bit too low in the socket? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The reconstruction follows the skeletal. I don't know what they used to figure the skull, but the skull isn't known from this animal to begin with.

Regardless, it isn't much lower than you would typically see in small dinosaurs like this. Ddinodan (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the upper part of the beak have more keratin, like hadrosaurids had? Aventadoros (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In relation to Skye's comment above, I wonder if it would be a good idea to remove the protofeathers here to have a diversity of reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's most parsimonious to reconstruct it with some feathers. I just think we should avoid accidentally creating the perception that all non-cerapod ornithischians have the same feather and scale distribution as Kulindadromeus specifically. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

My first proper attempt at a combination scale bar and skeletal, for the very large "coelophysoid" Gojirasaurus, from the Norian of New Mexico. How does it look? NGPezz (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a grid but no scale bar. Would definitely add that. Otherwise looks good. Skull and manus improved vis a vis the draft you messaged me about earlier. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, scale bar has been added. NGPezz (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks nice—it might be helpful to show the full extent of the partial dorsal vertebrae, as was done for other incomplete bones. I would personally upload the scale and skeletal as two separate images; it's not like there's not enough space on the page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason I did not illustrate additional neural arches is because they're technically not even the same bone, the specimen has open neurocentral sutures, so the vertebral situation is not just a broken area. Same reason why I did not illustrate the coracoid. As for the scale / skeletal situation, I personally prefer having both in the same image, that's my preference. NGPezz (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The skull here doesn't seem to have the right shape compared to the skeletal (presumably based on Gobivenator). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Asiatyrannus partially follows the paper skeletal, mostly follows images/figures of the material so it isn't a Teratophoneus clone.

Hypnovenator follows the paper skeletal.

• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The skull on Asiatyrannus looks more longirostrine than the fossil suggests? I may be looking at it incorrectly, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It matches up pretty much perfectly with the skull drawing in Figure 5 of the publication (accounting for the crushing/warping). Ddinodan (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what I thought the discrepancy was. The left dentary has slipped below the level of the right in the fossil. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Meraxes
• 
  Qianlong shouhu
• 
  Qiupanykus
• 
  Lusovenator

• Images from dinodata.de

• 
  Ambopteryx (seems to be originally from DeviantArt, but original looks like removed, so I am not sure that is still licenceable)
• 
  Ligabueino
• 
  Luoyanggia

Some of unreviewed works I found in Commons. I thought size charts from dinotata.de are too rough to use? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Meraxes looks great. The Qianlong, on the other hand, seems to have two left hands because the thumb is on the wrong side of the right hand. Looks like it was traced from the skeletal diagram in the paper describing it, so that's unsurprising. Not sure if its disqualifying since the same error is in the original publication (the thumb appears to articulate with the ulna on one arm and the radius on the other arm). The "Homocephale" is obviously completely unusable on Knowledge. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever that "Homocephale" is, it's so wrong that it can be deleted as out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Qianlong skeletal is intended to be anatomically rigorous... all of the above, plus the five manual claws and the awkward tiptoe posture of the hindlimbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This reconstruction of Meraxes is possibly the best in the Knowledge. It has a lot of details. Aventadoros (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The Ambopteryx is attributed to Gunnar Bivens but was uploaded as 'own work' by an account other than Bricksmashtv4. Gunnar, could you confirm that this is indeed your work and is correctly licensed? Skye McDavid (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've added some unreviewed dinosaur size comparisons by Megaraptor-The-Allo below which are already in the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Added an unreviewed skeletal of Lusovenator that is used in the article. Isn't it misleading to show it as if it's all complete? FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Atrociraptor
• 
  Santanaraptor
• 
  Vespersaurus

I question the choice to make the crested silhouette the default for Santanaraptor when it's not even definitely a tyrannosauroid. The Atrociraptor has quite spindly legs, especially compared to the other size comparison that already exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The other Atroci has very wonky perspective and leg posture, so it would be nice if the more diagrammatical one could be updated. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I made the legs more robust and some other fixes, what do you think, Lythronaxargestes ? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new to wikipedia, but I wanted to submit this Asiatyrannus recon I did for its page. I based it off of the skeletal included in the paper mainly, but the skull included in that skeletal had a few issues so I based the skull off of actual fossil images as well as Cheung Chung Tat's reconstruction.

Edit: Image added

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Knowledge! Your restoration looks nice—the paper's skeletal is directly taken from Scott Hartman's old Teratophoneus so naturally it won't match up exactly with the Asiatyrannus holotype. A minor comment on the image setup: it is generally preferred not to have excess text on the image if it is already accessible on the page. As for uploading your image, you can go here to upload on Wikimedia Commons. Let us know if you have any further questions! -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Image has been added! Pls lmk if I'm allowed to add it to the page, thanks for all your help! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me, just use it in the article body, not in the infobox. Infoboxes are usually reserved for images of the fossils themselves. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added it! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed the scale bar--its length should be stated in the file description. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Changed it! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that this reconstruction seems to have the exact same colour scheme as the Cheung Chung Tat reconstruction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It was a major inspiration, apologies for not stating that, but I did modify it a bit so that it's not a direct copy. It just felt appropriate to me seeing as the recon was pretty clearly made in conjunction with the paper's team. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So I just found this restoration that I forgot to upload some time ago. It is meant to replace the existing one in the article for some reasons. I know that the existing restoration is based on the skeletal by Hartman, but elements like the diminutive feet and reduced tail look unnatural. The almost quadrupedal stance also looks misleading, given its status as a theropod.

• 
  New
• 
  Present

PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good! Aventadoros (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The stance of the old one always looked a bit like it was slipping to me, so maybe not so representative of typical locomotion. Might want to tag Steveoc 86 to see if he can fix it anyway, because it's still used on a lot of other Wikipedias. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead with the new one, it's excellent and superior in every way. Originally, the gallimimus was part of another image where it was being chased, and it was posed as if slipping and about to touch the ground briefly. But on its own it looks a little weird. I did reduce the angle slightly a while back, but I don't have time to adjust properly right now. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree that your new one is better Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Just out of curiosity though, why are your reconstructions always so conservative in terms of colors and patterns? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just that most of the animals that I have reconstructed are quite large, the reason why I choose to depict a rather oonservative, non-flashy build, unless thhe opposite has been found. I should depict more colors though. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are reconstruction I did of Aletopelta and Labocania that I also wanted to submit for review! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not show Labocania as a carcharodontosaurid as we are not sure about that. In my opinion, this is a difficult taxon to show because of the paucity of fossils. However, there are indications that Labocania is a tyrannosaurid, so I would change the look. Also, it would be better if two legs and paws were visible rather than just one. Aventadoros (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, we already have a few restorations of it as a tyrannosaur, so perhaps it's handy to have one like this just in case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually there is Labocania as a tyrannosaurid, so let's keep this one as a carcharodontosaurid, but it would be better if all the limbs were visible in this reconstruction. Aventadoros (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps also confusing that our article only shows a cladogram of it being a Carcharodontosauridae.This is a case where two cladograms should be shown. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late responses. While Labocania has some traits in common with tyrannosaurids, it predates all known tyrannosaurids by over 10 million years, meanwhile it lived when carcharodontosaurs were still relatively abundant, so I personally find a carcharodontosaurid assigment more likely. As to the purpose of including it, this reconstruction in particular was actually based on the new Cau phylogeny, and I thought it could be helpful to illustrate that. As for the limbs, I personally prefer to show them in a neutral position as I find it's more helpful for referencing as well as for getting a proper sense of scale. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple hypothetical reconstructions of fragmentary taxa is good I think. This carcharodontosaur Labocania is good, but we should also keep the tyrannosaur version on the article until a consensus in the literature emerges per WP:NPOV, regardless of any personal opinions. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, the idea was to place this image alongside the Cau phylogeny to visualize that placement Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There are actual osteoderms in the pelvic shield - I would perhaps make the texturing more prominent there. It looks like smooth skin right now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally feel that many artists overexaggerate osteoderms like that, and osteoderms can oftentimes take on the color of the surrounding scales, which is what I was trying to present here, if you look closely there is texturing indicating the presence of osteoderms, it's just a little difficult to see against the red. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire lower Aletopelta reconstruction appears to be rotated so the limbs don't line up on the same plane (and as a result the toes are projecting upward). The hand seems to be lacking definition, and the arm might be rotated a little too far anteriorly. Also the linework appears particularly rough on the underside of the body. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'll see if I can clean it up when I have time Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like I've got the go ahead to add the Labocania, could I get a second pair of eyes on the Aletopelta just to make sure it's good before adding? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree that the hands and feet of the Aletopelta appear a bit too slender, the hands in particular. I am also questioning the length of the neck, it may be too short in lateral view because of where the shoulders are in that view versus dorsal, but that's neither here nor there. IJReid  19:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Gannansaurus I finished today, muscles on this one were tricky to figure out lol. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that Gannansaurus is only known from 2 vertebrae, I'm judging this based on Euhelopus, but I'd say it looks great. No notes! A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)