Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Discontinued yearly archives: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page: Criterion sufficient for using an image: If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria sufficient to remove an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?

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

Shucaris ankylosskelos

• 
  Shucaris and Erratus
• 
  Shucaris appendage by @Junnn11
• 
  Shucaris appendage by @Wawrow

Decided to make one more radidont that took longer than expected. To model the appendages I downloaded the raw CT data, put it into Blender, and modelled the podomeres and endites to follow the holotype, as well as referencing the description of course. I gave it 4 sets of GLS associated with reduced flaps, although reduced flaps are not preserved, and the GLS are incompletely known. I feel that this is reasonable speculation given the apparently elongate neck region. I put the setal blades on the dorsal surface of the flaps as well, which I believe better represents the fossil evidence, where in Shucaris they are seemingly only associated with the flaps, rather than the trunk. Something similar is also seen in Amplectobelua and Lyrarapax. Regarding the Erratus, I gave it generic, upward facing frontal appendages given its phylogenetic placement, even though this area is completely missing in the fossils.

Regarding the existing appendage illustrations, I wish to suggest (and if they choose to ignore these comments it does not bother me,) that the relative proportions of the podomeres be changed slightly to better reflect the holotype. I will admit that not every appendage presented in the description looks alike, but most commonly, and also in the holotype, there is a very distinct increase in podomere height, starting at the first DAR (distal articulated region, "claw") podomere, maxing out at the joint between the 3rd and 4th DAR podomere, and shallowing out until the 7th DAR podomere. Here, the podomeres are rectangular and tall - but towards the distal portion they are almost completely square in profile. Importantly, the shaft podomeres are shorter than the succeeding podomeres, and the second shaft podomere (BP1 in the description) is wider at the bottom then at the top, similar to amplectobeluids. The first shaft podomere (BP2) is even shorter and more elongate. Wawrow's model already presents this quite well. Altogether, this is what gives Shucaris appendages their very distinct crook-shape, which you can see in most fossils ascribed to it. This is what gives it the name "ankylosskelos" ("curved leg"). I think it would be best if the representative diagrams show this very important characteristic of the appendage. As far as I know, Wawrow is planning to make these adjustments to their model soon. Sorry for the paragraph Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My only minor concern on the full body reconstruction is the amount of (at least for now, on the general understanding of radiodont anatomy) unusual speculative features. But since their plausibility was formally mentioned elsewhere I think It's Ok afterall.

Anyway thanks for the suggestions! I'll modifying my diagram within this week. Junnn11 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the reconstruction is accurate but the position of shucaris makes it look kinda like it has legs which may be misleading. Zhenghecaris (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really?, you can see in the piece that the GLS stop once you get to the larger trunk flaps, and the shadow below the radiodont indicates its above the seafloor. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

OK Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Homotherium

Head of H. serum

I don't have an image to be reviewed, but I want to point out that a newly discovered Homotherium cub mummy may impact how the animal should be reconstructed. The paper is here, and the mummy has dark, reddish-brown fur. The reconstructions on the Homotherium Wikipedia page currently have whitish-grey fur, so they may need to be revised. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple species of Homotherium and only this one juvenile is believed to have had brown fur, so theoretically only depictions of juveniles of H. latidens should be changed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Our only restoration of H. latidens (which I'm not sure otherwise passed review) appears to have roughly the right colour:[7] But yeah, the rest we have are of H. serum, so we can't necessarily assume they had the same colour. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Discord, I will try to fix that head restoration (added above). Seems to be mainly the way the back of the head connects with the neck and the width of the snout base that is off, but feel free to add other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Triloboii is also working on his restoration, which hopefully will be completed at some point in the not too distant future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Which species? FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

H. latidens. H latidens and H. serum are basically morphologically identical though (the name applied largely depends on which continent the remains are from), and it's not unreasonable to think they are the same species (something which has been repeatedly suggested in the recent academic literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool, either way, then it should probably reflect the colouration of that mummy (felid kittens don't differ so much in colouration from the adults). FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I did a bunch of modifications to the H. serum bust, any comments, Hemiauchenia and PrimalMustelid? FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion it looks basically perfect. I don't know if Silvertiger (our resident cat editor) has any opinions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool, let's ping Silvertiger~enwiki (if that is the current account, seems some rename has happened). FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

His username currently is SilverTiger12. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus skeletal + size

• 
  Skeletal (holotype)
• 
  Size comparison (estimated adult)

Skeletal reconstruction of the one holotypic vertebra of Nipponopterus, plus a size chart based on the paper's estimated adult wingspan. I'm a little hesitant about that size given the holotype (which is described as a "subadult") is much smaller... -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the estimate is wingspan, perhaps a flying silhouette would be preferable? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Pterosaur size estimates are essentially always given as wingspans, rather than length/height. This size chart is still consistent with the wingspan estimate, even if it is shown indirectly. Flying silhouettes (especially dorsal-view wingspan silhouettes, for which there are very few decent references) introduce new complications with posing and fitting neatly into a believable diagram. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the walking pose is preferable. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Large bird sizes

I found this on commons. I'm planning on using it for a long-term project about the size of birds throughout their evolution. Any issues that some Cenozoic people can identify? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is surely oversized. Seemingly each square is 30 cm considering human's height, and that make Kelenken skull way oversized, which is actually 70 cm long but in this chart nearly 1.5 m. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Gastornis being labeled as "predatory" is pretty outdated. Honestly why is it here, this would work better as a strictly Phorusrhacid size chart. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Scale diagrams for extinct birds are generally pretty lacking, I may try and get working on some relatively soon. This was the best one I could find. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely needs a scale bar. Could really use an entire overhaul—the silhouette detail is inconsistent (especially with the shaggy Gastornis) and the gradient background is unnecessary and distracting. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the inconsistent silhouettes as mentioned by SlvrHwk, I think its probably worth looking into the licensing around them. I can't say how much modification or difference would suffice but on first glance the Kelenken seems very much to be slightly repurposed from the artwork of Stephanie Abramowicz, while the Phorusrhacos appears like a slimmed down and slightly reposed derivative of the WWB depiction. There are some obvious differences I admitt (Abramowicz's art has less open jaws and a more raised leg), but for cautions sake its probably better to make an entirely new image.Armin Reindl (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the gradient is pretty tedious as well. Its probably worth doing scale charts for several large extinct birds, as they appear to be relatively lacking in commons. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Unshowcased works

• 
  Haikouichthys
• 
  Allodelphis
• 

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a submission for Allodelphis woodburnei, including the dolphin with and without background. If there are any changes I should consider, I'll be quick to work with it. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthropleura

Hello. I finally got around to finishing my reconstruction of Arthropleura. I based it mostly on the new fossils of Arthropleura sp. from Montceau-les-Mines, although reduced the spines slightly, to represent an older individual, or a different species. I would have also made clean / orthographic renders, but the page is already short and cluttered as is, so first we would have to find a place to put this one. Prehistorica CM (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty nice for me! My concerns are, spine-like humps are known mostly from smaller specimens so not sure if it is also like that for adult one, and antennae segmentation being over 7, although yeah, MNHN.F.SOT002123 seems have more antennae segments than smaller specimen. (problem is not specified in the paper or supplementary material) Do you have opinions, @Junnn11:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO the spines are still acceptable if it represent older Montceau (potentially new) species. The basal section of the antenna was interpreted as a specifically long 1st segment, but yeah it does not seems to be the case in that specimen. Junnn11 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthropleura mammata also probably had similar spines as a juvenile, and I did make sure to reduce their size from the height shown in the CT data. I hope the antennae are not too much of an issue, I think its inarguable that there are more than 7 segments in the larger specimen, but I understand its a weird position for wikipedia. sorry about that. I will also note here that I have done a massive overhaul of the Arthropleura article. I hope that isnt an issue. Prehistorica CM (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Placoderms and Chondrichthyans

My first set of placoderms along with a few other fish with a more updated look, I had help from Richard Carr for a few of the weirder placoderms like rolfosteus and gymnotrachelus. The general proportions are based on the equation from Engelman 2023 but with a bit of wiggle room since one or two were a little shorter than they probably would be.

• 
  Tubonasus lennardensis
• 
  Gymnotrachelus hydei
• 
  Rolfosteus canningensis
• 
  Pholidosteus friedeli
• 
  Mcnamaraspis kaprios
• 
  Latocamurus coulthardi
• 
  Kiangyousteus yohii
• 
  Heintzichthys gouldii
• 
  Harpagofututor volsellorhinus
• 
  Diademodus hydei
• 
  Bryantolepis brachycephala
• 
  Enseosteus marocanensis

SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No complaints here, and really glad to see these represented. As stated before I especially like the Harpagofututor and Diademodus, and I appreciate the changes made to the latter prior to uploading. Great job as usual! Gasmasque (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bashkyroleter

• 

Hello all. Can I have another review for my drawing? This time I tried to reconstruct Bashkyroleter based on the skull found on its Wikipedia page. For the body, I mainly using Dmitry Bogdanov reconstruction of other closely related species as base reference. And yes, I am aware Dmitry himself had drawn this taxa a while ago... But it is kind of obscured by other species from its location. So I thought I want to try making a more clear reconstruction?

Thank you in advance always...

DD (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Daeng+dino&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image DD (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If there are no major inaccuracies, I think I am going to upload it to the taxa page... But as always, if it is deemed inaccurate, please just take it down... DD (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Comparing to skeletal reconstructions of other nycteroleters, I don't see any major discrepancies other than the fact that there should be five digits on all limbs (not super clear here). Perhaps more important is that the file should be renamed to specify the species (mesensis) because the genus is considered to be polyphyletic in recent literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Ah yes, I am aware about the 5 digits but it is not quite visible from the angle I drew it.. About the species, I am not aware of the specific species. I will change it then.. Thanks! DD (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Amphimeryx

Another Quercy artiodactyl, this time tiny

• 
  Amphimeryx murinus
• 
  Size chart

Triloboii (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Already was the one who provided material images for the restorations, approved as usual. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus by かずたき

This unreviewed image of the recently described azhdarchid Nipponopterus was added to its page without review. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is rough. The wing/hand posture is completely wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have an extra arm bone. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which? I see a scapula, upper arm, lower arm, and metacarpals. That said, it is pretty rough, and not sure about the proportions (the body looks too big). FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

not an extra arm bone per se but having the humerus articulate with the scapula below the vertebral column contradicts every well-preserved pterosaur specimen ever found. In effect, the scapula is where the humerus should be. Body/neck ratio also wrong for azhdarchids... the arm is so wrong that I don't even care about the shrinkwrapped nasoantorbital fenestra. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Port Kennedy Bone Cave Fauna

I have recently been working on reconstructing Port Kennedy Bone Cave fauna, inlcuding Smilodon gracilis, Megalonyx wheatleyi, and Mericonyx inexpectatus. Specifically these were reconstructed in the context of the local Philadelphia area (with the Smilodon and Megalonyx being depicted in the Wissahickon). I noticed that the wikipedia page for the Port Kennedy Bone Cave lacks reconstructions of the animals discovered there, so I suggest these be added on the page.

Prehistoric philly

Miracinonyx inexpectata

Spinosaurid (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing all the taxa you mention? The sloth image also needs a Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The Smilodon in the drawing just look off compared to those of Mauricio Anton (e.g. [8], [9], [10]), even considering the obvious differences in detail and art style, so I would oppose inclusion. The restoration of Miracinonyx looks a lot better, but again there are issues with the tail, which looks crudely drawn like it shrinks where it joins the body, unlike that of say the living cheetah. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus life reconstruction

Uploaded by @Mikailodon and added to the Andrewsarchus article without review. Figured it was best to post it here, seeing as the original full-body life construction was replaced for being too speculative (since Andrewsarchus is known exclusively from craniodental elements). Borophagus (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The texture of the skin looks a little off. I'm not sure of any mammal that has skin texture like that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The skin was inspired by rhinos, since it was a large land mammal. The related hippo is also somewhat in the mix. Mikailodon (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If those are intended to be oxpeckers, I am not sure that any passerines are even known from contemporary strata. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The accompanying article(?) lists them only as "tick birds", so I'm assuming that was the intention. Looking into it, there doesn't seem to be any records of Buphagus in the fossil record (let alone from any of the locales Andrewsarchus comes from), and there is no molecular data on their date of origin or even point of divergence from other muscicapoids. If they don't represent buphagids, they must represent a clade we have no evidence for, which would make them completely made up. Either way, very speculative. Borophagus (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

These are just speculative, and may or may not be traditionally be oxpeckers, they’re at least just random birds. Also, oxpeckers are not really the only "tick birds," egrets and magpies are a couple that will often hitch a ride on large animals to eat their parasites. Mikailodon (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Glad you love it. Mikailodon (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we do not exactly know what it looked like beyond the head, its close relatives can restore a close picture, which is what I tried doing here. Nothing else too speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed previously regarding Dmitri Bogdanov's reconstruction, which was deemed too speculative. Contrary to what you state, Andrewarchus has no known close relatives, and any detailed reconstructions of its postcranial anatomy should be considered very tentative to the point of diminishing educational value. Yours additionally includes entirely fictional passerine birds, something which is generally best to avoid to avoid misleading unaware, casual viewers. Wikipedia isn't a paleoart gallery, for better or worse, and even reconstructions that are visually appealing and within the realm of possibility may not see use due to there being more encyclopedic alternatives. Frankly I am of the opinion that if this were to be suitable for the page, Bogdanov's reconstruction would be as well, and its more clear silhouette and lack of fictional species would make it a preferable alternative. Gasmasque (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, although the birds aren’t fictional, they’re just speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Du Toit's torrent frog

• 
  Illustration of a live Du Toit's torrent frog
• 
  Chart showing the sizes of Arthroleptides species

Ok I realize this isn't exactly paleoart since this species survived into modern times (and might not even be extinct yet) but I figured I'd put it here anyways, if there's a similar review page for illustrations of extant fauna then I don't know about it. This species was last seen in 1962 and the preserved specimens have lost their original color so I had to restore it based on field notes, so there's some element of reconstruction like in paleoart rather than referencing photos of live individuals (which to my knowledge do not exist). Olmagon (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Dongnanosuchus

• 
• 

Armin Reindl (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed images by Tourmaline Ctenacanth

• 
  Tuanshanzia linearis
• 
  Grandilingulata qianxiensis
• 
  Tuanshanzia fasciaria
• 
  Proterotainia sp.
• 
  Tawuia & epibionts

These images got removed from their respective pages for being unreviewed, so the obvious answer was to post them here and get them reviewed. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely notebook lines are unneeded, needs to get rid of. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, however, in my experience, attempting to remove these notebook lines is not only difficult but also makes the images worse. I'll need to create some new illustrations at some point. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Should I keep adding new illustrations here or should I make new sections for them? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d say make new sections for them. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

alright. I'll do that then. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it automatically add the date and time to the new section because I had to add that manually last time. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Titanoides new life reconstruction

Little(ish) fella to replace the old Bogdanov art

Life reconstruction of the paleogene pantodont Titanoides primaevus.

Zhombah (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks very good, but the file is a bit low res. Is that the original or did it get compressed? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't typically work at a super high resolution (simply out of habit), but i could absolutely resize the image. The conversion to a .png format may have caused some compression. Zhombah (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is the Bogdanov version inaccurate? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Koonaspides

Koonaspides

At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems so nice to me, matches with morphology descripted in Jell & Duncan, 1986 (it is inaccessible, if someone want to see I can send in Discord) and modern anaspidids. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, probably it would need extra uropods as modern members have 2 pair of that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Pteranodon

Pteranodon

Please review for accuracy. Go easy, this is my first pterosaur! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it has pteroids. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the texturing's just weird in general. The brachiopatagium looks essentially undifferentiated from the skin of the body. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pteroids added. How should I differentiate the brachiopatagium? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps just a crisper line. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the brachiopatagium would have had feathers on it, that would probably do the trick. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't the current thinking that the wing tips would have been rounded? FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The distal phalanx is more strongly curved in Pteranodon than other taxa but the rounded wingtips thing usually feels overdone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

tail should be much less chunky. Not sure how i feel about the wing posture either. When flying they would have wings extended near perpendicular to the body, so the angle between the metacarpal and first wing phalanx should be much less sharp Skye McDavid (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Eramoscorpius

Eramoscuorpius

Ok, I guess I can now update Odaraia and Arthropleura, although it may take some time. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the new artwork! Just take your time for the updates.

The only issue of this reconstruction is the fingers of right pedipalp, which should curve inward instead of upward. In scorpion's pedipalpal pincer, the curvature is perpendicular (to inward) to the arrangement of the fingers (free finger latero-ventral, fix finger dorso-mesial). It's better to explain by these images. Junnn11 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!, I have already fixed it. Qohelet12 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Liulaobei Formation size chart

Liulaobei Formation size chart

Liulaobei Formation size chart (digitally altered)

Here is a size chart I made of various organisms from the Tonian aged Liulaobei Formation. This formation doesn't yet have an article, but it might fit with the Huainan biota (it is part of the Huainan Group), though I think that it might constitute a different biota. Also, I don't know about whether or not to keep the texture of the sketchbook. I don't think it can be removed without making the text/scale bar look out of place.

Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I made an alternate version in Krita that I think looks a lot cleaner. I'm unsure what to do with the old one though. I might make the digitally altered one an edit to the old one. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Changchengia

• 
  Changchengia stipitata
• 
  Changchengia sp. 1
• 
  Changchengia sp. 2
• 
  Changchengia sp. 3

Here are all the Images I made for Changchengia. The Chuanlinggou Formation forms still currently have the lines since I made them a while ago, but I made the C.stipitata illustration more recently. I was originally going to leave the C.stipitata illustration with the paper texture, but there were some smudges of the paper so I decided to remove the background digitally. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The background lines have since been removed by Qohelet12. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Skara anulata

Skara anulata

I have been wanting to make this recon for a long time, so here it is. The next one now is Odaraia. Qohelet12 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Could I add it to the Skaracarida page? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it would be good to wait and see if @Junnn11 has any comments on the accuracy. Qohelet12 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no obvious issues. Yery detailed work! Junnn11 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, Skara finally gets a reconstruction! Also, I could probably expand the Skaracarida page; gives me something to do other than Precambrian stuff. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Jiangxisuchus

• 
• 

Armin Reindl (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus

Hello! Here's my hypothetical restoration of Nipponopterus. Please let me know your thoughts! I hope everyone had a wonderful new year!

Life restoration of Nipponopterus mifunensis.

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What is it doing? FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s using its forelimbs to launch itself into the air in order to start flying. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not what a pterosaur launch sequence would look like. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's using the legs for take-off, they would never stick up into the air like that, the feet would always be directed towards the ground. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake! I should've looked back at the launch sequence to make sure I was accurate. I'll see what I can do to fix this. Thanks for showing me the diagram too. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agapornis longipes

Agapornis longipes

Hi, I've created this illustration of the extinct lovebird species Agapornis longipes. The pose is based on this photo of Agapornis roseicollis, and the leg proportions are based on the figure from the paper. The coloration is based on Agapornis roseicollis as well as Agapornis nigrigenis. Does it look good to use? Di (they-them) (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks nice, the eye seems like it could be rounder? And I'd probably make the flight-feather anatomy more specific, it's very unclear now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll work on that. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the file with the improved eye and feathers. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Much better! While some might argue it's pointless to reconstruct colour scheme for such a bird, the literature is full of this kind of speculative restorations, so there's plenty of precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Request: Pachycrocuta brevirostris life restoration, and a review of Nobu Tamura's restoration

restoration of Pachycrocuta brevirostris by Nobu Tamura

Compared to the life restoration on Maucio Anton's website (which also includes excellent skeletal reference material [11]), Nobu Tamura's restoration looks wonky. Particularly noticable things include the upper profile of the head, and the shape of the neck. Would be nice to get more accurate restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Uncus dzaugisi reconstruction

Artist's interperetation of U. dzaugisi

Uncus is likely a nematoid yet this reconstruction has scalids and a proboscis (similar to a priapulid) while these features don’t seem to appear in the fossils. These features should likely be removed in favour of a relatively featureless front end, like the fossils of Uncus show. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I second this Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: would you be able to fix this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but if I remove the proboscis, what to do with that seems to be the part of it that seems to be within the body, the red innards? And what are scalids? FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Scalids are those spines on the proboscis that scalidophorans are named for.

And perhaps the interior part of the proboscis could just be made into generic gut (I.e. shrunk) with a small opening at the front for the mouth. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Should the tentacles be removed also, essentially rendering the depiction nematode-like? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably, seeing as Uncus is likely a stem-nematoid. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

yeah, Uncus would've probably heavily resembled nematodes given its likely taxonomic position. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What would be a good reference photo? I can modify it, but I know barely anything about this group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk modifying the front ends to be formless like those of nematodes example seems to be the best bet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

also this ref could help with the anatomy Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here's an attempt[12] at correction, any thoughts, @IC1101-Capinatator:, @Fossiladder13:? FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  That looks much more in line with a nematoid, very nice, sorry for the late reply. Fossiladder13 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool, file now updated. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Dysmoropelia dekarchiskos

Because there is very little reconstructions of the Saint Helena dove, I decided to draw it as part of a series of extinct columbids, and thought I’d upload it here to perhaps have it shared on the animals page. Jackosaurs (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Revisions/Questions - While we do have orange in various species of its hypothesised closest living relative(1)(2) (S. turtur, S. lugens, S. hypopyrrha, S. orientalis, S. tranquebarica), I'm not sure how accurate it is to have it fully vibrant orange as well as yellow on the bottom. I'd also caution against reconstructing it with a cere for that same reason.

Although I'd also wait for someone who knows more about these birds than me to give their thoughts since I'm just going off of the information on the Wikipedia page itself. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Things I forgot to upload over the last month

• 
  Huehuecuetzpalli mixtecus
• 
  Heptacodon gibbiceps
• 
  Nabotherium aegyptiacum
• 
  Elomeryx garbanii
• 
  Erythrosuchus africanus
• 
  Styracocephalus platyrhynchus
• 
  Eriphostoma microdon
• 
  Navajosuchus mooki
• 
  Eutretauranosuchus delfsi
• 
  Chalawan thailandicus
• 
  Siamosuchus phuphokensis
• 
  Riebeeckosaurus longirostris
• 
  Portugalosuchus azenhae
• 
  Lomasuchus palpebrosus
• 
  Ctenurella gladbachensis

SeismicShrimp (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No further comments on the featured pseudosuchians among these pieces. They are good to go in my eyes.Armin Reindl (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Huehuecuetzpalli appears to have five toes on the right foot and four toes on the right. Maybe this is perspective/artistic choice but potentially confusing as one of the easiest ways to tell lizards apart from sphenodontians is the number of toes. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

it is perspective, it wouldn't be visible due to the lower hindlimb covering that area SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case it's not inaccurate strictly speaking but I would still recommend revising it slightly to make it more apparent that the animal has five toes. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like thats not needed. The left foot clearly shows five toes and thats the one that one is much more prominent. It's not like both feet have a toe hidden through perspective, just the one in the back.Armin Reindl (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I can only comment on the female Ctenurella gladbachensis and it's a pass from me, do you plan to make a male reconstruction too? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The head of Styracocephalus head is too small. And Riebeeckosaurus had a longer snout. 2601:197:F00:330:794D:ACFD:4BEE:4AA3 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Long snout of Riebeeckosaurus is later found to be misidentification. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Proof? 2601:197:F00:330:4EFC:A367:7D7:1A8E (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

"Cranial morphology and taxonomy of South African Tapinocephalidae (Therapsida: Dinocephalia): the case of Avenantia and Riebeeckosaurus" SeismicShrimp (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like my styracocephalus is fine since it’s pretty much Jonkeria without the long face proportion-wise since both are more basal members of the group. If needed I could make it bigger due to us having postcrania or any other reason but it’s just my point of view. The other one has been commented on by another person. SeismicShrimp (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to myself, I feel like it should be specified that the image is of a female rather than representative of all individuals, and that should be changed before it's fine to use. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

just added that in the caption, thanks for pointing that out SeismicShrimp (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Flabellophyton lantianense

Flabellophyton lantianense

Here is a reconstruction of the probable algae Flabellophyton lantianense I made for the Lantian Formation page. I decided to make part of it's globular holdfast visible to showcase that unique part of it's anatomy but it might need to be removed later. it still has the sketchbook lines in the background since it's an old-ish piece. Are there any details I might need to correct? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Panthera fossilis and spelaea size diagram

A bit belated. Figures and scale based on "From giant to dwarf: A trend of decreasing size in Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810) and its likely implications" [13] which is under a CC-BY license Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - Sizes check out against the paper. The scale bar text and arrow are a bit intrusive, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that the text and scale bar was legible in thumb view, which is often a flaw of these images. I'm not sure how to make the text and scale bar less "intrusive" without at the same time making them less legible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe more space between the lions and put the scale bar there? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Lythronax. I don't find the scale bar and text intrusive at all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Tsaganomys

• 

• Other works by apparently same user but different account, once put in mass review but seems not properly reviewed

• 
  Migmacastor
• 
  Sinocastor
• 
  Podiceps miocenicus

Found in Commons. Other three are in articles, probably same user considering style. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending clarification - Not a mammal expert but why are the eyes so small? Also, the skull in the background of Sinocastor does not appear to match the actual reconstruction or the cited paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't watermarks not allowed if the images are CC BY-SA 4.0? I remember someone telling me that years ago. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Intrusive watermarks probably violate Commons:Watermarks but artist's signatures like these are allowed. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreviewed images from DevonHalDraedle

• 
  Alienum velamenus
• 
  Helicolocellus cantori
• 
  Arimasia germsi
• 
  Vendoconularia triradiata

Fossiladder13 mentioned that these images hadn’t been reviewed yet. So here they are. Also, the Alienum has a weirdly raised front. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The Alienum looks a little weird, the recon from Liu et al., 2024 shows the ventral side as being more level, instead of having an abrupt vertical rise. Also the front in general looks too short compared to the recon from the paper. The caudal area is also not complex enough. Seems like the recon was based directly on the holotype. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean there. I can certainly go in and fix those issues up and bring it closer to the recon from Liu et el., 2024, so thanks for raising these issues up.

Also didn't know this page was a thing, so thanks for putting these here and making it known to me, I'll certainly make use of it in the near future! DevonHalDraedle (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh gotcha, no problem. Fossiladder13 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Went in and updated the Alienum reconstruction based on your feedback, and also occasionally looking at the reconstruction found from the Liu et al., 2024 paper. Are there any other changes that I could make? Oh, and how do the other ones look if I may ask? DevonHalDraedle (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Vendoconularia looks good, the soft tissue is what is to be expected from a Conulariid. Arimasia also looks fine. Helicolocellus looks good, but I feel like the top portion could be a bit less wide, following the recon from Wang et al. 2024. The Alienum also looks much better, maybe the only thing I’d change is making the caudal area more complex, otherwise very nice. Sorry for the late response. Fossiladder13 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Phorusrhacidae size diagram

Heyy how's everything going? Making a comeback from a tedious academic year, and thought I'd give Phorusrhacidae a try. I'm aware of the older diagram that has some major flaws and the unrelated Gastornis. Regarding that aspect, I'm open to do another size chart for Anseriformes if needed (focusing Dromornithidae, Gastornithidae, or Brontornis) so feel free to throw comments. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly a very nice and much-needed improvement over the old diagram! -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No notes, it looks great! In general, size diagrams for extinct birds are extremely lacking, so if that's something you'd be willing to do, I would be fully supportive of that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks excellent! No notes from me The Morrison Man (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No notes from me either, definitely an improvement from the previous one. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Great! Given the support for this one I'll just jump onto the other size diagram as previously mentioned. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Having one for Dromornithids would be very nice! If you're open to more suggestions after that, moas could also use a higher quality size comparison. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Liwia

I made this reconstruction of Liwia based on the specimens of L. convexa (the complete pygidium) and L. plana (complete body with incomplete pygidium), the same way it was done in The oldest arthropods of the East European Platform paper which suggested they might be synonymous; however I used the complete pygidium instead of relying on the incomplete one, this way both specimens complement each other. Wawrow (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, feel free to add it to the article once others have had time to comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me too, nice shading. The addition of both species to make a composite carapace is odd, but given the circumstances with this genus, I think it’s a reasonable decision. Fossiladder13 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Orientalosuchus

• 
• 

Skull chiefly based on the type specimen with some adjustments based on the literature and the referred material with better preserved sutures. Size also after the holotype (also happens to be the largest of the relatively complete skulls) and A. sinensis for proportions. Armin Reindl (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks all good to me, no notes. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Odontocyclops

Odontocyclops whaitsi

Hello everyone. Nice to talk again here in this new year

As usual, I want to ask for another review of my drawing if I may. This time it is an Odontocyclops. The main reference for the head is from this paper [14] For the body proportion, I mainly used Mark Witton reconstruction and artbyjrc drawing of the Geikiids. Oh almost forgot, I also used this skeletal reconstruction as reference as a fellow big bodied Geikiids Aulacephalodon And so, may I use my image at the genus page? As always, thank you in advance for the time... DD (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

When comparing to the skull you referenced, it mostly looks fine though I'd increase the height of the sagittal crest since the postorbital section of the head looks a bit too flat. It also feels like the area the skull where the tusk emerges could be brought down a bit along with the lip seems like it goes on for a bit too long. The only other thing I could say is that the neck may be a bit too long as well. SeismicShrimp (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

After taking a look again, yeah I guess the sagittal part is quite flat compare to the fossil. And about the neck, I will try to shorten it although it is probably cause by perspective.. DD (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The torso appears to have a big concavity between the shoulder girdle and the belly. Is that a deliberate anatomical feature or a perspective error? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

ah yes, it is a perspective error.. Thank you for pointing out that. I will try to change it then.. DD (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision - The perspective on the face looks a little off, primarily the way the posterior half of the skull appears to be in a lateral-adjacent view while the front portion appears to be in a more anterior-adjacent view. I'm guessing the intention was to make it an anterior-adjacent view of the skull, so if that's the case I'd recommend using construction shapes with skull landmarks to better convey the shape of the skull in 3D space. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok.. I guess there are a lot of things to fix for my reconstruction. I have to postpone using this image. Thank you all for the input! DD (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Anserimorphae size comparison

As previously discussed, here's the size chart for anserimorphs, including Gastornis. I choose to leave Brontornis, Barawertornis, and Ilbandornis out because of their fragmentary nature/controversial taxonomy. The same goes for the recently resurrected Diatryma. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Very nice, don't see any issues. On a separate note, would it be possible to create proper size comparisons for moa and elephant birds as well? Mullerornis has a height of around 1.49 metres [15]. Moa habitually held their necks forward, while most skeletal mounts have their necks orientated vertically to exaggerate their height, which is something to keep in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Very good! Although I would also appreciate one of those other taxa if that's at all possible. I also concur with the above comment that diagrams of moa and elephant birds would be wonderful. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing guys. I'll be working on those. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What about Brontornis? Heads up, I know the theory surrounding it being a gastornithiform is controversial. 2601:197:F00:330:2F15:8D9F:703A:AA6F (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Genyornis life restorations

• 
  Genyornis by Nobu Tamura
• 
  Same as above/left but flipped
• 
  Genyornis by Nellie Pease

Following on from PN's size reconstruction, the new reconstruction of the Genyornis skull in the recent 2024 study [16], render these reconstructions obviously inaccurate bacause they lack the flat, sloped top of the bill of the real Genyornis, see this image from the paper [17]. @FunkMonk: would you be able to fix this, at least for Nobu Tamura's reconstruction? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, should be possible even for the Pease image, though it's of course a more complicated case due to style and angle. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively a new life reconstruction could be made which I'd be more than happy to make. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Up to you, the thing with existing restorations is that they're already used in a ton of other places, so it's good to fix them either way. But there are other dromornithids without restorations, which I generally think should be prioritized when it comes to making new illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I can just make a few in a batch session while I wait on critique for other non-Wikipedia art things. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thylacocercus

Another reconstruction, this time I've drawn Thylacocercus. I'm worried about the "tentacles" being too thin, would that be a problem if this reconstruction is the only one on Wiki (or even on the entire internet)? Wawrow (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Dinornithiformes size comparison

Following the previous size comparisons, here's one for the moas. In the meantime I'll be making another one for the elephant birds. Just a side note, taxa like Emeus, Euryapteryx, or Anomalopteryx were excluded as they are within the size range of Megalapteryx and Pachyornis and would just overcrow the chart. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, @The Morrison Man, any notes? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be more useful to show the full size range of moa by at least including the smallest moa, the Bush moa, If crowding is a concern I would show just one member of each genus, rather than both of very similar Dinornis species. Dinornis is also strongly sexually dimorphic (see [18] [19] so showing just one size (the female) for the species of the genus is a bit misleading. The other species are more subtly dimorphic so this less of an issue for them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Having a second, partially transparant silhouette of the male size of Dinornis would be good. Maybe D. novaezealandiae could be swapped out for the bush moa for the group's size chart, while a size chart of both Dinornis species with male and female sizes could be added to the article for the genus? Other than that I don't have any immediately visible issues with the diagram, very nicely done! The Morrison Man (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Barawertornis life reconstruction

A speculative life reconstruction of Barawertornis

Speculative life reconstruction of Barawertornis based on known material as well as filling in the blanks with a mix of Genyornis and Dromornis given its basal position in Dromornithidae. The head specifically is most obviously a mix of the two, I can understand if this is too speculative however. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Emmonsaspis

Hello. I made a reconstruction of Emmonsaspis cambrensis from the Parker Slate of Vermont. I dont do chordates often so let me know if anything should be corrected, or if there are any other suggestions for needed reconstructions to kill time. Have a reconstruction of Bundenbachiellus I need to finish as well. Prehistorica CM (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, comparing it with the diagram given in Lerosey-Aubril & Ortega-Hernández, 2024, nothing immediately jumps out. The ecology also lines up with the nekto-planktonic lifestyle suggested for this polytomy of chordates. Also I like the shading you used, helps the myomeres stand out more. As for potential suggestions, maybe a trilobite like Isotleus or Waukeshaaspis?. Wikicommons needs better trilobite art anyway, so it'd be nice to have some more up-to-date recons. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)