This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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.
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.
Pass or minor revisions - Anatomy generally seems to check out against other grippioids. The form of the dorsal tail fin is a little unusual (any particular reason it looks a bit lobe-like?) but I'm not sure it's incorrect. Perhaps Slate Weasel has comments. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life restoration of Homotherium latidens by TriloboiiScale diagram of H. latidens based on Triloboii restoration
Triloboii got around to uploading his Homotherium restoration a few weeks ago. Looking at authoritative side-on restorations by Mauricio Anton, [7][8], nothing strikes me as wrong (the lack of exposed canines when the mouth was closed is accurate to the most recent research [9]). I used the life restoration to make a silhouette to make into a size comparison, scaling it after this figure [10] (scale bar = 25 cm) from [11] and [12] (same scale) from [13]. The posture is slightly different but I think it's within ballpark. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. If you knew anything about the paleobiota of the Oxford Clay Formation, I think what the image depicts is basically true as far as taxa go. However, the Liopleurodon still deserves to have a correction to the tail, because as you probably know, there is evidence that plesiosaurs had a small caudal fin at the end of the tail as is illustrated for example in a specimen of Seeleyosaurus. If there is anything else to note in the reconstruction, do not hesitate to say so. Amirani1746 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Leedsicthys is also very outdated I believe, so I think it's not really feasible to fix this one. Unless you maybe ask the artist for an entirely new version. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreviewed restoration by LoMarion. My take is that this warrants major revisions - the limb posture is incorrect (elbows are too upright and not directed outwards, forelimb digits I-III are too splayed, hindlimbs appear to be digitigrade). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wings should also probably be completely collapsed against the wing finger. The hindlimbs appear to have no joints at all, and the fingers should be pointed backwards. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a life reconstruction of a otodus based on the tooth GHC 6
new reconstuctions and up to date renders of them, changed from current life reconstruction via more lamnid-esque proportions and change in color though this isnt as relavent as it is still a naturalistic patter/color for said animal as it is based upon lamna nasus, i suggest we replace the current old render with one of these
the size comparison render has a 23m individual based on ghc 6, a 18.6m (suggested female) , 15m (suggested male) , and 10m individual which is assumed to be some kind of older juvenile
EvolutionIncarnate (talk | contribs) 3:45, 3 march 2025 (UTC)
Major revisions - Not sure if I agree regarding Crassigyrinus. It still looks like it has the boxy skull that characterised the original reconstruction, and I'm not sure what's up with those fangs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
skeletal reconstruction of megalodon showing known material and elements inferred from other species
updated and better labeled skeletal reconstruction of O.megalodon, suggesting to change the life reconstruction and skeletal reconstruction i did for this animal. ive labeled the parts of the skeletal by what material is known and what species im using in filling in gaps that are not known. ive labeled the rostral node seperately due to its unknown genus at this time
EvolutionIncarnate (talk | contribs) 11:57, 8 march 2025 (UTC)
I think in its current form this image will need some revisions, mainly regarding the text and color use. I don't think I've seen another skeletal reconstruction image on the site that uses the multiview layout, and I'm also not sure if its is needed for an image on Wikipedia, although I'd like more input from others on this.The Morrison Man (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor revisions - The text is excessive. But I disagree in principle with broadly excluding a particular type or layout of diagram from ever being used. The diagrams serve the text. If there are features discussed in the text that are only visible in a non-lateral skeletal reconstruction, there would absolutely be a need. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i agree that just having a lateral skeletal is fairly limiting in terms of diagramming the shape of the animal/its anatomy. having it be the standard should be more common for better communication of these animals. and what text revisions would you suggest then? EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this is my first time doing this, but here is a piece of palaeoart i made, inspired by the recent discovery of the Homotherium latidens cub with the tufty beard. Thoughts ? Paloolalooza (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Homobeardium
It's a bit uncanny valley at the moment as it lacks whiskers, which are present in all living cats, and also doesn't have any long hairs above the eyelids which are also typical of living cats. Many living cats have regularly arranged dark spots around the muzzle at the location of the whisker follicles, e.g. tigers, lions and living house cats, but some don't like cheetahs so I suppose I can't count that as a strict inaccuracy. Mauricio Anton has done a good side-on restoration of the head of H. latidens that due to his expertise, can be considered probably a very accurate restoration of what it looked like in life: [14], which can be used as guides for the placement of whiskers and the elongate above eye hair (this alternate view may also be useful [15]). @SilverTiger12: may also have some thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the beard, I think it's reasonable speculation, but I don't think Mauricio Anton's beardless one is wrong either, given that the appearance of Homotherium is likely to have probably varied considerably over its vast range in time and space. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair here, Anton's illustration is based on a skull dating to the Pliocene (with remains from this time period sometimes assigned to the distinct species H. crenatidens), while Middle-Late Pleistocene Homotherium latidens have considerably smaller upper canines, similar in size to those of H. serum[17], see for example the holotype Kent's Cavern canines [18]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reconstruction currently on the page for Horodyskia. There are some things that I believe are inaccurate, based primarily on Li et al. 2023. First of all, the conical shape depicted is apparently unsubstantiated according to Li et al. 2023, with Horodyskia from Tonian and Ediacaran deposits in China (see: Liu et al. 2022, Li et al. 2023) showing that the individual "beads" were originally spherical. It also lacks the gelatinous halo which Horodyskia likely had in life (see the previously referenced papers). I'm currently working on an updated reconstruction, but I figured it might be good to put this one here.
Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two more recons, the next one is Archaeoniscus. Although one thing I wonder is whether the legs of Pygmaclypeatus are accurate. Qohelet12 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They looks fine to me. The stalked and ventral condition of Kuamaia's lateral eyes might be a bit difficult to tell, but I think it's still ok. Junnn11 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about your artiopod artworks, I think the eyes in Aglaspis barrandei can be improved. In aglaspidid eyelobes, there's no sudden change of height difference at the antero-median region. See here for reference, especially Gogglops which shows the anatomy pretty well (As always, just take your time). Junnn11 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second Liwia reconstruction, this time a 3d scene. The exopods are inferred from other nektaspids and might not be 100% accurate, but I hope that's not a big deal. Tell me if there are any other problems. Wawrow (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to be slowly redoing my Azhdarchid recons. Q. lawsoni doesn't have one on its page (and all of the recons on Quetzalcoatlus' page are frankly pretty bad to begin with), so I'll start here.
Based on the published material.
Minor revisions - Correct me if I'm looking at it incorrectly, but it looks like there is a pteranodontid-like upturn in the beak as restored here? Other than that, no notes (and good to see correct posture). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration is based on a skeletal reconstruction I provided, itself based on the fossil material, among other things. The mandible and portions of the preserved posterior crania suggest the jaw of Q. lawsoni had a gentle curvature to it- it is also the first apomorphy listed in the diagnosis in the species. LancianIdolatry (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The necks are the same length when this skeletal is scaled correctly to my reconstruction. Yes, another skeletal was used (as Witton's is almost 20 years old now), but the proportions do not differ significantly. Ddinodan (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration is again based on my skeletal schematic. Mines and Wittons do not differ significantly (if at all) in proportion, and both are utilizing the measurements provided in the description of Z. linhaiensis. Differences amount to articulation- the forelimb is proportionally much longer than the hindlimbs, meaning the animal must have had a vertically inclined neutral posture (or positioned its arm in a way we otherwise wouldn't expect from an azhdarchid). The Witton reconstruction simply portrays the animal with strongly bent limbs and mid-gait, giving it the illusion it is a somewhat horizontal animal- this inclined neutral posture can be better seen in the reconstruction provided in his 2013 Pterosaurs book. They are otherwise identical where it matters, and where elements have been measured. LancianIdolatry (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic bracketing strongly indicates the presence of a crest in Z. linhaiensis. In azhdarchids with well preserved crania (Q. lawsoni, Wellnhopterus) a sagittal crest is present in both. In the latter particularly, the rostrally oriented sagittal crest is very low and difficult to discern- as the description of Z. linhaiensis is fleeting and the respective specimens poorly preserved, it is possible this crest was missed, despite the text suggesting it did not possess one (and it was described long before a better understanding of azhdarchoid anatomy was had). Furthermore, the frontoparietal (only the parietal is labeled in Cai and Wei 1994 but the sutures of the two bones are very likely just obliterated) in Z. linhaiensis forms a small posteriorly-facing projection at the back of the skull. In other azhdarchoids (tapejaromorphs, chaoyangopterids) and even in other pterosaur groups (pteranodontoids) the frontal contributes to the crest, and the frontal of Q. lawsoni is stated to have a keel running towards the back of the skull away from the taller premaxillary sagittal crest. All this taken together means it is likely Z. linhaiensis had a crest, and is reflected as such in the reference Dan is using. The known and figured skull is also from a juvenile, and it is possible adults would have had more obvious crests. LancianIdolatry (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the size comparisons we have comparing Anomalocaris to humans are oversized, and we don't have one at all for Aegirocassis, so I thought I would create them. These are completely derivative of the great work of Junnn11 [22][23], from whom I traced the silhouettes and scaled the figures, so I assume they are correct. Junn's illustrations are great and I still think they are useful, I just think that a human for comparison is much more effective at conveying real size than a simple scalebar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I apologise for the crudeness of the rendition of the frontal appendages of Anomalocaris, there simply isn't enough detail in the original png to pick up the fine detail in the endites, but hopefully that isn't important at this scale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, I don't think the crudeness of the endites detract from the chart, as they aren't the main focus of the chart. The Aegirocassis chart also looks good from what I can see. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice works! In my diagrams, The size of both species are based on Lerosey-Aubril & Pates 2018. AFAIK this is still the most reliable formal estimation for many radiodonts described before it (except Amplectobelua and some reclassified species).
The frontal appendage silhouette in my size comparisons are based on the isolated frontal appendage diagrams if you wonder. But yeah the loss of detail is a neglectable issue at this scale. Junnn11 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned in its description paper, it's just that a lot of people (including myself) didn't actually properly read the paper when it was described. See figure 50 in here. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem our other images need to be updated, then. That said, it looks significantly larger here than what's implied by the fossil (a bit Tameryraptor vibes). FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To better expand on the idea- it and a brief history of its interpretation is provided in its description (Andres and Langston 2021, p. 187). I find this is a far cry from a Tameryraptor situation, as a number of pterosaurs (both in and out of azhdarchoids) display massive crest sheaths atop of relatively small to nearly absent bony struts. The most evident of these is any given tapejaromorph, but this observation can readily be seen in Pterorhynchus, and it implies extensive soft tissue over many forms with long low crests (i.e wukongopterids, ctenochasmatoids, and even other azhdarchoids as discussed previously elsewhere). Furthermore, the rostral crest of W. brevirostris is homologous to the larger, more posterior crest of Q. lawsoni and seemingly the premaxillary crests of pterosaurs more broadly. LancianIdolatry (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The description describes it as a thin crest without much in the way of surface texture - it doesn't seem to me like the kind of structure that would have a lot of soft tissue attached to it? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The holotype crania is also described as mediolaterally compressed and in a state of preservation that prevents the shape of the occlusal margins, true dorsal apex of the sagittal crest, and many cranial sutures to be observed with any degree of certainty, if they are present at all. That this sagittal crest is very likely homologous to the larger, traditionally (though not always) rectangular crest of Q. lawsoni is enough to suspect that this rostrally oriented crest had soft tissue as well- they are very likely developmentally the same structure, and one that is plesiomorphically covered in extensive soft tissue. Again, it is the same structure that supports a bulk of the crest in other pterosaurs, and the monograph even highlights a prior interpretation that suggested the bony strut could have been larger (though they were rightfully conservative in their own interpretation). LancianIdolatry (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is perhaps confusion because Dan gave two distinct crests (at my recommendation) for the taxon, and so the homology of the Q. lawsoni crest is being conflated with the crest at the back of the head. As said in the Zhejiangopterus reconstruction, two portions of crania contribute to the cranial crests of at least azhdarchoids- the premaxilla, and some combination of the frontal + parietal. In Tupandactylus, the crest anterior is formed by the premaxilla, and contributed to posteriorly by the frontoparietal (Beccari et al 2022), in Sinopterus and thalassodromids, the premaxilla wraps around the entire dorsal aspect of the skull, including the parietal which forms a projection (Wang et al. 2003, the description of S. dongi, and Martill and Naish 2006, respectively). Chaoyangopterids seem to lose the premaxillary crest, but at least in Shenzhoupterus has a distinct crest which might be formed by the frontal and parietals despite this (Lu et al. 2008)- again suggesting these are two distinct structures that sometimes form one larger crest, and, as far as current evidence suggests, can also form two separate structures, as is being interpreted for Wellnhopterus. LancianIdolatry (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently finished this picture of a Placerias I based the image off of this skeletal [[24]] The reconstruction gives it a different foot and leg morphology then the other restorations on Wikipedia. It was restored with more columnar limbs with large foot pads similar to an elephant or rhinoceros. just wanted to know what the consensus on the limb posture was. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major revisions - I think the proportions are off here. The feet don't look columnar as much as they look plantigrade with really long toes. Compare [25]. And I don't believe the tusks are meant to jut out laterally, compare B in [26]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I realized i messed up the feet not long after I uploaded it off on here. I can try to fix that sometime soon. Hopefully within the next week. For the skull, I drew it from a photo I took of the skeleton at petrified forests which uses the older reconstruction. Do you know where I could find a photo of the new skull from the front? TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you saw a skeleton that uses Cox's skull reconstruction (i.e. B in [27]), it should still do fine as a reference. Sulej (2024) has recently proposed another modified recon, but the differences there don't concern the maxilla and shouldn't alter the proportions as viewed from the front, at least.
Anyway, some lateral projection of the "tusks" is present in indeed Cox's (and Sulej's) reconstruction, as seen in this cast from below [28], so I don't think that's an issue itself (especially if it has keratinous extensions), and relative to the temporal portion of the skull I'd say they're okay. I think it's the rendering itself of the snout and around the eyes that's throwing it off, makes it look broader than it actually is at this angle, especially around the postorbital bar. I could try redlining to show what I mean, if it would help. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 23:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made an attempt [29], hopefully it's not too messy and gets the idea across. I included some annotations to hopefully make my changes clearer too. The overall shape and size I think is good, just what I've done is drawn in the edges of the jugal and maxilla so that the snout would have a more vertical surface. If you can match that in the full rendering I reckon the head will be sorted. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the lower jaw region was the part I had the most issues with it was open in the mount but I didn't think that worked for the picture, but it was hard to find a good reference for what the head looked like form the fron with the mouth closed. It shouldn't be to hard to patch this up. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major Revisions. I don't think the limb posture is correct. The forelimbs had a far more sprawling posture (the skeletal you linked shows this, but it's hard to tell because it's in lateral view so the humerus just looks short). One source I could quickly find that discusses dicynodont posture some is Morato et al. 2008. The hind limbs also look off to me. Besides the already-mentioned long toes, the legs just look skinny, and I think they probably shouldn't be quite as columnar as this (see Fröbisch 2006 for some dicynodont hindlimb mechanics). From an artistic standpoint, the perspective also just seems off (although I appreciate the effort to do something other than a plain lateral view!): the position of the tail and forequarters give the impression of a more lateral view while the position of the hindquarters and head give the impression of an anterolateral view with the animal turned towards the observer. My feeling is that the tail should be more hidden behind the hips and the forequarters need to be heavily revised to reflect a more correct posture and be more consistent with the orientation of the hindquarters and head. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've just finished this illustration of Kairuku waitaki, and I'd like to include it in the English article on the Kairuku genus (as a secondary image, not replacing the one already posted). I'd like to know if this reconstruction is faithful and adequate enough, what changes would need to be made, or what I should delete. I'm not sure if I should remove the copyright notice from the image, even though it's my own and I agree to use it in the Kairuku article.
Oh yes, my bad. It's supposed to be an area close to the coast, since the animal lived in New Zealand when it consisted only of isolated islands. But I guess I've painted too much land :/ Dotkamina (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the lip tissue looks a bit strange given leptauchenia's affinities, but not necessarily impossible. the musculature along the cheek also doesn't match with osteological correlations of the jawbone Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the lack of evidence of the lip tissue in anything closely related is exactly why I said its not impossible, but I'd probably use ruminants (bovids especially) for reference, some have rather deep skulls like leptauchenia Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the part I'm somewhat confused about is the fact that the animal seems to have a very short nasal opening compared to a lot of bovid skulls ive been able to find. Im not sure how exactly that would effect the lip tissue. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entelodont Cypretherium feeding on a Subhyracodon carcass
Hi again, I also finished this Cypretherium picture. It was supposed to be just the Cypretherium and the Subhyracodon but I got a bit carried away with the process and ended up drawing a whole scene around it. I can make a white background version if it fits better. Thanks. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the inclusion of what appears to be new world vultures of the genus coragyps is problematic, as they don't appear in the fossil record until the pleistocene Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vultures aren't really supposed to be Coraryps theyre just supposed to be generic Cathartidae, since the group seems to start in the Paleocene. I can probably give them a crest or something to distinguish them if that's necessary. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the skull it seems like it might require some more additional uncrushing of the snout and your reconstruction seems a bit strangely downturned. There's an issues as well like the teeth just following those double caniniforms in the lower jaw, where you would have a few smaller maxillary teeth followed by some larger ones (I do not know how many from the top of my head). The nostrils look to be a bit too far back, looking at Leidyosuchus skulls shows that the bony nares are directed much more towards the front and nowhere near the notch that marks the transition from premaxilla to maxilla. Somehow the skull looks ever too slightly too long from the looks of it, tho I suspect that perhaps the eyes are too far back? I could be wrong however.
As a general rule of thumb, you should save "fixes" over your previous version, rather than uploading them as a new individual piece. This both avoids clutter and allows to follow version changes long after they were implemented.Armin Reindl (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely fantastic. No issues here. According to this paper [31], Cycadeoidea reproductive structures (whichs are the round bumps visible on the stem) remained closed when sexually mature, perhaps being burrowed into by beetles, [32] so this current restoration is accurate and doesn't need to be modifed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't know there was a WikiProject of Paleoart review in general. I thought there was only for Dinosaur (WikiProject Dinosaurs) paleoart related. Sauroarchive (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass No obvious issues as far as I can tell. The dorsal profile of the skull matches the unusual shape of the holotype. The anterior part of the mandible could probably be made a little bit more robust, but I think that can also be chalked up to perspective. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation with the pneumatophore (despite what PBS Eons shows) is outdated. Therefore, I’d say it either needs major revisions or is a straight fail.
Yes, this is an interpretation that is over 100 years old, yet is still in common use today. The reconstruction itself is outdated, but a diagram showing the transition of reconstruction might be useful for the page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to butt in like this, just quickly fixing the display of the images for the sake of the page's structure so theres not these massive illustrations. I don't have anything to add otherwise, sorry for editing your messages, Iknow its a bit of a faux pas but I mean no harm just trying to fix the formatting.Armin Reindl (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. It's been a while. Can I ask for another review of my image? This time I tried to reconstruct three Moythomasia species that is avalaible on https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lateral-view-full-body-reconstructions-of-Moythomasia-spp-A-M-durgaring-B-M-nitida_fig3_281046843 I made the color based on fish that live in murky water like australian lungfish, blue gill, pike, etc. (these three aforementioned name influence the most of my coloring). I am sorry if I am kind of lazy because just using the skeletal image directly... But is this image good enough to be put into the genus page? Thanks in advance...
Moythomasia durgaringa (top), M. nitida (mid), and M. lineata (bottom)
The paper and figure these are very closely copied from (which you admit yourself) is not available under a CC BY license, and this drawing may be a copyright violation. I will leave it up to other editors to decide if these cross the threshold for originality (you have added eyes and colors, and went through the trouble of flipping the image). I understand that a fish (which is known from complete remains) in side profile is not a copyrightable concept, but the fact you have left the poses, layout and seemingly even most of the original lineart (!!!) visible, in my opinion, crosses the line. This is not just a case of not being "lazy", the goal of this review page is in part to create useable images which are not barred by the copyright restrictions of figures used in books or papers. Gasmasque (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah i didnt aware if this is consider copyright violation since I think like some dinosaur reconstruction also made the dinosaur based on skeletal side profile with same pose from the skeletal reconstruction? And about the original lineart, is it still consider the original if I made the line including all the scales from scratch? I mean like not just using the paper and just adding color.. I also add like skin and other fleshy structurea to the skull..
and if like the pose and layout is the problem, that means if I change the arrangement then it should be okay? DD (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I misinterpreted your statement of "using the skeletal image directly" to mean that some of the scale/fin lineart was directly copied over from the figure, with only the head and jaw being drawn originally. It is definitely better to get other user's opinions in this case, since many of them have different interpretations of what is/is not infringement, but I'm of the opinion that changing the organization of the taxa does not constitute originality and don't suggest that alone be done. Also, other editors may very well consider the illustration perfectly acceptable as is, I've seen plenty of art that I personally doubt would hold up as non-infringing make it through review (including a couple of works I "created" myself). Gasmasque (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah I see, it's okay and I am also to be blame for not stating it correctly.. Ah okay, I will also wait for other editor opinion as well then. And thank you for your understanding and willing to give some opinion based on your observation.. DD (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my initial reaction came across as hostile, that was not the intention. And sorry I've not commented on the accuracy itself, since it seems to be in accordance with the given reference. Gasmasque (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine really! Please don't appologize like that.. I am sorry that I don't state my work method correctly... And thank you for the input for the accuracy of the image..
To be honest, it's a difficult question to say how much of a problem tracing the scales in the figure is. If the number of scales is not accurate, then technically the reconstruction is not "accurate". However, it is also true that it is extremely difficult to depict all the scales without tracing. And accurate tracing would lead to copyright infringement. It is difficult to overcome these issues and depict a sufficiently accurate reconstruction without problems. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes I agree with that problem and that's why i choose to trace for the best possible outcome in accuracy department.. In the past I tried to do it without tracing (see my previous fishes recon).It can be done althougt not optimal and I am pretty sure my past accepted image are missing some scales. Thats why I am kinda confused when this image got questioned about the copyright while some of my previous drawing got accepted even when using same or similar method (tracing both when using digital and conventional art).. And I thought isnt it the sama principle when someone doing rigorous recon about the dinosaur and using the same outline with same pose as the skeletal image by, said greg paul and scott hartman?
And once again for disclaimer, I dont preserve the original line art AT ALL. I admit I trace them but I change them by like giving extra flesh, thicness, etc. Like I dont even let the mouth seems gaping like in the "normal" skull recon.. DD (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for asking again.. So for most of the editors, is my image not usable for the moythomasia page? Or is it okay since the accuracy aspect is said to be quite spot on from the reference? DD (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems other editors haven't chimed in, and my concerns about copyright seem to be a non-issue. I give the image a pass on the grounds that it is exactly accurate to the cited source, which seems to be contemporary. Gasmasque (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry that this is so late since I've been meaning to mention it but there's a few things I'd change:
1. the operculum would be separate from the clavicle/"shoulder girdle"
2. i believe that it would be similar with the suboperculum
3. at least one of these species is from a saltwater environment so I question the current colors/patterns being based on freshwater taxa
4. the eyes are too small since you used the method for tetrapods rather than fish, it the ring would be within the eye rather than surrounding it (in life)
5. nostrils are missing in all of the recons with them being in front of the eye
Good catches, I hadn't even noticed the eyes and nostrils. I'm changing my pass to major revisions, I appreciate you chiming in to provide additional feedback. Gasmasque (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the reply and through revision! Ah okay, I didn't aware that sclerotic ring work differently in fish..
I guess I have to erase the operculum a bit so it doesn't look fused to the shoulder girdle?
For the saltwater species, is it the M. durgaringa from the top?
For the nostril, I drew all of them. But maybe it is located too far in front of the eye?
Oh right, please remove my current image if it is deemed to inaccurate based on this revision. I will try to fix it based on your input.. DD (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the suboperculum and operculum would be similar to modern fish and each side would have two nostrils since fish are weird. I'd ask to redline it since its a bit hard to explain but these are pretty easy fixes, though that's sort of not an option on here SeismicShrimp (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah you are right. I observe and read that many fish have two nostrill on each side.. I have try fix some of the mistakes you have point out including m. durgaringa color. Since it is found in reef enviroment, I tried to based it on coelacant and grouper. I also enlarged the eye and shrunk the operculum so it is not jointed with the shoulder girdle. Is this good enough?
thank you for the input and glad if it is more accurate now! And okay, I will try to make the line on the head more visible.. DD (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass with the revisions in place, the West Indian coelacanth colors shouldn't be an issue, I don't think there is any sort of policy off of referencing colors from a living animal. The eyes are definitely an improvement. Gasmasque (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I am mainly using the west indian coelacanth! Sorry for the laziness if it doesn't looks very creative or appealing in a artistic way.. And thank you for your input... DD (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, this is a very nice reconstruction (I added your osteoderm illustration above as well just to be safe). I feel like there should be more musculature on the anterior part of the lower legs (and perhaps a more curved/bowed tibia?), though I am not familiar enough with pseudosuchian anatomy to say that with confidence. Otherwise I can't really comment on the anatomy, but there are a few unconventional stylistic choices that should ideally be fixed for clarity:
With only half of the bone sutures shown, the skull appears unfinished. Adding these would be necessarily speculative, but not more so than illustrating the unpreserved postcrania.
I think the semi-transparent scapula (and ilium) is fine. Could this also be applied to the cervical ribs so they are also visible behind the scapula?
The dorsal rib heads should also be at least somewhat visible.
There appears to be some stray lines around the distal ends of the ribs - presumably this could be fixed with some minor brushwork updates?
Finally, the taxonomic authority doesn't need to be removed, but it doesn't really contribute much to the graphic when this is easily accessible on the Wiki page itself.
thank you for your imput!, i applied most of the corrections except:
.
-i prefer to leave the unpreserved cervical ribs fully overlapped by the scapula, since this one is only semi-transparent to showcase the preserved bones, but still showing it would be on top
.
-i made the dorsal rib attachments more clear, but i'd prefer to leave them overlapped by the preserved dorsal vertebrae.
.
-i thought the same about the genus name in the image, but after consideration from other people, i decided to leave it in to avoid any confusion/missidentification from google images browsers, specially since its unobstructive
I tried that one but it made the teeth look bigger and weird
or not visible and with inconsistent line width, if i drew them with thinner line art
maybe i'll have them fully black for now (i'll add it on the next version with any next recommendation, to not clogg it with multiple files) LiterallyMiguel (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, its weird how the authors didn't write about, or considered that. without your inspection of the 3D model we'd never known for sure, i applied the change and made the preserved teeth clearer LiterallyMiguel (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no egregious pterosaur anatomy issues jumping out at me, and the taxon itself is only known from a jaw fragment so the reconstruction is certainly okay in that respect. Seems to match typical gnathosaurine/ctenochasmatid anatomy in general. Unless someone else has an issue to bring up, I'd say both pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should explain this here as well, but apparently one user thought there was insufficient evidence of the license for this image. Probably good to see c:User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy, two images DinoThai uploaded were removed by the same user for copyright infringement, but the removal was unjustified as it was based on links that were created after the image was uploaded. Either way, if anyone has any advice on this please contact this user, as they will likely delete these useful images if they continue like this. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Size chart of Q. lawsoni and Q. northropi. This combines the dorsal-view wingspans of previous scale charts with lateral silhouettes, an arrangement decided on the Discord server. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Complementing the Quetzalcoatlus post earlier, here is the smaller and much more fragmentary Infernodrakon. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestioned Pass For Obruchevodus and Belantsea. The anatomy is consistent with both academically published skeletals and photographs of fossils in Lund (1989), Grogan, Lund & Fath (2014), and Hodnett et al. (2025). Common errors like bright red coloration (misinterpretation of liver pigments) and misinterpretation of viscera as a pectoral fin in Belantsea are averted. Comments on Janassa; the diamond-like shape of the diphycercal caudal fin may be too angular and too pointed compared to the described fossils of J. bituminosa. This shape looks somewhat more exaggerated compared to Schaumberg (1979)'s skeletal diagram and the fossilized tail of J. bituminosa figured by Brandt (2009) ("Janassa" korni is not considered in this discussion), is this just stylization? Another comment, the gill arches of Janassa have been proposed to have extended farther beyond the skull than the operculum here suggests by Zangerl (1981). This source is quite outdated regarding petalodonts, but I was curious what your proposed gill position here is based on since as far as I know their articulation is still not well known. Is it inferred based on the Bear Gulch taxa? Closing note, I assume this post was authored by SeismicShrimp, but please remember to sign your posts to avoid confusion. Gasmasque (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The caudal fin shape is a bit stylized but I can change it if needed. Gill-wise, I just kept the anatomy consistent with what we see with the operculum of holocephalians. SeismicShrimp (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see the caudal fin adjusted, but I don't think the operculum is an issue since that region is not well described in Janassa and the condition you've drawn does bracket from almost every other member of the subclass. Incisoscutum looks in-line with current research on arthrodires, at least moreso than the one currently in use. I can't comment on the legged animals. Gasmasque (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for J. bituminosa, now that all questions have been addressed and fin shape has been tweaked. I appreciate your work on petalodont restorations! Gasmasque (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Most of these taxa are too fragmentary to point out any issues with general skeletal anatomy. A glance at known elements where they can be directly compared (i.e. the beak tips of Alanqa) turns nothing up. Not all of these have skeletal diagrams, though Thanatosdrakon does align pretty well with the proportions depicted in the paper's skeletal. Borophagus (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations. Cryodrakon seems largely based on Quetzalcoatlus spp., which is erroneous (an error applicable to most art of the taxon). At equal or near-equal mid-width, the holotype 4th cervical is only 60% the length of the corresponding element in Q. lawsoni- assuming comparable ratios through the length of the neck and running it through the regression formula of Witton and Naish (2017) both result in a neck only longer than that estimated for Hatzegopteryx, proportionally. The wing proportions differ as well, with the wing metacarpal being much longer in the type of C. boreas than it is in Q. lawsoni when scaled to the same humerus length. Using the skeletal reconstruction provided in the Thanatosdrakon description is in error as well, as it is simply Witton's 2013(?) Zheijiangopterus skeletal with preserved proportions highlighted. I have, and still am, attempting a skeletal reconstruction of this taxon, but none exist because the measurements are in error, which may seem hard to believe but when taken at face value produce a result hardly believable for any real animal (i.e the humerus can be scaled to the same length as the whole torso, depending on methodology). Despite this, some basic claims can be stated. The notarium of T. amaru are immensely tall, with the zygopohyses double the height of those in Q. lawsoni at the same notarium length. This can be reinforced by the preserved sacrum, which possess a strong posterior decline, which would have given the animal a much more sloped back than typical azhdarchids. This does not seem to be reflected in the art. No comments on Aralazdarcho or Navajodactylus, yet. Alanqa is not an azhdarchid in most recent topologies, instead being the type taxon of Alanqidae. Should this be the case, it is likely it would not have had the long neck conventionally illustrated on it, instead possessing necks more similar to other azhdarchoids (see tapejaromorphs or Keresdrakon). LancianIdolatry (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally to what was pointed out above Id like to point there are some basic anatomical flaws with all of these reconstructions, the pedal anatomy is wrong for pterosaurs, a pterodactyloids foot has 5 digits only one of which is reduced so far as to where its barely visible, the drawing appears to show 3 digits on each foot like in a theropod. But that was pointed out already. There is also an issue with the hands but that is mostly minor, the three walking fingers of pterosaurs dont perfectly point backwards like illustrated here, I recommend looking at pterosaur trackways for reference, we do infact have specifically azhdarchid trackways with Haenamichnus so I recommend referencing those as well as Pteraichnus (as the fingers are more easily apparent there). Additonally the Propatagium does not look quite right, a 2021 paper on a specimen of Pterodactylus preserving soft tissue described an extension of the propatagium whcih extends of to the end of the second cervical. Besides that I can only agree with what was written above. --Dean Falk Schnabel (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Sorry for asking another review not long after previous one... This time I tried to reconstruct Brittagnathus. The reference is from the mandible material and for the rest of the head, I used Pederpes as main analogy. The reason is it is said to be most closely related to Pederpes from the paper that described their phylogeny in here [37] I know it can be argue that it is very speculative... But I thought editors sometimes accept image for other fragmentary genus? For the scale, to be honest I am kinda lost what to make out of it. I mainly based the structure (overlap) and overall shape based on the description of Tulerpeton scale and other early tetrapod scalation description in here [38] So as always, is my reconstruction acceptable for the genus page? Thanks in advance...
I am sorry if I am mistaken, but I assume there are no major issues? If there are none, I think I will upload this image to the taxa page. But as usual, please just take it down it it is deemed severely inaccurate.. DD (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i await my rigorous skeletal reconstruction to be looked into/approved, i made a life reconstruction of this animal to put in on it's page LiterallyMiguel (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Incredible work; you might consider also uploading a version with a plain white background for use in cladograms. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded!
Life reconstruction of Etjosuchus recurvidens in transparent png
Very nice recon!, I don’t see anything wrong with it at first glance (has the correct number of tergites, frontal appendage segments, etc). However I’d wait for someone else to share their opinion as well. Fossiladder13 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too difficult to change, I have some minor comments - for the appendage, I think the endites and dorsal spines should be far thinner. O'Flynn et al. (2020) shows them in detail, the spines are all more needle-like than triangular. Regarding the carapace, I am also drawing from O'Flynn et al. (2024), which as additional specimens (if you need access, you can find the paper in the artiopod chat of the invert discord, above Helmetia) - the head shield should be squared off at the end, with the corners above the frontal appendages. Essentially, the headshield should form a trapezoid. The sides (not the front) of the headshield should also be finely serrated. I believe there should also be a differentiated raised region in the middle and a groove running near the perimetre - labelled "gr" in O'Flynn et al. (2020), Figure 1. The pygidium looks good, but the serrations are too uniform - YKLP 17224 shows them in great detail. They begin large and spaced out, as you have shown in the drawing already, but around halfway down they transition to a pattern of occasional large spines with between 2 to 7 smaller spines of varying size set between them. I apologize for the long comment, but I hope these comments are still minor. Colouration and shading looks excellent as always and we appreciate your work. Prehistorica CM (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was making a drawing that includes this species so I decided to post it here. To my knowledge there isn't anything to tell how much hair the tails of deltatheres have so I don't think it's exactly a problem that I drew it bushier than the rat tails they're usually given but correct me if I'm wrong. Olmagon (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The skull looks a bit narrow in comparison to the figures from the paper. And are the feet supposed to be plantigrade? I'm not familiar with the anatomy of stem-metatherian ankles. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can move the right ear further to the left to make the head appear wider. Regarding the feet, as far as I can tell it seems very few (if any) deltathere postcranial elements have been found (let alone from the ankle specifically) so I suppose the next best thing we can do is look towards marsupialiformes (their closest relatives, but still they diverged a very long time ago and this is a very diverse and derived clade). I haven't found a lot of literature on marsupial ankles but it seems quite a lot of the extant ones are plantigrade (but again these are highly derived from ancestral metatherians and not that close to deltatheres). Olmagon (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specimen guide and composite skeletal reconstruction of Saurosuchus galilei
The position of right chelicera and two left legs are a bit too behind. Other than that the outline of some body parts are a bit rough, but I think that's still neglectable in this resolution. Junnn11 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the level of detail depicted I think most of the fish are acceptable (details like cranial bones/plates and scalation are reasonable to exclude at this scale in my opinion). If the user is interested in tweaking details, then minor revisions to the acanthodian to remove the large, visible actinopterygian-like fin rays would be preferable, although that is a hard to see, minor detail and I think the image is usable either way. Pinging @@SeismicShrimp for second opinions. Gasmasque (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a life restoration of the alligatoroid Leidyosuchus canadensis that I did. I'd like to have it reviewed so I can add it to the Leidyosuchus Wikipedia page, since there's currently no life restoration there. Sauroarchive (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To predict a possible question- dorsal view is largely schematic-ized, if you will, as the available cranial portions are laterally flattened and in various states of post-mortem deformation, and the pelvis is too poorly preserved to illustrate in dorsal, and is only figured in lateral anyways. However, I found value in demonstrating the proportions and an approximate articulation of the mostly complete wing skeleton all the same, and so it is provided all the same. LancianIdolatry (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
made this ages ago, follows Heloderma suspectum and the known material, didn't put here for review because I figured it was impossible to go wrong with, the species is known only from the top of the head, which can be seen on digital morphology [39]
.png)
Pygmaclypeatus
Kuamaia lata
Diagrammatic reconstruction of Olenoides serratus
.png)
.png)
Pampatherium
Peltephilus ferox
Skeletal reconstruction, preserved bones in white
Osteoderms
Size
Size
Skeletal
Belantsea montana
Dianmeisaurus mutaensis
Janassa bituminosa
Obruchevodus griffithi
Orientalosuchus naduongensis
Rodeosuchus machukiru
Incisoscutum ritchiei
Phenacocoelus typus
Pattisaura gracilis
cryodrakon
thanatosdrakon
Navajodactylus
Arambourgiania
Alanqa
Aralazhdarcho
No background version
![[7]](https://chasingsabretooths.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/homotherium-digitigrad-plantigrad-low-res.jpg?w=640){kind=link}
![[8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMKQle4WkAAFf0V.jpg:large){kind=link}
![[10]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0016699509000539-gr11.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S027737910400294X-gr7.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379122001020-gr6_lrg.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379122001020-gr7_lrg.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chamitataxus_BW.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/0389ced4-f56d-4906-8896-b30b608a3edb/rstb20210030f03.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs42003-025-07664-1/MediaObjects/42003_2025_7664_Fig4_HTML.png?as=webp){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210221_Aegirocassis_size.png){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210212_Anomalocaris_size_comparison.png){kind=link}
![[29]](https://i.imgur.com/vDzL9bU.png){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leidyosuchus_canadensis_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Life_restoration_of_Thaisaurus_chonglakmanii_in_Chaiburi_Formation.png){kind=link}
