Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2010 - December 2010

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it 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 dinosaur 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; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), 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). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing 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: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, 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. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Alamosaurus scale diagram

Just a scale diagram. [1] Based on and scaled from Lehman and Coulson 2002 fig. 11. which can be seen at Sv Pow here, [2]. Interestingly the SVPOW post talks about a bigger specimen, but it aint published so it's best to ignore. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the thighs should be a bit more robust? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have beefed them out a bit but there is only so much I can do, the ilia arn't exactly very large. [3] Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the pelvis seems to have been quite narrow, as in all sauropods I guess. Looks good now I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the proportions. Just eyeballing it here, but the SV-POW figure makes it seem like the tibia should be about 1m and the femur is about 1.3m. Your femur looks over a meter and a half and the tibia a bit under a meter. Might just be misinterpreting where the bones start and end though. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll check but I reposed the limbs and basically traced it. Well I imagined muscles on it. The bend in the leg isn't were the tibia ends, it's were the cnemial crest is. The tibia ends further up. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An update:[4]. I noticed that I had put the bulge of the calf muscles too low down, which made the tibia look shorter. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about this, oops. I have uploaded this to the commons, thumb. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

klamelisaurus

V1

not really for consideration, but playing with photomontaging the drawing

For your consideration, finally. de Bivort 19:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

... ping! de Bivort 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any refs on this guy but the overall structure looks good. One thing I'd question is the pose of the hind leg. I'm not sure a large graviportal animal would bend the knee that much when walking. I'd imagine a more columnar swinging from the hip, but I'm not sure... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was using the (2 year old - ugh) outline from this discussion, which had two legs lifted as well as a comment saying that wasn't possible, so I planted the front leg for this sketch. So the pose has been looked at before, albeit a long time ago. Should we wait for a second opinion, or should I modified the current version's leg? de Bivort 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the background version looks cool. I'm a bit concerned though, and this also goes for Arthur Weasley's latest images, are the background pictures used also freely licensed, or were they just found on Google? If so, there's a copyright problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's from wiki commons of course! de Bivort 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. But then you need to credit the author in the description, link to the original image, and use the same license. I know it sounds strict, but hey, I'm also an admin on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done, except do I need to go from CC 3.0 to CC 2.0 to match the photo? de Bivort 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question - can you guys take a look at the skeleton that is the main taxobox image for the klamelisaurus article? The tail and neck posture don't match my understanding, and if they're in an old posture, we should note that in the caption. de Bivort 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's enough to just link to the photo, so people can see the original license. As for the skeleton, if it is wrong, one of these two angles can maybe be used instead: [5][6] On the other hand, seems like some sauropods did occasionally drag their tails, take a look at this: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/sauropod-tails-up-or-down/FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Polacanthus revised

Here's a new, coloured version, based on these (first one is really Gastonia) [7][8]: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7159/polacopffycopy.jpg Following comments on the Dinoforum it seems ok. FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical P. foxii restoration, based mostly on Gastonia

Added it to the article with disclaimer in caption. Feel free to remove if inaccuracies are found. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Prehistoric birds

Aberratiodontus .

Archaeopteryx.

Confuciusornis.

This is 2 of my more recent illustrations of prehistoric birds, Confuciusornis and Aberratiodontus. I also want to show up a (very inaccurate) illustration of Archaeopteryx I made a long time ago (I think we should delete it from Wikipedia, you don't need to mention all inaccurates...).

Aberratiodontus is based on the holotype (see here), and very much of my imagination. I should also want to know some things about Archaeopteryx: some people says it had reversed hallux (toe 1), but someone suggset it don't had (Mayr and Peters, 2005). Nevertheless, I hope you accept the Confuciusornis and Aberratiodontus illustrations. Conty 14:50, 5 january 2010.

These don't look too bad, but still have a few errors (though much improved from your Archaeopteryx!). On Confuciusornis, the metatarsals look too long by about half. They should be shorter than the skull, which also looks a tad too small, with eyes too large. The beak should be more sharply pointed to account for the keratin rhamphotheca (and possibly curved slightly upward, depending on the species). The claws should be longer and more strongly hook-shaped. The primary feathers are far too short--one of the hallmark features of this bird is that the wings were incredibly long and pointed. When folded, the primaries should look at least 2 times as long as the secondaries. It also looks like there are a few tertials (or secondaries present behind the bend of the elbow), these should be absent. Even if tertials were present, the would fold down and back to partially cover the folded secondaries. This is hard to explain without diagrams :) It also looks like there are striations representing barbs on the proximal pintail feathers. Remember that in Confuciusornis the tail feathers are undifferentiated sheets or ribbons until the distal 1/4 of the plume. The proximal 3/4 of the plume also lack a central rachis as you have restored.

Regarding Aberratiodontus, I can't speak as much to this one as I haven't seen a skeletal (only the badly crushed type specimen) nor any discussions of its feathers. I'll just discuss it in terms of general enantiornithine anatomy. I would note that the nostrils looks very large, any reason for this? Also, I wouldn't give it such a scaly snout. Some enantiornithines have beaks, some have feathers completely covering the entire head. Given the extensive teeth in this form I'd personally go with the latter. The folding of the wings seems odd, it looks like you have the primaries overlapping the secondaries when it should be the other way round. The main issue with this one is the tail. It looks like you've got numerous tail feathers folded, in an ornithurine-like manner. Enantiornithines were not fan-tailed birds, but all either had remix-less stumps of contour feathers, or pintail feathers in multiples of two, like Confuciusornis, which were immobile and could not be folded (since they're all basal to the evolution of a true plough-shaped pygostyle). So either no long tail feathers, or two, four, or eight tail feathers either divergent or forming a pseudo-fan plane, like in Shanweiniao. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your other question, the consensus among modern researchers is that Archaeopteryx did not have a reversed hallux and could not perch in trees. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: The skull of Aberratiodontus is badly crushed. But as far as I could see, it looked similar to that of Archaeopteryx, so the result became similar to "Archie": thin jaws with skin. But I can very well be wrong. And about Confuciusornis, the claws looks short, because they are curved around the branch. Are you sure Archaeopteryx hallux toe was unreversed? If we read the article Origin of avian flight, the section Arboreal model, it seems like they still say "Archie" had a grasping first toe? Conty 20:38, 5 january 2010.

Who says Archie had jaws with skin? ;) On Confuciusornis, I meant the wing claws. That Origin of flight article is horrible, and cites no sources for its claims. Looks like it needs a drastic overhaul. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just that Archaeopteryx is always described to had jaws with teeth, not a beak (They have also said that Archaeopteryx don't had keratincovered jaws, and therefore not a beak). And because jaws which not is shaped into a beak have skin, I did so on Archaeopteryx. By the way, what do you yhink about my new article Black Beauty (dinosaur)? J. Spencer and a user without a log helped me a bit with it. By the way, can my Protarchaeopteryx be approved or not? Conty 08:24, 6 january 2010.

"And because jaws which not is shaped into a beak have skin" But this is incorrect. We know of several dinosaurs and prehistoric birds which have beak-free jaws, and the jaws are not skin-covered, rather they are feather-covered, including close relatives of Aberratiodontus (Eoentantiornis has totally feather-covered jaws) and Archaeopteryx (Sinornithosaurus has mostly feather-covered jaws and Anchiornis has almost totally feather-covered jaws). So far we do not know of any dinosaur or prehistoric bird with feathers on the whole body except the jaws. The use of skin-covered jaws was started by Greg Paul as his personal artistic style before feathered dinosaurs were ever discovered, and everybody (including me) has copied his style since then. But newer discoveries show this style is probably wrong for most dinosaurs and birds. No beak means feathered jaws, not skin jaws. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, using photo backgrounds is problematic from a copyright standpoint, unless you took the Confuciusornis. background pictures themselves or if the photographer has released it under a Commons compatible license. In any case, the photographer must be credited. Where did you get the picture? FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: My last words about these images: The backgruond to the Confuciusornis is of course my own, it's only follows a lot of problems about license etc if you borrow from someone else. And about the absence of feathers on Archaeopteryx snout: I didn't know about dinosaurs or primitive birds with feathered snouts at the time of drawing. Conty 21:24, 6 january 2010.

Airsacs of phylogeny

To see the old diagram, click HERE

Hi guys, here is a diagram I have been contemplating to do for a while, as part for the dinosaur/bird anatomy debate. With some research, I have pointed out which theropods that have airsacs like birds (AS in the diagram, or bellowlike lungs, as reptiles (BL). You can find references in the image text. NOTE: I know i have used some of my inaccurate dinosaurdrawings to illustrate the different dinosaurs, but the important bit is to show the respiratory system of different theropods. I hope you find it to be a useful chart. Conty 21:34, 6 January 2010.

Hi Conty, the problem I see with this is that you're mixing sources who do not agree. The articles are written by John Ruben, who denies any link between birds and dinosaurs, and suggests that compsognathids have bellow-like lungs in an attempt to disprove this. A mainstream paleontologist would say that ALL saurischians likely had air sacs like birds. You also leave out sauropods and pterosaurs, which also had air sacs. It is not possible to reconcile these two views: one side is right, the other side is wrong. In my opinion and the opinion of most scientists all theropods had bird-like breathing. Also remember that the position of air sacs in the body varied widely: just because Avimimus didn't have them in the neck doesn't mean they weren't present elsewhere, and most other oviraptorosaurs do have them, even in the neck. Many of the groups you list as ? do have members with confirmed air sacs. Just search for, for example, "therizinosaur + pneumatic" on Google. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: I'm sorry Dinoguy2, but this was how long my knowledge stretched. I was contemplating if I should include Sauropoda, but as you see, it was not included in the end. The reason I created this chart was that the respiratory systems of different groups seemed different. But just because it was Ruben who suggested bellow-lungs in Sinosauropteryx, does that means it can't be trusted? just because it comes from a scientist who deny the idea dinosaurs/bird-connection? Some scientists can in fact overinterpret finds, but the fossils of Scipionyx and Sinosauropteryx are so wellpreserved, so do you not think they talk for themselves, just like fossils of feathers do? With that I mean, suggesting Scipionyx had feathers and a respiratory system like a bird would be the same as defying what the fossil says: "I had a respiratory system of crocodiles and had no feathers! I'm evidence against the idea of dinosaur/bird-connection, accept that!" ( But okey, I'm not an authority, so I may should be more meek about this). But the organs of Scipionyx are very well preserved, and their arrangement suggest corocodile-lungs (?). If you can snub me, please do so.

And what about the discovery they presented in the summer([9]), that theropods had a mobile thighbone? Is it already disproved? And oviraptorosauria, they also had a mobile thighbone (see Caudipteryx). What do you think? Conty 08:10, 7 January 2010.

To see how far Ruben can be trusted, think about his argument. Birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs because birds have immobile thighs and dinosaurs thighs were mobile. So he's saying birds can only have evolved from ancestors with immobile thighs all the way back to sponges, huh? Immobile thighs MUST have evolved from mobile ones at some point unless they were specially created by a god 6,000 years ago. It's totally ridiculous, sloppy, and irresponsible science that should be laughed at, not made into a chart on wiki ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some impressions were misinterpreted as lungs, when they were just glue or something. FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now let a "mainstream" paleontologist weigh in: the reptile-like lungs (what nonsensical use of the word "reptile" is this to begin with? Oh, it's by Ruben....) are nonsense. ALL Theropoda had air sacs, in fact I show quite nicely that even Plateosaurus probably had an avian-style flow through lung in a paper that is currently in review. And, btw: Perry showed quite nicely that a croc lung is NOTHING like the lungs of 'typical' reptiles, and in fact is very close to an avian-style flow-through lung (Perry, S.F. (1998): Lungs: Comparative anatomy, functional morphology and evolution. In: Gans C. and Gaunt A.S. (eds.) Biology of the Reptilia 19. Functional Morphology and Evolution. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca New York, Contrib. Herpetol. 14 (1998), 1-92)

Ruben's horrible argument that because TODAY the femora in certain situations support the body wall this must have been the case in early birds is nonsensen, too - how did obviously air-saced theropods with long tails and a subvertical femur survive? If you want to find out what the problem with Ruben's work is, I suggest you search the archives of the Dinosaur Mailing List [[10]]. Look also for Fedduccia. The BAND members (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) have a history of ignoring evidence, skewing evidence, making huge ad hoc assumptions much larger than those they critizise the consensus for, and of not repsonding to critizism at all.

As for Scipionyx: check the pic [[11]] Where does that in any way suggest a liver-piston system? What, btw, filled all the space in the body cavity? The interstines are certainly way small..... why do I see lots of room for air sacs in that body?

And good old Sinosauropteryx. Just google it, and add 'lung', and the first hits will be creationist websites. I guess that already gives you a good idea what the claim was worth - nothing. In fact: [[12]] is a pretty good run-down of the story. Choice facts:

• Ruben et al have not actually seen any of the Sinosauropteryx specimens, they are making guesses based on photos of just one specimen, photos that fail to show its 3-D complexity (Ruber et al never denied this!)
• In Fig. 5A they use a low resolution, out of focus photo to contend that there is a semi-circular anterior border to the abdominal cavity. There is no such thing. Examination of higher quality, larger format photos on the cover of the April 97 Audubon (counterslab) and Nov 14 97 Science (main slab) and the March 97 Episode (both slabs) show that much of the supposed border of the abdominal cavity is really an irregular break in the sediment! (Ruber et al never countered this argument. I have checked the pics, and later seen the fossil. Paul is right, Ruben is wrong.)
• According to Ruben et al birds "lack a crocodilelike or mammallike thoracic-abdominal subdivision (septum) of the visceral cavity". Duncker (1979) states that in "all birds the coelum (body cavity) is subdivided in a manner rather similar to reptiles and especially crocodiles" (he also notes the differences), and "ventrally the pleural (lung) cavity is bounded by the horizontal septum" (illustrated in Fig. 2.13). Schmidt-Nielsen (1972) states that "a membranous structure . . . is located along the ventral surface of the lungs. This membrane arches slightly up into the lungs" (as shown by Fig. 25). Interestingly, the septum is attached to the ribs via muscles. The septum is pierced by the bronchai leading to ventro-posterior air-sacs. Ergo, the presence of a septum does not interfere with the evolution of abdominal air-sacs.
• In crocodilians there is a well developed, rib free, broad lumbar region. This is critical in order to allow the abdomen to expand and contract as the liver-piston works. We mammals have a plump lumbar region for a broadly similar reason. Theropods not only lack a lumbar region, the posterior ribs are elongated as in birds, and the belly was narrow and deep. Lacking either a broad lumbar region to allow strong abdominal movement, or mobile, shovel pubes to help move the belly, the idea that an abdominal mass dominated system could operate in theropods is absurd. Crocs have long, narrow, flattened, flexible trunks with hyperelongated transverse processes on the vertebrae. Theropods, including birds, have short, deep, rigid trunks with normal transverse processes. You can hardly get a ribcage less similar to those of crocs than those of theropods.

Let me repeat the main point: what is supposed to be a septum turns out to be recognizable as a break in the sediment, recongizable on a photo the authors wrote they KNEW - temporal blindness or dishonesty, you decide.

HMallison (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Conty: Excuse me if i have done such a terrible mistake! I thought Ruben and Feduccia could be trusted. But if you think you can make a more accurate chart than mine, you are free to do that (otherwise I will delete it). Conty 15:47, 8 January 2010

Don't apologize: how should a non-scientist, or a scientist from a different field, know that what Ruben and Feduccia promote as solid results is in fact stuff that no serious paleontological reviewer would ever let pass? They get their stuff published by going to journals that send the papers out to ornithologists or so, it seems.

So do not fell bad: you fell for something that looked solid to you! It takes a lot of knowledge in the field to recognize this BS as BS!HMallison (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New diagram, more accurate, but not as detailed...

Hello! I have done a new version of the diagram, and without the research from Ruben et al. I also included Pterosauria and Sauropods. If you look at Deinonychosauria, you see the text

says (?) ASW this means that I am unsure what type of airsacs they had (AS means "Air-sacs", but ASW means "Airsacs supported by immobile thighbone" (like that of birds, as Ruben discovered last year). Some coelurosaurs had a form of "knee-driven walking" (see "evolutionary patterns/movement" at [13]), and I think that means they had airsacs supported by the thighbone. I hope you find this new diagram more accurate! Conty 20:15, 16 February 2010

It's more correct, but still a little confusing. What do the different label colors represent? Why are ornithischians labelled with a "?"? They lack air sacs, I don't think the presence is hypothesized by anyone in this group. The thing with air sacs is there are clear osteological correlates--you can tell they were there simply by looking for hollow spaces in the bone. Ornithischians lack these, therefore they definitely lacked air sacs, unless some arose independently in an unknown lineage. It's also a bit confusing since you're combining two independent topics in one diagram--air sacs, and mobile or immobile thighs, which have nothing to do with each other. Iy's also probably a mistake to lump all Avialae in as "birds" and assume they all had knee-driven walking. How can we be sure this was the case for Archaeopteryx? Confuciusornis? Enantironithines? It's a mistake to treat "birds" as a monolithic group with no variation, it leads to false assumptions such as this. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dinoguy2! The (?) means that we have no evidence for airsacs in ornithischians. However, from an evolutionary point of view, it feel strange for me if they lacked airsacs, since pterosauria had such breathing system. But I can change it if you want. And about "air sacs, and mobile or immobile thighs": first, the only creatures classed as birds in my diagram are birds. But about the immobile thighbones: in birds, the thighbone is used to support the airsacs, that's why they don't bend it. We know that some coelurosaurs likely had mobile thighs (like Caudipteryx). So, AS and ASW is to show if the animal have "airsacs only" (AS) or "airsacs supported by the thighbone" (ASW). I have no idea if Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis etc. had the type ASW, but the diagram is open for the question about which of the 2 types deinonychosaurians had. And by the way: The different colors in the labels are to show what kind of class it is. For example, ¨Sauropodomorpha and Theropoda labels have the same color, as they are suborders. Ceratosauria, Tetanurae, Carnosauria and Coelurosauria are clades/infraorders within theropoda, and Deinonychosauria, Tyrannosauroidea etc. are smaller clades/superfamilies within coelurosauria. The birds are, as you know, seen as coelurosaurias descendantants, but they are now classed as their own animalkingdom (Aves), that's the reason they have their own color. Conty 08:00, 17 February 2010

Hi Conty, my problem here is that, as you say, we don't know what the condition is in primitive birds. We only know what the condition is in modern birds. Your diagram implies all of Avialae are known to have ASW which is false. Also, it's a problem to include color key based on Linneean ranks like class and superfamily in a cladogram, since the point of cladograms is to show these ranks don't really exist, and they aren't used anymore by any paleontologists at all that I know of. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Look Dinoguy2, I don't understand how you can suggest that my diagram imply all animals classed as Avialae have ASW? Conty 20:10, 17 February 2010

It says "birds", which usually means "Avialae" or "Aves." If you only mean it to be modern birds, why not label it "Neornithes"? Think of it like this: it's like making the whole diagram one label, "Archosauria ASW". Yes, some archosaurs have ASW, but not all. We don't know if all birds do or do not, so it's wrong to mark it ASW with no question mark, or at least break "birds" down into several sub-clades to clarify. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, I have fixed the partr for the birds, and marked Ornithischia with "Bellow lungs". I hope it is more accurateConty 08:35, 18 February 2010

Unaysaurus

Any thoughts? The known bits are very similar to Plateosaurus. [14] And no, I didnt draw that cycad! Was taken from a diagram on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

looks pretty good HMallison (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Made it less muscular and moved that tail muscle I always seem to get wrong: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7343/unaycopy.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

if anything, make the tail base (i.e. the first third to half) much MORE muscular, especially in the lower half! I do like the sleeker look, but what you have done is made it less fat overall, not less muscular - good thing, too! Except for the arms, which indeed were a bit too muscular, so they also look much better.HMallison (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this? http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7343/unaycopy.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

nice!HMallison (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Coloured it. The integration of the plant isn't particularly successful, but hey, it's the idea that counts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

my dinosaur diagrams

Abelisauridae sizes.

Ceratopsia sizes.

Size comparison between Eotriceratops and Triceratops.

Size comparison between different Mongolian dinosaurs from the Campanian-age.

Tarbosaurus growth curve.

These are some diagrams I have made, most of the issue is about size comparisons. The size comparison between Mongolian dinosaurs from late cretaceous are in the category "Anatomically incorrect dinosaur restorations" at Wikimedia (I think it is because the Tarbosaurus head are to small). The same problem can be seen in the size diagrame between Eotriceratops and Triceratops. The problem is that I based their body length on the largest specimens found (9 meters for Triceratops, about 12 for Tarbosaurus), and the head size on the largest known for the genus (I think Tarbosaurus skull was 1,37 meters, and Triceratops 2, 1), sorry for the result. Do you think the size diagrams are good?

Also, I have started a new diagram on Tarbosaurus growth curve. It is not finished, but will be when more fossils are found and our understanding of this genus increase. Maybe we could make one for Tyrannosaurus rex? Conty 18:59, 14 January 2010.

Mongolian one is wrong because the maniraptorans lack feathers and have pronated hands. Also, too large eyes throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The front feet of the ceratopsians also look too columnar, like sauropod feet. Ceratopsians had probably the most primitive looking, separate-fingered, non-pronated hands of any quadrupedal dinosaurs. And the alvarezsaurid tails are too short, we now know even the advanced Mongolian forms had long, skinny tails. The arms/fingers on most of the abelisaurids are too big. Majungasaurus didn't really even have nay hands. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx feathers.

Comparison between feathers of Archaeopteryx and modern birds.

Manuy people believe Archaeopteryx was a poor flyer ( heavy skeleton, the construction of the shoulder and a small keelbone), but the asymmetrical wing feathers indicate it really was a very well designed for flight. What do you think about my diagram? Conty 16:15, 16 January 2010.

I don't see any problem with it except maybe the conclusion being drawin in the image itself. There's more to being a good flier than the shape of the feathers. Archaeopteryx couldn't raise its arms above shoulder level, which is a big problem for flight. Also, as shown in the diagram, some flightless birds have asymmetrical feathers too. It might also be interesting to include Microraptor, and maybe Anchiornis with symmetrical feathers for contrast. What's your source for the shape of the Archie feathers? The Larus feather looks like a photo...? Was it free to use if so? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All photobased pictures I give Wikipedia (like Larus feathers) are my own. And I know very well Archaeopteryx was unable to flap like modern birds do, but at least the feathers are evidence (I DON'T says they are proof) for a good flyer. If you want to call the cormorantfeathers I have done for "asymmetrical", have you seen the references? The cormorant's feathers are pretty symmetrical, arn't they? And if you want to know what Archaeopteryx feathers are based on, I can tell you the image are made by AAAS (1979), but I don't know much more than that (in that image, Archaeopteryx feathers was compared with those of a Gallirallus and a corn crake, and I wanted to make a diagram with feathers from several other birdspecies). And about Microraptor and Anchiornis, I haven't seen any diagram of their feathers, but as we know, scientists believ they only glided, i.e. was poor flyers (while other dromaeosaurids, like Cryptovolans and Rahonavis, could have been rather effective flyers). And I don't know any flightless bird which have asymmetrical feathers (unless we want to call the cormorant's feathers asymmetrical). And again, I don't say Archaeopteryx feathers proff it was a flyer, it's just evidence it was (and I believe that, despite it's weight was about 2 pounds). But I could be wrong. Conty 19:50, 16 January 2010.

I don't follow your logic. First of all, Microraptor and Cryptovolans are identical and probably synonyms. Why can one fly and one only glide? Both have asymmetrical feathers, which you say is evidence that Archaeopteryx was a good flier. As for the references, I'm not saying they're wrong, only that you should list them all rather than just for three. The cormorant feather is definitely asymmetrical--vane on one side of the quill is narrower than the other. Gallirallus, on the other hand, looks very symmetrical as you've drawn it (most Gallirallus species are also flightless). Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No comment about the accuracy, but the image caption has some very small errors: It should be 'wing feathers' instead of 'wingfeathers'. And all generic names should be capitalized and italicized (this is only partially done). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: My last words about the illustration: the flightless cormorant's feathers are relativley symmetrical, but not completely. And I didn't knew about the feathers of Microraptor, and because of all reconstructions showing it gliding (not flapping), I guess scientists want to call it a poor flyer, despite it's asymmetrical feathers. I know scientists siometimes believe Crypovolans and Microraptor are the same animal, but the reason I talk about them as different animals are this: Cryptovolans is described with a keelbone, but I haven't heard anything saying it can be found in Microraptor. Cryptovolans also had longer tail. Conty 14:05, 17 January 2010.

I believe both Microraptor and Cryptovolans have a slight sternal keel. Anyway, for an in-depth discussion of their differences you can read here: [15] (down the page a bit). It comes down to this--lost of Microraptor specimens have small differences like slightly longer tail, etc. It's hard to tell if the differences are sexual, age-related, or different species. If Cryptovolans is considered a separate species because of the difference, we must admit there are dozens of species or genera of microraptoine previously all considered Microraptor. However, this would be like the situation in the early 1900s regarding the dozens of "species" of Rhamphorhynchus etc., which are not known to be variations of only one or two species. Until better studies show otherwise it's probably best to treat them all, including C. pauli and M. gui, and only one species, M. zhaoianus. I personally believe Microraptor was a clumsy flier, maybe slightly better than Archaeopteryx given its larger sternal keel etc. That being said, there's no reason a pure glider would not benefit from asymmetrical feathers as well as a flier. The aerodynamic function is the same whether or not the animal is flapping. Remember that the authors of Anchiornis pointed out that its symmetrical feathers are evidence that it did not glide and was complete ground-dwelling. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tawa hallae

Tawa hallae, the recently published fantastic dinosaur.

Conty is back, with a reconstruction of the new dinosaur Tawa hallae. The restoration is based on information from National Science Foundation. The most is based on a skeletal illustration (see http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/tawa/images/photos/large/skeleton.jpg) and other images (http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/tawa/downloads.jsp). unfortunately, I think the legs became to long in my reconstruction. It should not surprise me if the legs are to straight as well. If so, we can only hope someone make a more accurate restoration. Conty 13:56, 9 January 2010.

The calves and thigh look immensely thick. Seems like there's something wrong with the perspective in the head. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the thighs, but agree that the calves are a bit too muscular. HMallison (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, maybe the head perspective seems odd. Maybe the Tawa's right eye not should be visible, and the hallux toe is to short. The hindlegs can be to long, but I should want to hear what the others think about the restoration. Conty 08:30, 21 January 2010.

The legs still seem weird in all your images with this perspective (why not try lateral?) but I don't see any obvious errors. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to make only lateral views, I like different angles. I do as good as I can, but I think the hallux must be enlarged (take a look at the skeleton [16]). But it's nice to hear it seems good otherwise. Conty 0814, 22 January 2010.

There's also a restoration of Tawa here which could be extracted, but the arm just looks too wobbly. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2009_palaeo_NT.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deinonychus antirrhopus

As you can see, I have done a restoration of Deinonychus. I think there could be inaccurates, like to small head, to long hindlegs, maybe to long tail, at least compared to this skeleton ([17]). I didn't gave it so much feathers on the hands, they would only become maculated with blod if Deinonychus really attacked prey in the bloodthirsty way they are depicted to do in books. The same is with the nacked head. Dinoguy2 has talked a lot about feathers on the head and snout, but if Deinonychus was the monstrous slaughterer we think, it would be very much to clean for the dinosaur after a meal with the head deep into a carcass. What do you say? (and don't forget to comment my restoration of Tawa).

"but if Deinonychus was the monstrous slaughterer we think" I don't think anybody really thinks that... No more a monstrous slaughter than a lion, which has fur on its hands and head. Either way, why would the body feathers grow so short so that you could make out a streamlined upper leg? Also, it looks like the primary feathers on the closer hand are coming off of digit 1... The pads on the toes need to be bigger, there doesn't appear to be any flexor turbacles on the sickle-claws. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okey, maybe it wasn't more of a slaughterer than a pack of lions, but it is often depicted like one. I think feathers are more difficult to clean than fur, and I don't think lions digs into a carcass in the same way as, for example, a vulture, do. But okay, I put amongs the "Anatomically incorrect dinosaur restorations". Conty 08:20, 22 January 2010.

One thing to remember, is that the 'feathers' on the head and neck of Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Anchiornis, and presumably Deinonychus were much simpler and more fur-like (more like the feathers of Sinosauropteryx) than the ones on the body and wings. I wonder if the reason for this is what you say: fur-like structures are easier to clean. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus

To gracile body? To small head? Likely it is to small. What do you like? Conty 19:00, 23 January 2010.

Is it meant to be a juvenile? If not, the eye is too big, head is too long and narrow, horns are too small, and arms are way too long. This] is what Ceratosaurus looks like, unfortunately yours bears very little resemblance. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty:It shall represent an adult. Are the eyes to large again? I worked to diminish the size of them when i was painting with the colors... but is the restoration you refer to dependable? Look at this skeleton and this (which maybe is cast of the same). Its horns are not very large, and the forelimbs and claws are much more well developed than the illustration you refer to Dinguy2. But the pubic maybe should be more pointe forward in my ilustration (it seems very long on the skeletons), and I admit the head are to small... OK, I think I must start all over again. Conty 21:10, 23 January 2010.

I see, the photo you linked to is a juvenile Ceratosaurus, which explains the juvenile features in your pic. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dilong paradoxus

To see version 1 of this restoration, click here.

Version 2, updated after Dinoguy2's comment about the colors.

I made this illustration of Dilong paradoxus last month. I guess the hindlegs can be a bit to long, but otherwise I hope it is good. Conty 12:30, 26 January 2010.

Remember the eyes. Still too big. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I brought up on the talk page recently, green protofeathers would not have been structurally possible. Only advanced pennaceous feathers can be blue or green, because almost all animals lack those colors as basic pigments. In scaly animals, the color comes from refraction of light through several layers of skin, not possible in simple feathers or hair (or pycnofibres). Also, I think the upper arms look too long and thin. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? OK, I will change the color hue when I have time to do. Are the eyes to big? Dilong´s eyesockets were huge, and so the eyes likely was pretty large to.Conty 19:00, 26 January 2010.

But remember, eye sockets alone are not a good indicator of eye size. Check this skull for example:[18] All that would be visible of the eye is the part within the inner circle of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Conty, the humerus is too long, I think. Otherwise the new version looks good. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok FunkMonk, I understand. But that do you guys think about the new colors I have done? Conty 21:00, 26 January 2010.

More realistic for sure. I still have to fix a couple of mine also... FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx

With the new feather color paper out, I figured I'd add my own Sino to commons, with the hue tweaked a bit to be more red-orange. From my reading of the paper, the rest of the pattern (based on Longrich's SVP presentation) should still be accurate. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty much perfect to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating discovery and restoration, I say. But did he [the Sinosauropteryx] not have any filamentous feathers on the legs or in the "stern"? Conty 08:20, 28 January 2010

Unsure--some feathers have been reported from the lateral side of the body, but in news reports Benton says the feathers were more limited. This is probably mostly due to preservation and the fact that the slab is split down the middle of the animal, but we know relatives like Juravenator had scales on the tail and flanks, and probably feathers elsewhere, so I reconstructed it based on that. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Older work depicting triassic enviorement

This illustration was originally made for a schoolproject. As you see, the inaccurates are many. Should we delete it? Conty 12:00, 29 January 2010

I don't know about the environment, but the dinos do have some mistakes. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific paleoenvironment that the illustration is depicting? Flora/fauna that did not live during the same time or have overlapping geographic ranges should not be shown in the same picture. I assume because of the prosauropod, theropod, and what looks to be a metoposaurid temnospondyl that this is based on the Chinle paleobiota. However, I'm not quite sure that frogs are known from the formation. Prosalirus has been found from the southwestern United States, but in Early Jurassic deposits. Triadobatrachus was a Triassic frog, but it lived in Madagascar during the Early Triassic, so it wouldn't be found with any dinosaurs. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Judged on the outwards bending ribs, it looks like the poor thing next to the lake has given birth to a chestburster... FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: Well, this should envisage the late triassic of Europe. Scientists believe Pangaea still existed at that time, so frogs may was widespread already. But you have to remind, very much is from my imagination. The prosauropods is of the wellknown genus Plateosaurus. FunkMonk says that it looks like the dead reptile has been ripped by a chestburster? Ha, ha! Conty 17:45, 29 January 2010

Remember, just because the continents were connected doesn't mean the animals ranged that widely. We don't find bison in Maine, or pandas in France, though they could walk to those places they don't because the environments differ too widely in between. That Utahraptor/Iguanodon episode of Walking with Dinosaurs is particularly bad in that respect, especially in hindsight since the "North American Iguanodon" have been reclassified as Dakotadon.Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The demand of an accurate Scipionyx restoration.

The beautiful fossil of "Skippy" the Scipionyx.

Scipionyx restoration (new work).

I like the little dinosaur Scipionyx, and wanted to be the one who made the first restoration of it to Wikipedia. I felt pretty content with the older version, until you learned me about what's accurate and not in my dinosaurillustrations. The new version may still have to large eyes (even for a baby Scipionyx), and the tail feels a bit to long (however, we can't know how long the tail was, until we find a specimen with complete tail). And if you blame me for the refusal to give it feathers, I just wan't to say: I thin, that if Scipionyx had feathers, they would have been preserved in the skeleton. Of course, the find can be a hatchling (as example, I think newly hatched chikens of some birdspecies can be pretty naked), but otherwise, this find can be a possible example of a featherless coelurosaur. If it is to inaccurate, we may should ask Arthurweasley or Dinoguy2 for a better illustration (I think Arthurweasley have improved his skills even more in the last year, have you seen his Bambiraptor and Rahonavis? The good with those is that they are even more colorful and nice to see! If ArthurWeasley read this, I say: GOOD WORK AW!). tHAT IS, HE OR ANYONE ELSE CAN MAKE A Scipionyx, especially if my new is inaccurate. What do you oyher say? Conty 21:40, 30 January 2010

"I thin, that if Scipionyx had feathers, they would have been preserved in the skeleton". Why? No skin of any kind was fossilized at all. You draw it with scales, why? There are no scales preserved in the fossil. Or skin. Clearly, if it had skin, it would have been preserved, right? You should draw it with naked musculature ;) Anyway, the skull looks to narrow, sohuldn't it be taller and more triangular?Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Head should be bigger and deeper. The eyes are way too big. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a hatchling. I don't think the eyes are too big, rather the head they're in (and socket) are too small. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the eyes are probably the right size ín relation to the body, but not the head. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Conty: Yes, the head may should be larger and more triangular. But I thought the skull was a bit turned, and not in 100% profile on the slab (but I guess I was wrong about that). If you want to see a diagram of the skeleton, watch here. But I admit, the eyes may be a bit to large, compared with the common model. Some people want to restorate with feathers (see here). I can understand them, but I think that if "Skippy" (nickname to the holotype, if someone didn't know that) had feathers, they should been preserved (I can be wrong). I don't know why the fossil lacks both skin and feathers, it's surprising when the guts and everthing else is preserved. Conty 8:40, 31 January 2010

If, for any reason, the skin isn't preserved, I don't see any reason to put scales in favor of protofeathers or feathers or whatever, at least in this case. The wisest thing to do here is look at what we do have, and what we do have a a bunch of fuzzy and feathery small coelurosaurs. Even Juravenator appears to have some protofeathers from what we can tell about its fossil. A good thing to keep in mind is that body covering is often the first thing to decay on a carcass. (The Montauk monster is a prime example of this.) Albertonykus (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Photoshop or similar, Conty? Then you don't have to draw whole drawings from scratch when tiny details need to be fixed. By the way, AW doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He don't? I didn't knew that! Now to your question: yes, I have photoprogram, but I like to make all lines for hand! Conty 18:14, 31 January 2010

Midgets among giants: Titanosaurs size comparison.

The new size diagram (Version 3). To see the 2 older versions we dicuss here, click HERE to see version 1, and HERE to see version 2.

I have wanted to do this diagram for a long time! Here, I have collected the many "dwarfs" within Titanosauria. We can also make copies and crop down to individual diagram of each genera! What do you think about it? Conty 18:20, 31 January 2010

I'm not up on the sizes of these guys so I can't really speak to that. The human does look a bit tall (6ft 6in = 2m, must be a pro basketball player :) ) but it's obviously a stylized rendition. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my humans sometimes become pretty large in my size diagrams, about 2 meters tall. But here, they are about 1,95 meters, i.e. about 4 inch more than the average adult man. And I think the size is correct, they are based on what I read about all the genera i their Wikipedia-articles (except Magyarosaurus, I already knew its size). Note that I forgot about 2 meters (6 feet) on the Ampelosaurus, it could grew a bit larger. But otherwise, I think the diagram is accurate (we must remember that we don't know the length proportion [length of tail, body and neck compared to each other] in all genera, but that's something we will learn if we find more skeletons of them). Conty 21:15, 31 January 2010

Why wouldn't you make the humans average size? de Bivort 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. But there still human size. Conty 8:30, 1 February 2010

Such images are not of much use then. The humans as well as animals should be of average size, unless there's a point in showing other sizes. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What?? This is dinosaurology, we show MAXIMUM physically possible sizes only, Funk ;) (At least, all of mine do, so I don't have a beef with conty's image unless it's inacucrate, which I don't have time to research right now). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we should have humans at 2. 70! FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK FunkMonk, I understand. I have now updated the diagram, if you look at it now, you can see i have given the humans a more average size, I hope you accept it now. Conty 17:50, 2 February 2010

Conty, one question, how did you scale these? The basic models you used follow Carpenter's titanosaur style, with fairly short necks and tails. But, in my experience, most published size estimates of sauropods assume very long necks and tails. If you scaled them only by length, they may be wrong. Have you checked them against individual bone measurements, like femur length, to make sure the proportions are "right" for the length estimates? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conty: Yes, the size estimations is based on that Titanosauria had shorter tail and neck than most other sauropods (which I learned from English wikipedia's article about Titanosauria). I sometimes think about Saltasaurus short neck (but it seems like the tail was pretty long). Here you can also see an inaccurate version of Saltasaurus I did a long time ago, with a far to long neck... But that's irrelevant here. But if I have done it wrong, we have to start all over again. Conty 20:50, 2 February 2010

Well, I don't see any evidence they're wrong, so they're good unless somebody with more knowledge points out an error. Actually I looked up the femur length of Ampelosaurus and it seems to match yours well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I heard that Kenneth Carpenter has done a saltasaurus reconstruction (in Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia 1997) which would be useful as reference. I haven't seen it though. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conty: I have added 3 genera to the diagram to fill it out. What do you think? Conty 20:30, 9 February 2010

New Alxasaurus

Alxasaurus (old restoration). To see the old restoration, click HERE.

Alxasaurus (new restoration).

My older restoration of Alxasaurus was inaccurate already before the new discovery of color limits in filamentous feathers. I hope the new restoration is good. The feathers are based on what we believe are feathers in Beipiaosaurus. As the case with most Therizinosaurs, we don't have a complete skull from Alxasaurus. Conty 17:10, 1 February 2010

I think the arms should maybe be more muscled, and smaller eyes still. By the way, I see you're nominating a lot of your older images for deletion, if you don't want to have to do that all the time in the future, just upload your images to a place like imageshack[19] when you put them up for review, instead of directly to Commons. It'll save the time of both you and the admins there. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Much improved! Agree with Funk though, the arms look like skinny sticks. But the feathers look great. Though, what's the reasoning for a half-feathered head? Beipiaosaurus has a fully naked face, but if the feathers are extending on the head you'd expect them to go almost all the way to the beak. No need for the "scaly beak" look in animals with an actual beak! Regarding deletion, another good way is to just upload the new one to replace the old one. If you're logged in to commons, toward the bottom of the image page is a link saying "Upload a new version of this file". People can still see the old versions under File history to compare. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's possible to upload new versions of images, but I decided to give the new one it's own page. Maybe there still is some inaccurates, but it's nice that you say my work is better! By the way, I took away the deletion recuest to the old image, and plan to upload another version of my new on it.Conty 20:40, 1 February 2010

Filamentous feathers color?

Filamentous feathers can have any hue other than greens or blues (including purple, etc.). It might be good to look at some modern bird chicks (which also have plumaceous or filamentous feathers) or mammals) with monofilament fur) for inspiration. Keep in mind that any naked skin or scaly parts can still be any color--plenty of reptiles, birds, and even mammals have blue or green colored skin! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Spinosaurus Skull Re-review

I first did this image back in 2007. Based on what I have learnt about dinosaur scales I have thought for a while that the scales are 'probably' too large. This is a new, easier to modify, version with smaller scales (and has optional colour): [20] The scales are a based loosely on what is known in Carnotorus. I'm unsure of the uniformity of the extra large scales, the images I have of Carnotorus' skin are not great. Also does anyone know anything to do with scale size changes as an animal grows? Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks incredibly cool with the new colours. Don't know much about the scales though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we have any scale impressions from large adult theropods other than Carnotaurus, so it's hard to tell how they scale with ontogeny. The unpublished T. rex scales are apparently very small, so I think your take is on the right track. As for Carnotaurus skin, any images of this model [21] are supposedly very spot on as Czerkas made the model himself after studying the skin in detail. Probably just as good as the fossil, possibly save for artistic touches like the large wrinkles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Microvenator

Any thoughts? Maybe based too much on oviraptorids? http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/487/microt.jpg Skeletal: http://www.dinoweb.narod.ru/microvenator2.gif FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though the beak may be too extensive ([22], see fig 37 for illustration). I wouldn't worry too much about it looking too oviraptorid, I think it's pretty widely believed to be either oviraptorid or "caenagnathid" (elmisaurid) assuming the later aren't a derived group of the former as some recent studies are showing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thought about that paper, but couldn't find it. Wasn't there one about ornithomimid beaks too? FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, here [23] Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! How about this? http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3821/micros.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, though it seems like the difference between the extensive vs smaller-coverage beak seems to be largely the inclusion or exclusion of the nostril, so it's bit odd to have a limited beak that fully encloses the nostril. I believe in most birds, the rhamphotheca begins just anterior to the nostril and doesn't enclose it, with a few exceptions. If ovis were such an exception, I'd almost expect a much larger, hornbill-like beak. But it's all speculation of course. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was to match option B in the figure. A thing that struck me as odd in the figures is that the antorbital fenestra isn't covered. Why wouldn't it be? Haven't read the paper though. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the aof is never covered by beak in modern birds and is actually a good indicator of where the beak stops. I take back the thing about not including the nostril anyway, looks like at least one ovi may have had keratin all the way up the crest so option b seems more likely.[24] Oh, and at least on the posterior portion, the beak should be flush, top and bottom with no overlap. The upper beak may have overhung the lower somewhat at the tip. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It sort of looks like it has eyelashes - deliberate? de Bivort 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, started making some but got away from it, so they're not so refined. Several birds have them, so I figured it was alright. But maybe it isn't? FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this flushed enough (if I understand the term correctly)? http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1949/microih.jpg By the way, cool post, I love your blog, covers a lot of stuff not found elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah that looks good to me. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's colour. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The demand of a new Confuciusornis.

I have been told that illustrations of prehistoric birds should be discussed here. We need a new colored illustration of Confuciusornis, as they have found out how it was colored when it lived. according to what we find on Google, it should have colors similar to a zebra finch.Conty 07:30, 3 February 2010

Is there a demand? I think Spindler's is alright. The one by Chadmull has some mistakes though. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to discourage any new art, but keep in mind a pper detailing the color/patterning is forthcoming so you will likely be proven wrong relatively quickly in whatever you produce ;) I think Spindler's is pretty good, and is shaded in such a way that color patterns are obscured anyway so we dodge the problem. Chadmull's does have several mistakes--neck too skinny, pintail feathers too short, presence of vaned retrices other than the pintails, fingers too exposed relative to the wing feathers, etc.Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Conty: What you both say is correct. It's not so that I say Spindler's work should be wrong. The thing is that his illustration feels a bit drearily with it's grey tunes (I hope he don't become to resented by my comment). It should also be pleasant if we had a restoration which show the bird sitting, in a more horisontal perspective (like my restoration, which sadly for me is inaccurate). I don't try to say that my illustrations is better than Spindler's or anyone else, I just gave my opinoin. Conty 17:50, 3 February 2010

As Dinoguy said, some of the actual colours will be revealed soon, so greyscale is better than some imaginary colours at this moment. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration of Therizinosauroidea skulls

Skull remains of Falcarius, Erlikosaurus and Segnosaurus.

I have updated one of my older skull illustrations. I have added 2 more genera in the illustration, and have drawed them as accurate I can. Do you think we can make use of it? Conty 18:04, 3 February 2010

Why did you restore the missing partso f Falcarius and Erlikosaurus but only the known parts of Segnosaurus? This would imply that the Erlikosaurus skull is complete, or that the Falcarius skull is known from more than a lower jaw plus some fragments. It looks like you based Falcarius on the mounted skeleton but that skull is mostly a sculpture, I think, not based on real fossils. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Falcarius skull is not based on just a jaw? I think I saw a diagram which suggested that the skull was well known (except the tip of the snout). And Erlikosaurus skull is complete. Conty 8:37, 4 February 2010

Here's a skeletal showing what's known. [25] Erlikosaurus is very complete, yeah, but still missing some pieces from the back IIRC. I think you should either do all three showing only known parts, or restore all three to complete (i.e. fill in the rest of Segnosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What are these based on? Can you post links? For skeletal restorations, it could be nice if you could post some references, otherwise it's hard to see what's right and wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the Falcarius skull as much as I could with the skeletal diagram (the skeletal diagram in [26] is very low resolution...) and a photo of the jaw fragments (see the image text). I hope it is better. Conty 08:35, 16 February 2010

That looks much better. Maybe you could add a hypothetical skull for Segnosaurus, just a gray version of Erlikosaurus maybe? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is fixed. Conty 8:40, 26 February 2010.

Falcarius utahensis.

Falcarius.

I have done a restoration of Faslcarius utahensis. It is based on the typical skeleton (see it HERE), but I am afraid that my illustration can be inaccurate in some way. The neck seems to be to short compared to the skeleton, and the body maybe to robust. However, I hope you don't find other inaccurates. What do you say? Conty 20:10, 4 February 2010

I know I'm guilty of it myself (but that was before the feathered head of Beipiaosaurus was found) but why the naked head? Also, judged on that fossil[27], the feather outline around the neck would be much thicker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah woah! Beipiaosaurus has an unfeathered head[28] (at least, none are preserved on the face in that fossil). This is one case where featherless head is appropriate. But, the feathers should also probably be denser on the neck and start at about mid-jaw based on Beipiao. But ehat's up with the green eye? I don't think any vertebrates have anything but white sclera, and it's too bug-eyed (and would be too large) for that to be all iris. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see the outline is this: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/73/beiapiosaurus.jpg To me it seems like some of the feathers would start at the head, and then proceed along the neck, but of course, it's unclear, so it could just as well be naked. But it looks like at least the throat and underside of the lower jaw has feathers. Apart from the humps, I think these old Specworld therizinosaurs came pretty close to what the fossil outline shows: http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0000265/Spec/Segnosauria.html FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't see any feathers over the neck that look like they have an origin at the top of the head. You'd expect them to be arching down and extending the 'mane' anteriorly quite a bit, especially how stiff they seem to be. But it could always be preservational. And we do know that there were softer, more filamentous feathers at least on the arm, maybe forming an 'undercoat' that could have covered the face and not been preserved as well as the quills. But yeah, at least based on this, therizinosaur necks would not have looked skinny in life as traditionally shown, but they would have a rather short-necked appearance like modern birds. compare: [29] [30] The neck looks much shorter than it is due to all the feathers. This is also true for deinonychosaurs and probably others. A maniraptoran would look overall like a coelophysoid in the shape of the skeleton, but nothing like it on the outside. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I posted this before, but still cool, this picture I took of an exhibit that shows how much of an owls mass is really just feathers, in cross section: [31][32] FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I seemed like you don't found it's green eyes to be good, so I made the yellow. I hope you like it better. Conty 08:17, 25 March 2010

Siamosaurus

Sketch: http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2414/saimi.jpg Mostly based on this suchomimus skeletal: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/images/suchomimus.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are a good artist FunkMonk, but I hope you don't be resent for my thought: the vertebralspines right above the hips maybe should be a little bit longer in your sketch? Otherwise, I think you are doing a good job! Conty 17:00, 10 February 2010

Thanks, and nice that you're now giving critique! Yeah, I'll make it longer. By the way, I'm not sure if Suchomimus is the best genus to base it on? FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, overall I think Suchomimus or maybe Irritator (or somewhere in between) would be a good model. Just read here[33], though, the neural spines should be much taller on the dorsals at least, giving it a low 'sail' closer to Spinosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/552/siamo.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, at least i'm guessing that's better, don't have any figures of the verts... Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

With colour. If the verts turn out to be different, I'll fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good for me!Conty 08:20, 11 February 2010

Theropod skulls discussion

Tyrannosauridae skull comparison (Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex).

Megalosauridae skull comparison.

Abelisauridae skull comparison.

I know the Tyrannosauridae skull diagram must be edited(I know its flaws), but I want to ask some questions about it first. Many specimens of different genera within Tyrannosauridae have faced forward in some extent (with Tyrannosaurus rex having binocular vision). But the article about Tyrannosaurus at Wikipedia have a incomprehensible statement when giving arguments for a hunter: "He also pointed out that the tyrannosaur lineage had a history of steadily improving binocular vision. It is hard to see how natural selection would have favored this long-term trend if tyrannosaurs had been pure scavengers...". Who is "He"? And does "tyrannosaur lineage" mean the family Tyrannosauridae, or just the genus Tyrannsaurus rex? Please answer if you can. The second diagram (Megalosauridae skulls) is a work I uploaded last year. What do you think? If you want references, they can be found in the image text. You can also see a new diagram I uploaded yesterday with skulls of Abelisaurids (it was originally planned to a book project the last summer, but I decided to share it on Wikipedia, if someone is interested). I hope you like it! Conty 8:45, 12 February 2010

I'm guessing "he" is Kent Stevens, who is cited. "Tyrannosaur lineage" certainly means tyrannosauridae, since various turannosaurids have different degrees of binocular vision and T. rex, as a single species, naturally has only one degree with maybe a touch of individual variation. If I get a change later I'll give you a few comments on the other skulls, don't have my own cites right now :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you do your skeletals free hand? Because you should rather base them directly on other skeletals or actual pictures by tracing or similar, otherwise the result is too inaccurate. The Carnotaurus looks quite off for example, both the horn and the overall skull shape. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tell you FunkMonk: The diagram of Tyrannosauridae are most my own freehand (with some details based on skulls), but I did not understod that Everything should be based on known specimens. I can update it some day. The diagrams of Megalosauridae and Abelisauridae on the other hand, are based on meticulously drawings from the real skulls (see references in the images text). But we all do mistaces, maybe that's the reason you think the Carnotaurus is something wrong... Conty 08:15, 27 February 2010

Well, skeletals should always be based on known specimens, otherwise they're original research. And as for Carno, the skull is too long and the horns too pointy, at least compared to all the other restorations I've seen. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anchiornis revisited

Updated based on the new color info... I know we've already got an illustration but I wanted to replace my old one to stop it appearing on Google images ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but perspective wise, wouldn't the left foot be largely hidden by the right one, with only the front claws poking out from behind? As it is now, it would appear that the left hind wing is much longer than the right one. Here's a rough edit of what I mean: [34] I'm sad to see the old one completely discarded, it was really cool too (and cute!). Can't it be modified into some other animal? Maybe a related troodont with no known feathers? FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He, he! looks like a rooster with eagle claws (I hope you don't resent for that commentary, as Anchiornis looked something like that). The feather mail looks really well done! And it is at least 10 times better than the dysmorphic chicken I made... When we compare your illustration to the a closeup of the fossil LPM-B00169 A (see also [35] and [36]), we can see you perceived the feathered metatarsals right. I can't see any special error... good work Dinoguy2! Conty 19:30, 25 February.

Looks great. I think Dinoguy is going under the assumption that the met feathers stick out side ways (bi-plane configuration), so the perspective is shortening the feathers on one of the legs. See here [37] ;) . I have yet to read the Anchiornis colour paper, does the article talk about the tip of the snoat? The two 'official' reconstructions in the media have naked snoats. Is there actually any evidence for this in Anchiornis? or has this artistic trend struck again? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys... I think I see what Funk is talking about, even without foreshortening the hind wings (Which I did try to do sticking out somewhat laterally, hard to convey in lateral view. I'll whip up a new version soon. The article doesn't talk about extent of feathers o the snout but they clearly go to the tip in the first referred specimen (first one described with hind wings) and don't look disarticulated. I think Greg Paul's style is so ingrained people can't even see it's wrong when looking right at conflicting evidence ;) As for my old one I might try to modify it into Mei or something, which might have a short enough tail to work. Dave hone just posted a pic of a cool undescribed Anchiornis on his blog with a complete tail, it's ridiculously long for a troodont! Looks shorter in the life resto due to the poofy proximal tail feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I almost posted the picture from Dave Hone's blog here. With foreshortening in mind, I guess the left foot shouldn't be as far back and down as in my edit, maybe half. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered the left leg to hopefully fix the perspective issue and make the hindwing orientation more clear, how's that look? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, I hadn't thought of moving the wing instead of the foot... FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mei now

Repurposed the old Anchiornis as Mei, mainly by lengthening the tail and shrinking the arms/wings. Did I miss any important details? I can't find any lateral skeletals so I've gone by published photos of the 'sleeping' skeleton. Since it's from the Lujiatun bed, hopefully (well, not hopefully... unfortunately?) the feather pattern and colors won't be disproved any time soon. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by the lower branch of the tail. It looks broken, or I'm mis-seeing it. Good idea to repurpose though! de Bivort 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just curving forward and down into the background. I figured Mei was a good spot to buck the old trend of the stiff-tailed deinonychosaur fallacy, what with the holotype illustrating how bendable the tail really was, wrapped completely around the body. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see it now. Could it be tweaked so that the 180 turn of the tail was not all in plane of the observer, i.e. so that from the viewer's perspective the tail doesn't form a sharp corner, but instead bends along a curve similar to a jesus fish? I think that would make it clearer - my eyes still first see it as broken. de Bivort 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to tweak it a bit, I can see where it might be confusing... Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated, how does that look? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't see any reason to think it is inaccurate. If I was in your clothes, I would have done a hole new restoration, but it's your choice if you want to recreate your illustrations! It is a very beautiful illustraiton. I have always thought the skull of Mei long looks like an ostrich! Conty 08:10 26 February 2010.

Looks good. Contrary to Conty, I say there are so many unillustrated dinosaur genera on Wikipedia, so that if a drawing is incorrect or redundant, fix it or change it into something else! FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No helpful input from me, but I'd like to say I find this revamp a creative idea. Albertonykus (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently finished a new illustration of the Mei holotype for a different project which I think much more, well, natural looking than the reclaimed Anchiornis. I went ahead and replaced the image, but it's a major change so... What do you guys think? :) MMartyniuk (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We can say Martyniuk, without overstating, say that you are a very good artist. The shape of the snout looks accurate, which I see as a important point. Yet, I wonder some things: the right tibia/shin and metatarsus seems to go on a straight way down. Could theropod dinosaurs do that? I have never seen a theropod depiction with straight limb like that. However, you are a better artist than me, and perhaps also know more about animals anatomy than me. I also wonder about the eye: Is it totally black? the light "ring" around, are that the iris, or is it the ring of featherless skin that birds have around the eye? Conty 08:35, 17 June 2010

Dilong paradoxus revisit

Dilong size comparison.

New Dilong restoration.

I have done a size diagram of Dilong. As you also can see, I have done a new restoration of Dilong. Do you like it? If you want to know references, they can be found in the image text. Conty 08:50, 26 February 2010.

Still seems to be greenish? Also, seems that the claws on the right foot and hand are bigger than the left ones, though they are farther away? FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the arm that is scratching the head is dislocated. I can't find the free online version, but there is a paper by Ken Carpenter that looks at theropod forelimbs. In general the humerus can't extend forward beyond about 90-ish degrees in relation to the long axis of the shoulder blade. Generally theropods couldn't extend the the humerus to vertical (at most about 40 - 60 degrees from the horizontal) and yours has extended well beyond that. Edit: Actually that would mean that both arms are extended too far. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the hind legs seem to cross in an unnatural way, the left foot appears to be farther away than the right one, even though it should be closer to us. The right calf also looks much thicker than the left one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry FunkMonk... I didn't note that when I did the restoration. But the feathers are not green, they are dark brown. Conty 15:25, 26 February 2010.

Heh, I don't doubt it, I'm red green colourblind, so I'm not the best person to determine colour... FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The fur is an olive yellow, and the tip of the tail is red. I noticed the leg cross, too. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Patagopteryx reconstruction advice

I am trying to upload an image of Patagopteryx, but I'm not sure if I have to go to commons. I know the image is correct because I traced over a skeletal, the only image of this bird on Wikipedia. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to upload it to Commons right away, you can upload it here first for example: http://imageshack.us/ FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[38] --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a Cryolophosaurus, too. [39] --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it seems like Patago is looking in front of itself, which I think would be impossible to do for a bird. They can't really move their eyes around that much, so if they want to look forward, they have to turn their head to the side. Haven't looked at a skeletal, so don't know about the proportions right now. As for cryo, it seems like you've drawn the eye in front of where the headcrest is, but it should be behind. I like the long protofeathers though! FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The skeletal:

--Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the protofeathers on a primitive theropod is that, last year, we found Tianyulong, which had protofeathers near the common ancestor of all dinosaurs, so the common ancestor of dinosaurs must have had them. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 13:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Viola! [40] and [ http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2017/patagopteryx.jpg]. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[41] - Mononykus! --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sneaky Oviraptor - I'm really happy you're here contributing images. Also, you have maybe the coolest user name I have encountered on wikipedia. Can I offer a comment that I hope you won't take as discouragement? It strikes me that if we include some of your drawings in the articles as is, they will look sort of cartoonish compared to the other illustrations. I'm pretty sure you have the artistic talent to make images that will fit naturally in the encyclopedia, it's probably just a matter of putting more time and pen strokes into each one. For example, your mononykus looks like it had a good bit more effort put in than cryolophosaurus, and looks a good bit better, to my eyes. de Bivort 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course they look cartoony, I don't draw them, I use Microsoft Paint on images I find. Oh, and this is something I just whipped up in a few seconds. It took that long because the bigger resolution version makes whatever I color B&W. Elaphrosaurus: [42]. I just go with however the image size allows me. I don't know how to make images larger whilst clearifying the image. I can't on the XP version of Paint. To make things accurate, I also have to use a skeleton. Together, it's really hard. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I didn't realize that's how you were making them. Well, I'd still encourage you to explore embellishing them a bit further, mostly in terms of filling out the texture and shading a bit more. de Bivort 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

._. I was gonna upload a Masiakasaurus, but it looks like I have to start over! Now I am working on a Sharovipteryx, and some other gliding reptiles. I'm not sure how I should carry out Longisquama. I have 10 ideas. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. I could make images for [43]. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this Archaeopteryx sneak peek enough for me to try or is it too cartoony still? [44] skeletal by Scott Harman. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sneaky Oviraptor, it looks like you've given Archaeopteryx a pretty large and pointed beak, which it almost certainly did not have. In most primitive birds, if fact, the feathers would go nearly to the tip of the snout. I also think you should definitely spend more than a few seconds on your drawings! I usually spend several hours on even the really simple ones, which gives enough time to give shading, details etc. You could try getting Photoshop Elements too, which is far superior to MS paint for doing artwork :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New Archaeopteryx coming right up! [45] --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: wow, I haven't got a single compliment yet on my artwork.

Archaeopteryx: [46]. It has no shading or individual protofeathers, down, or countor feathers because it's only a rough draft. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well, this page isn't really about compliments, it's about improving and approving restorations for use in articles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that! This is getting kind of long, and it is unnessecary to have a disscussion about an entire user's entire portfolio. All comments shall know be taken in a new section. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Dinoguy, I can't afford Photoshop, my family is hard-hit by the economic crisis. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Download GIMP, it can do the same for free. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That was fast. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the watchlist is a nice thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proceratosaurus head restoration.

Hi guy's! I worked a hole afternon to do this image. References can be found in the image text. What do you say? Conty 19:30, 8 March 2010.

Why do you think the horn would be so small? It looks like much of it is missing in the only known fossil, FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty weird to do a life resto where the broken crest fragment is in life shown as a tiny broken crest fragment. Most life restorations show it as the base of a larger, Guanlong-like crest running the length of the skull, which seems most likely to me. It's definitely not complete in its fossilized form. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, almost all of the nasal bone are complete, this includes the part the horn grow from. No restorations I have seen give it a crest or something like that of Guanlong. To me, the horn looked complete... Conty 8:15, 9 March 2010.

Baby Tyrannosaurus rex with feathers.

What do you say? I'm sure it is better than my previous, ugly drawing. Maybe the head are to small? Or is it something you want to comment? Please also give more comments to my Proceratosaurus. Conty 17:20, 10 March 2010.

Could you perhaps base it more on the Jane specimen? The head doens't look like it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No FunkMonk, I can't, for several reasons. There is debatable whether "Jane" is a Nanotyrannus or a juvenile Tyrannosaurus. As example, "Tinker" (about 6 years at time of death) have a morphology like an adult Tyrannosaurus, while "Jane" (about 11 years at time of death) have blade-like teeth (unlike Tyrannosaurus, and unlike "Tinker"), and some other differences with adult Tyrannosaurus. The shape of my babyrex head came from a young Tyrannosaurus skull to sale on taylormadefossils.com (the image are not avilable anymore). But you can also take a look at the skull from the 5 year-old Tarbosaurus specimen found in Gobi desert 2006. Conty 19:15, 10 March 2010.

Good sketch, but I would point out that the legs are very tall in comparison to the body.--Dropzink (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, Conty, then I think it's fine. But I'd wait and see what Dinoguy thinks. We do need a correct, feathered baby Tyrannosaurus actually. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good FunkMonk. Yes, we need one in the Tyrannosaurus rex article (until we got an accurate restoration, we can continue with ArthurWeasley's Raptorex...). Of course, we also have a restoration made by "K00bine" (see it HERE). I will remind they had photo of a "baby rex" model from Copenhagen, but it seems to have been deleted. "Dropzink" say that my restoration have very long hindlegs. But that's because I have been learned that young Tyrannosaurus had different body proportions than adults. The young Tarbosaurus specimen shows this: I once did a sketch based on the baby Tarbosaurus, and the hindlegs became really long. But, let's wait on Dinoguy2's comment to, as FunkMonk said. Conty 20:00, 15 March 2010.

The image by K00bine was found to be wrong during a discussion, and the photo of the model in Copenhagen was actually taken by me. I had it deleted because Danish copyright laws are a bit strict. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New Scipionyx restorations and size comparison diagram.

'Scipionyx with feathers.

Scipionyx without feathers.

I have done a new restoration of Scipionyx. As neither feathers or scales are preserved, it comes in 2 versions. Perhaps i will made an additional restoration with feathers. What do you say? Conty 18:00, 4 March 2010

Size of "Skippy" the Scipionyx.

Scipionyx size estimation.

I think the skull should be deeper, like here: [47] And the teeth are too robust. like tyrannosaur teeth or something. Other than that, I don't think I see anything incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FunkMonk has give me a comment on my new restoration of this small coelurosaur. I hope I got more comments on it, and I have now done 2 size diagram on Scipionyx. I have done a calculation on Scipionyx adult size, what do you say? Conty 20:45, 6 February 2010

The feathered Scip looks good, but I don't think it's appropriate to do a size estimate for an adult, which is totally speculative. We don't even know for sure which animals this dino is most closely related to. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you DInoguy2! But are you sure it is accurate? FunkMonk said that the teeth are to robust, and I don't know if he is right. The size calculation is based on the size of the egg; do you not think we can determine Scipionyx size by looking at the size of the egg? By the way, do you like my feathered baby Tyrannosaurus? We are waiting for your standpoint about it! Conty 8:15, 16 February 2010

Yes, I agree with Funk's suggestions (taller skull, needle-like teeth. Look at the baby Byronosaurus for example, which are similar). Are there any published estimates of how old Scipionyx is? If not, how can we know the size of its egg? To determine egg size or adult size, we need to know two things: the exact age of the specimen, and what kind of growth curve it had. We do not know either of these things as far as I know. The age and even classification of Scipionyx are a mystery! MMartyniuk (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see there's a monograph on this specimen due to be published this year, I'm sure it will answer most of these questions! MMartyniuk (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. But if we discuss Scipionyx size, I based my size estimation on the fact that "Skippy" is a hatchling. We can get an idea of Scipionyx size as an adult by guessing how many eggs a female laid (like in Troodon), and how large they were in proportion to the female (like in the case of Troodon, or Sinosauropteryx). But I am not the right man to do such research. Conty 11:10, 16 February 2010

How can we know it was a hatchling? "Hatchling" is a general term for very young, but it doesn't necessarily mean "straight out of the egg." What if it doubled in size the first few weeks of life? Then your egg estimate would be off by double. Unless it was found in association with a nest, there's no reason to think it was born immediately before dying. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dinoguy2. I just want to tell that I based the size estimation on the idea that "Skippy" died almost immediately after hatching. The large head, large eyes etc. indicate "Skippy" died very young (and was called "hatchling" in the media, despite you tell me not to trust newsarticles...). I will put it under "Anatomically incorrect dinosaur restorations" at Wikimedia. By the way, do you want to comment the restoration of the feathered baby Tyrannosaurus? We are waiting for your think about it! Conty 8:10, 17 February 2010

Archaeopyeryx 2.0 and new image collection

Here it is: ARCHIE 2.0: [48]! I'm also seriously doing the gliding reptiles series I talked about earlier.

Here's my ideas for longisquama:

• Protobird
• 2-winged glider
• David Peters' reconstruction
• two rows of scales
• megalancosaur
• Something somewhat resembaling a sail-back dinosaur
• 1 row of scales
• completely normal, like a lizard

and I forgot the other 2 because I lost my sketches on paper :( --SNEAKY OVIRAPTOR18 can that be my new sig?

Where are the wings? FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

... Are you joking? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree, your Archaeopteryx appears to entirely lack primary and secondary remiges and primary coverts! It looks like it has only secondary coverts, and tertial coverts (which probably shouldn't be present, Archie had no flight feathers on the humerus). Here's a diagram showing feather length and arrangement [49] Note particularly that the longest feathers stem from the tip of the longest finger, not from the arm. Some of your ideas for Longisquma sound like original research, I'd stick to the versions that have been published in some form (Peter's, double plume row/glider, single plume row). MMartyniuk (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there ARE primaries and secondaries. I‘m sorry, but I don‘t think I can do my work on a wii. That‘s what I‘m stuck with 4 tonite. As 4 longisquama, glider, peters‘, 2rows 1row andscaleles? --so 00:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you might be misunderstanding. A birds (and dinosaurs) wing is made up of stiff, large-quilled feathers called remiges. Remige names are based on which bones of the forelimb they attach to. Secondary feathers attach to the forearm (ulna). Your drawing has these, though they are much too short for Archaeopteryx, which is why I said they look like coverts (coverts are the short feathers that form the 'layers' above the main wing and cover the main quill attachment points for he remiges). Primaries are remiges which anchor to the second finger of the hand. There don't seem to be any remiges on the hand in your drawing, so it therefore has no primaries. Some modern birds have remiges on the upper arm (humerus), called tertials. However most or all Mesozoic birds and dinosaurs did not have these, rather they had long feathers on the humerus and shoulder that partially covered this area. Still, there was a noticeable gap between the wing and body when the wings were extended. Here is a good diagram showing feather types and where they attach. This is a modern bird, but fossils show that prehistoric birds and many maniraptoran dinosaurs had a nearly identical configuration. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sneaky19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

IT's time to put tis project in the bag. As for the reptiles, Im not sure which ones to do besides Longi.--SNEAKY OVIRAPTOR18 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Dinosaur bust

I did this: [50] while listening to this: [51]. Can you guys guess what it is? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A therizinosaur of some kind? But it's hard for us to review an image if you make us guess its identity first. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a Protarchaeopteryx/Incisivosaurus. Conty 12:10, 20 March 2010

Dinoguy2 was right? But which one? Its really a Falcarius. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

:/ so... how is it? suitable to use in an article? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jingshanosaurus

Jingshanosaurus.

I decided to create an illustration of Jingshanosaurus. What do you think? Conty 8:40, 21 March 2010.

It seems to me that all restorations of prosauropods I see have short necks and deep tails. Is that just me? Otherwise it looks good. --22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd imagine such a big animal having bigger pads under the toes though. And maybe the eye is a big too large still. FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Short necks and deep tails? No, no, they had long necks and tails, but usually shorter than in sauropods (take a look at this Plateosaurus for example). If you ask me, the prosauropod neck was about 4-7 times the length of the head (depending on the genus and the length of the snout) Jingshanosaurus had a long neck compared to the head, and the tail was massive, at least in the lateral view. Thank you Sneaky Oviraptor for you like my drawing! Conty 8:15, 23 March 2010.

O_O that skeletal now makes this drawing's tail look deeper! I guess prosauropod tails are too deep and necks are too short for me to like. :/ --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Juvenile Tarbosaurus.

Life restoration.

Size comparison diagram.

I have done a restoration of a juvenile Tarbosaurus. It is based on the young specimen found on Gobi desert 2006 (see a photo of the fossil HERE). You can also take a look at the skull, HERE is the best resolution I could find. What do you say? I hope that Dinoguy2 also will give a comment, or does he not work on Wikipedia anymore? Conty 08:20, 24 March 2010.

Hi Conty, overall it looks good but there are a few issues. I think the skull is a bit too narrow, or at least too elongated past the antorbital fenestra. It should be a bit more short-nosed. The teeth are also the wrong shape--you can see the teeth form a gentle arc with the longest in between the nostril and aof, yours has longest teeth in the back. The hip attachment seems wrong, and the leg muscles should form an inverted triangle at the hip, with the top as broad as the skull is long. The arms look way too big as well. Ironically, the arms and skull shape in your scale diagram look just right but don't match the drawing. (P.S. this Dinoguy2, I have changed my user signature to my real name :) ). MMartyniuk (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentaries MMartyniuk! Yes, I know the head seems to long in the restoration, at least compared to the skull. However, the skull profile becomes higher just in front of the eyesocket, above the horn. To me, it looks like a crest or something, but I thought it was a damage in the fossilization, or that the skull not was 100% lateral. Am I wrong? I know the size diagram looks better; it is more difficult to see where the skull begin. I also made the forelimbs a bit smaller, as I found them too large in the restoration. But now, I think I will take a rest from my dinosaur drawing, so I may not get in touch at this page for a while. Conty 08:10, 25 March 2010.

Yes, the skull looks a bit crushed in a skew and not totally lateral. I think what you're seeing as a crest is just the top of the skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The fingers on the left hand seem quite a bit longer than the ones on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GIMP

I finally installed it. Mononykus redid: [52]. If you are wondering why it is buff, see Luis Rey's ornithomimosaurs and alvarezsaurids. ;D --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi SO, one piece of advice I would give is to work on shading, blending, and defining your drawings a bit more. This is especially important when you're using the smudge tool to help with feathers, since parts of the drawing look blurry compared to the simple, solid-colors with black outlines, a bit like someone has spilled water on the paper, or that pats of the animal are moving very fast while other parts are motionless. Do you have access to a scanner? I find digital drawing to be much easier when I do a pencil drawing first, with shading and detail and everything, and then paint the color in digitally. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My scanner just prints out stuff it scans. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 03:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Cryolophosaurus

[53] I'm worried It might have Conty's eye problem, though, cause I had to start the eye entirely over. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the eye is too large, and the crest seems too thick. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The thick crest is because of the protofeathers. -_- --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Oldies

That's right folks. There was a day where I did NOT use skeletals. These are bound have a LOT of errors. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx

In my first oldie upload, I present Sino:[54]. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gastornis

Gastornis: [55]. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The beak seems quite a bit too small, no? FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Albertosaurus

Do you guys realize how much this is needed?!?!? [56]

As a bonus I throw in a composite of a game I play and a nasty peice of cheese: [57] --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shenzhouraptor

Well, Jeholornis as far as wiki is concerned since the case for Shenzhouraptor hoaving priority of date hasn't been made in print. Anyway, new illustration and scale diagram. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, how should we describe it Martyniuk? Very good, great or nice? It is a beautiful illustration, you are a really good artist. I also like the colors. But didn't Jeholornis/Shenzhouraptor had teeth? There is not much teeth in Hartman's skeletal illustration, but it is in Nobu Tamura's restoration. I'm not an paleornithologist, it is just a question. Anyway, good work! Conty 07:50, 28 March 2010

Yes, it had at least three teeth in the dentary. They're there in mine but hard to see because they're so tiny (and white)! If you look at the high-res painting version here you can see them better. Hartman and NTamura both gave it several maxillary teeth but I can't seem to find justification for this anywhere, Theropod Database lists only dentary teeth. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's making a mating call or something, cool, I don't see any inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Claws on the wings of an ostrich

I'd been wondering at what angle the feathers on the fingers came out in relation to the claws on dinosaurs/birds with such, and how they attached to an actual finger instead of just a fused lump, but this diagram of an ostrich hand helps clarify it. According to that, the feathers on your drawing are perfect (the claw on the wing finger points in the same direction as the feathers). But that also leaves me unsure about the placement on some of my own drawings (and many other drawings on Wiki), like these: [58][59] In what direction would the feathers potrude in such cases? The hand and claw placement was modeled on skeletal drawings, but as such, the feathers and wing claw point in different directions. Does it vary which way the claw curves? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Funk I think (could be wrong here) that the orientation of the claw on digit 2 depends on the viewing angle. I think that in a totally lateral view, the claw will point medially. If the animal is viewed from a slightly anterior perspective, the claw will look like it's curving anteriorly (as in your Bambiraptor), and vice versa. At least this is the way it usually appears in skeletals. If you look at Reichel's Archaeopteryx drawings he has both visible claws pointing backward. Skeletals I've seen invariably have the digit 1 claw pointed strongly forward. Hmm... not sure what's going on here. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the claws really point "in", more or less perpendicular to the feathers, and may look like they point either forward or backward depending on perspective. I tried to find the answer by studying a chicken wing I ate the other day that still came with its thumb claw, but there wasn't enough curvature for me to make a decision. Albertonykus (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Changchengornis

This illustration is not finished yet. I upload it because I want to hear what you think would be good colors to it. As you know, they recently found out the colors of Confuciusornis, and it is unlikely that Changchengornis had the same color patterns etc. What for colors do you think it should have? Conty 13:20, 29 March 2010

Hi Conty, very good job on this one! I can only find a minor error, that is the secondary feathers seem to extend past the elbow. When the wing is extended, the upper arm should still be pretty much up against the body. If it's extended more, there should be a gap between the wing feathers and the body, since most birds don't have tertial feathers except the big soaring birds like albatross. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok... I based it on the wings of this golden eagle. Also note the somewhat "strange" look in the feathers just at the birds right wrist. Conty 12:20, 30 March 2010

Good work! Are you going to colour it? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just finished the coloured version, inspired by the colors (grey,brown and black) in it's relative Confuciusornis. the darker tips on the wing feathers are based on the darker bits on the wingfeathers at right in this fossil. Conty 20:35, 30 March 2010

Hi Conty, it's hard to tell in that photo if the inner wing feathers of the golden eagle are attached to the humerus or proximal ulna. However, the ones in your picture look definitely attached to the humerous because they're angled pointing outward, not inward. There should definitely be more of a gap in that case between the wing and body, as no known basal birds had tertials. Anyway the color looks good! The only problem is with the bright red tail feathers: bright reds are only possible in plant-eating birds (or birds that eat plant-eating insects). Confuciusornithids seem to have been specialized fish eaters, so you should tone the red down to a duller red-orange like in Anchiornis or Sinosauropteryx. (Same goes for bright yellow, but the crown of your drawing looks ok to me, not bright enough to be a problem). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those commentaries MMartyniuk. I tried to make the illustration better by making the wing feathers smaller, and I changed the hue at the tailfeathers. What do you think now? Conty 09:55, 31 March 2010

Haplocheirus.

Haplocheirus.

I was sitting with my computer, and came to know about this basal alvarezsaurid Haplocheirus. I came to a feeling that I should make a restoration of it... but I may should have spent more time to it. If you want to see what I based the illustration on, see the image text for sources. what do tou say? Conty 13:35, 8 April 2010

It is hard to judge with that angle, but it seems the snout should curve more upwards, the tip of the lower jaw should be thinner, and the nostril should probably only be on the front end of the nasal opening, not cover all of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Eolambia

Head based on this skull diagram[60], and the rest is just a generic hadrosaur body. A rough sketch: http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9251/75279341.jpg Anyone know why people like Greg Paul draws a flap of skin extending from the back of the head to between the shoulders on most of their hadrosaur restorations? Hadrosaurs are not getting much attention here anymore. Apart from a few sauropodomorphs and a token ankylosaur, this page is pretty much a theropod orgy! FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Psh, non-theropods? What are you smoking Funk? (Not that I'm working on an Agathaumas painting or anything). Anyway it looks good to me, at least the skull. However, I don't know enough about hadrosaurs to know whether going with a generic hadrosaruid body is kosher, or whether you should be using something more "iguanodont"-like, or if there's a noticeable external difference. Also, if using a "Leonardo"-type crenelated ridge on the back, make sure the bumps are fairly squared off at the top. In the rough sketch they look a bit rounded. Also it should have a fairly prominent 'pinky' on the manus, if not a thumb spike, not sure how those are bracketed. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen, in Cretaceous Research 28:461-494, restorations of Eolambia with a short brachylophosaur- or sauroloph-like crest. I'm not sure if this is real, or the artist being unclear about how the body goes together and exaggerating the sagittal ridge at the back end of the skull. The article used to be available here, but seems to be out, along with the rest of the author's files. J. Spencer (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there something about Eolambia being a basal styracosternan (in which case there would be a thumb spike) rather than an actual hadrosaur? (But then, things have always been fuzzy in that area...) Albertonykus (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Eolambia is a Hadrosauroid. It is believed to be a early hadrosaur, and it have a thumb spike on it's forelimb (read it HERE). FunkMonk, your sketch looks GOOD! But did large ornithopods had such a thin body? I don't know for sure, but maybe you could make your buddy a bit broader over the chesta and give it a larger belly? Conty 08:29, 9 April 2010

Thanks, guys, the sketch is still so rough that it's easy to modify. I was going to model the frill on Brachyloph, and the pinky was supposed to be there too, but I'll add a thumb spike too then. It can easily be removed in case. Should it maybe be smaller than that of more primitive iguanodonts? As for the belly, the multi view skeletals by Greg Paul I have show them as quite thin, actually as narrow bellied as his large theropods. But this doesn't seem to be a general thing, because his sauropods and thyreophorans are extremely broad bellied. So I'm not sure where to go with the belly... FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking of putting some plant material in its mouth, anyone know what would be most appropriate? The Wiki dinosaur restorations sorely lack depictions of any kind of behaviour other than running. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that site is from when Eolambia was still thought to be a hadrosaur. (Incidentally, Hadrosauria and Hadrosauroidea are used quite interchangeably...) Newer sites generally call it a basal styracosternan iguanodontian. Albertonykus (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As for plants, the Mussentuchit Member was pretty plant-rich and forested, so any kind of ferns or conifers would be good, or even some primitive magnoliophyte flowers (all were present in hadrosaur gut contents). MMartyniuk (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here is the modified sketch: http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2755/scan0027.jpg Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me Funk, look forward to seeing the finished version :) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Martyniuk! It becomes very nice with the skinflaps in the throatarea, and so to with the spikes on the back! Excellent, beautiful and well done! I really mean it! Conty 08:05 12 April 2010.

Thanks guys! But it's nothing that my inability to match colours can't destroy... Here's colour. FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That coloration is really cool, reminds me of a quaaga or something. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, that's exactly what I used as reference! http://www.ilportaledelcavallo.it/razze_mondo/images/quagga.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting colours... I would never thinked up something like this. But how could it ever see? The eyes are so small! But it is a good illustration. Conty 08:30 13 April 2010.

Heh, I don't think it would be much of a problem, it's gotta fit the sclerotic ring you know. [61][62] The eyes of goats and similar aren't much larger. [63] Or an elephant for that matter. [64] FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A good restoration of Nodosaurus?

Hello everyone. I have dcided to take a break from all my dinosaur drawings, so this is probably my last for a long time. I spend a good deal of my time yesterday to draw this Nodosaurus. I don't know if it is OK. It would have been better if I made the body shape more like that of "TANK" the Edmontonia (see it at http://www.bhigr.com/media/zooms/zoomFlash.php?path=DenversaurusSkeleton_009&title=. Other references can be found in the image text. What do you think? Conty 08:30 15 April 2010.

Don't know much about this guy, but the article said it would have had a narrow head. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The feet are probably wrong, I think the new paper on stegosaur feet said ankylosaur footprints indicate they were the same way (columnar, sauropod-like, few claws). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pisanosaurus

This guy has been requested for a long time. Could only find this skeletal to base it on[65], and gave it some heterodontosaur fuzz, not sure if it's too much. [66] FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an awesome pose! Can't comment much on the anatomy (though weren't the tusks of heteros in the lower jaw, not upper?) but the amount of fuzz (or at least length of it) actually looks pretty conservative to me. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But I don't think Pisanosaurus is a heterodontosaurid anymore. Can't comment on what the actual fossil shows, though. (Fortunately it appears that the skull is one of the parts recovered from its really imcomplete remains.) Albertonykus (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to draw a tusk actually, just messed up the beak, heh. So it won't be too overtly a heterodontosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kol (dinosaur)

Mainly based on Shuvuuia, but obscured the head since only a foot is known. It's supposed to be eating termites. [67] Or heck, it could really be most Alvarezsaurs, Kol is maybe a bit too unimportant and fragmentary. Any requests? What do we need? Looking here, it could be Patagonykus, Parvicursor, or maybe Alvarezsaurus itself.[68] FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I like the Kol personally. Even if it's mostly 'generic alvarezsaurid', it's at least illustrating an hypothesized behavior thought to be common to the whole group, rather than just speculated anatomy. So it would work equally well as Kol probably looked basically like this" or "alvarezsaurids like the generic one pictured here probably fed this way." It would be interesting to see Alvarezsarus itself done now informed somewhat by Haplocheirus. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

MMartyniuk (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Kol it is. Originally drew it as such because I wanted to do an illustration for an article I'd started myself (so vain). Think the head and arms are too big, though. Will shrink them. Found the paper online, seems like the feet are alright: http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/5967FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Funk, noticed you've added this to the article, but I didn't realize that was the finished sketch! Any particular reason it's so sparsely feathered? Given Shuvuuia I don't think there's reason to think they were anything but fully covered. Or have you seen photos of the rumored largerstatten-preserved alvarezsaurid? ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, seems I was too sloppy, I had initially indicated fuzz with the colouring, but then I turned down the opacity of that layer, and now it's pretty much invisible. I'll make it again with the burn tool or something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better :) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Linheraptor

This is my first time drawing a dromaeosaurid, so bear with me if there are a lot of problems with this sketch.[69] Smokeybjb (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good! The only nitpicks I can find are that the eye is probably too large, and/or a bit too low on the skull, such that there wouldn't be room for a sclerotic ring around the visible portion. Also the lower jaw looks a bit too curved. The bottom of the jaw looks like it should be almost straight, then make nearly a right-angle corner at the tip, rather than rounding smoothly upward. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the head is maybe too big and the body too short, I figure you've based it directly on the fossil? I think it's maybe too crushed, there's a skeletal here you should take a look at: http://qilong.deviantart.com/art/Raptors-of-the-Dunes-159582268 Seems like the limbs should be longer also. As for the size and whereabouts of the eyes, this should be a good ref http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/images/velociraptor.jpg As for it being your first dromaeosaur, great start! You should see the original version of a Sinornithosaurus I did, ugh... FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are truly a good artist Smokeybjb! If I should look for possible inaccurates compared to the skeleton, it could be that your drawing have shorter snout than the fossil specimen. Yet, different specimens of the same species can look very different. Conty 15:40, 24 April 2010.

Yeah, most of those problems probably came about by looking at only the fossil, which is in a strange position. Skeletals are so much easier to use. Here's a new version.[70] Conty, the snout probably looks short because the feathers are thick past the eye. Maybe I should tone down the fluffiness. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better, I think the neck is maybe too long, on the skeletal, it looks to be almost half the length of the body, whereas in your restoration, it's almost as long as the body. I think the tibia could use a lot more length too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How's this?[71] I'm thinking that the pubis should project farther back, which would make the body appear a bit longer. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and unless someone else has something to say, it should be finished after that! Oh, on second thoughts, I think the primary feathers should attach much closer to the tip of the finger, if we follow the wing diagram in the Shenzhouraptor section. Or take a look here: http://img263.imageshack.us/i/fdfdr.jpg/FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, the primaries should probably attach at least beyond the middle of the finger. As tempting as it is to give these things scaly digits to show off how dinosaurian they are, it's about as wrong as giving Archaeopteryx a scaly head or Ichthyosaurus a gigantic eye. Unfortunately there's a lot of interesting anatomy that's invisible in life! MMartyniuk (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it.[72] Any other suggestions before I finish it up? Smokeybjb (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, still looks kinda strange. Why is the front of the finger still visible? The feathers don't hang off the finger, they envelop it. You should really just see a wing with a claw poking out of the end, not half-feathers and half scales. It also looks like the digit 2 claw is overlapping the distalmost primary covert feather, as if the feathers are stemming from the bottom of the finger. The feather should partially cover up the claw in this view. I'd also have small feathers extend at least part way down digit 1, if not cover it completely. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this?[73] Smokeybjb (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but maybe the claw itself should be poking more out? I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks fine. The amount the claw pokes out depends on its size, orientation, angle of the viewer, etc., but as long as it's not overlapping any feathers it's ok. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I finally finished this. Sorry it took so long with my inactivity around here lately... Smokeybjb (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! The color scheme is very natural. The only slightly awkward thing is in terms of pose and maybe too late to change, but for some reason it kinda looks like it's about to fall over forward... Probably because the back limb is p on the distal phalanges of the toe, but it's not in an obviously full-run posture. Would it be possible to plant that hind foot more firmly on the ground? MMartyniuk (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, is this good? Smokeybjb (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks really cool, maybe it's my colourblindness that's playing games with me, or are the body feathers greenish? There was some talk a while back of how non-pennaceous feathers could not have been green and blue. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see it a little. Unintentional though, since I knew that there aren't any green pigments in feathers. Must have been the way I saw the colors in Photoshop, which for some reason is different than the way I normally see them on my monitor. I'll see if I can change it. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it should be better now. Unfortunately I no longer have the layers of this image, so I had to change the hue of the entire picture rather than just the feathers. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannotitan

Here's a messy sketch of Tyrannotitan eating some kind of titanosaur.[74] I've never drawn an accurate sauropod before, so don't really know what I'm doing. The head of the theropod is an Allosaurus head I drew years ago, don't know if it's appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurs usually have longer snoats than an allosaur, and less prononced lacramal horns. I'd also go for a longer tail; I'd imagine the tail would probably be at least half the total length. Unless you're drawing the end of the tail going away from the viewer. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I based the tail length on this skeletal: http://gigadino.pagesperso-orange.fr/images_dinosaures/tyrannotitan2.jpg The shortness struck me as odd, and they don't have anythng to base it on, but I just went with it... But yeah, I think it looks odd too, and I'll lengthen it. Much of the snout is also buried in flesh, but I'll make it more visible. Anything about the sauropod? Thought it could be my springboard to drawing a live one, I know there are so many rules that I didn't dare to go straight for it, heheh... Long time no see, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the size of the lachrymal and the curvature at the end of the snout does make it look too allosaurid. (That skeletal is awful by the way. The restores outline looks like it was based on a tyrannosaur or something). Though most is buried in flesh, the curvature of the visible part makes it clear that the snout is very short and un-carcharodontosaurid. As for the sauropod, a few things. If this is a titanosaur, it should be much more barrel-chested. Check out this pretty accurate resto of Puertasaurus[75]. Mike Taylor had commented that the chest may be slightly too wide there but it's certainly not slab-sided like a diplodocid. Consequently the legs wouldn't be so close together (titanosaurs also have extremely wide set hips). The back of the "hands" should be concave with no fleshy pad filling them out. I'm not sure the tail would be able to bend that much without giving it some obvious injury to indicate a break. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a makeover, also put a juvenile in, to fill the space under the huge tail of the adult, and to justify the posture of the titanosaur tail... And also to give some variation to the boring profile view of the adult one. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4840/gfgeegggcopy.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! One thing that seems odd though is the posture of the back foot. It's up on its toes as if walking, but in that pose I'd expect it to be planted firmly as it struggles to pull off the big chunk o' sauropod. Also the right foot of the juvenile looks a bit twisted, with toes pointing out rather than in as they would in a neutral posture. I guess some degree of twisting might be possible but that looks like a lot. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To get the foot of the adult down, wouldn't I have to tilt the entire body? I'll see what I can do. As for the juvenile, I've refrained from drawing theropod legs spread out like that, until I saw this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmanners/4574070332/ But maybe it's unique to some kinds of birds? FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh! Maybe it's everting its knees to some degree? As for the foot, you could always just push it back a touch relative to the ground to get it flat. The tip-toe stance just looks to me like it's pushing towards the carcass, while the other foot on the carcass itself looks like it's pushing back as leverage. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed the leg of the adult[76], but haven't touched the juvenile yet. Is the issue with the leg twisting maybe a question for the Dinoforum? FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, can't work on any drawings here until September, since I'm on vacation in another part of the coutnry without my PC. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deinocheirus scale

Somebody requested this, and it just happened to come at the same time as a new paper estimating its hip height based on humeral length. Oddly enough, I scaled Funk's reconstruction to match the length of the forelimb elements, and the hip height came out almost exactly to the low end estimated by the paper. The higher-end hip height of 3.6m would require much longer legs to work, more of a standard ornithomimid body plan. I extended Funk's tail a bit to match the estimated 10-13m length mainly to avoid talk page drama ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really wise to base a size reconstruction solely on a pair of forelimbs? The Dinosauria 2nd lists Deinocheirus as "tentatively assigned to" Ornithomimosauria, but says it lacks most derived features of the clade. If a scale model is done, it should probably be in outline form only, with the known elements shaded. That way, readers aren't misinformed about what the fossils consist of, and can see what the size estimates are based on. I'm less concerned about reconstructions, because you can at least say "this is an artist's depiction" in the caption, but "size queens" will take a size chart quite literally. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but we do now have a published estimate for hip height as well, so it's at least reflective of the published lit. If this is too speculative, the one for Therizinosaurus probably is too and should be removed. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'removed', just 'modified'. In The Dinosauria, for animals known from very fragmentary remains, a dashed line or outline is used instead of a solid body shape. Take a look at the illustration for Dryptosaurus, on page 129, for example. The reader quickly realizes what the known elements are, and can make his or her own conclusions about the size estimate. I think this should probably go on our guidelines page, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the overlapping arms of the original do not come off so well as a silhoutette? Anyway, it's amusing for me to see a drawing I made in one of the legendary size charts! And I probably have to correct the proportions of that restoration one day, the colour seems to be wrong also... By the way, Dinoguy, do you remember what Scott Hartman (or who it was) suggested should be changed back on the old Dinoforum? FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Troodon scale

I initially scaled this based on Jaime Headden's skeletal diagram, but it came out at almost 3 full meters. The only published stat I can find right now is 2.4m so I scaled it down a bit, but I saved the 3m original just in case something turns up to support it in the lit. Also, I future-proofed this by naming the file Stenonychosaurus... somehow I doubt Troodon will succeed where Deinodon failed in the end, except maybe with a neotype. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

[77] de Bivort 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW. What have I done? MMartyniuk (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

well, I think we can claim some collective responsibility, especially since I was the one who first chose the voyager dude :). de Bivort 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt! Though I'd forgotten you were first to use the Pioneer guy, coulda sworn the original blue/green style charts used a more generic, non-waving dude. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't make the first scale diagram here, but I think my huaxiagnathus was the first to use the voyager ppl. It even had the lady. de Bivort 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, you did use the dorkette! Awesome. My first one with the waving guy was Velociraptor but I'm not sure when I did it, the original file seems to have been replaced with an svg version. Anyway I copied almost my whole style save the human pose from the Stegosaurus diagram from 2004 by Piom, so he's the real hero. Either way is WP:Dino ever all go to a Wikimania or something, we should all wear this shirt ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just crazily fantastic! Hahaha! Albertonykus (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, proportions of Troodon here look ok? MMartyniuk (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it does. When compared to the Fernbank Museum specimen (see [78] and [79], it seems correct. Perhaps i should put it on Swedish Wikipedia! Conty 16:39, 22 May 2010.

Isn't the skull to "low" and upturned? or is this restoration just fantasy? http://www.myjurassicpark.com/troodon.skull.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now I think. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus and Size of the tyrant lizards.

Nanotyrannus.

I don't know how accurate I have done this diagram. At least the "Hyogo specimen" could had a better silhouette. I hope you others can give me an annotation. Perhaps i could make a new version. I have also done a restoration of the nomen dubium Nanotyrannus, with an experimental collage of photographs of feerns and sandy groun (of course, the photos are my own!). Do you like the Nanotyrannus? Are the hindlegs to long? Are the forelimbs to muscular? Tell me! Conty 16:50, 22 May 2010.

I think the eye is maybe too big. Other than that, I can only think one general thing, maybe you should make larger pads under the toes and feet of your theropods, see this diagram of an emu foot: [80] Right now, it looks like the feet are only covered by a millimeter of skin. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt Albertosaurus look, you know, a bit big in that scale chart? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the sizes look off, especially the ginormous Albertosaurus. The skull of Alberto should only be 1m long max, here it is 1.5 at least. The maximum length should be about 10m, not 11. Don't have time to check the others right now, but a simple read of the Wiki article shows this one is wrong. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The leg posture also seems a bit off which is making the legs look too long. The distal femur in T. rex at least curves a bit, so the leg couldn't be that straight without disarticulating, I think. In a standing posture the femur would be angled more forward and the knee wouldn't protrude past the body, so the overall appearance of the legs in silhouette should be shorter. See Scott Hartman's skeletal to see what I mean. As you can see, the knee is just about as extended as it's going to get without popping out of joint. To get the lower leg in a vertical, standing posture, the femur needs to be rotated forwards at nearly a 45 degree angle, so that a standing tyrannosaur would be in more of a "squat" than something with more columnar legs like a human or sauropod. Also the silhouettes seem to lack the prominent pubic boot anterior to the leg. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering! Regarding the Albertosaurus, some sources suggest that Albertosaurus grew up to 11 meters. But if you wish, I make it smaller. And you don't see the pubic boot, but in these restorations, they are buried into the fleshy body. I will make the Albertosaurus smaller now. By the way, what do you say about the Nanotyrannus? Conty 06:18, 27 May 2010.

Scale

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100514190746/deadtimes/images/1/17/Deinotherium_and_theropod_scale.jpg or http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100513182646/deadtimes/images/e/ec/Theropod_scale.jpg

Interesting, but in which articles would such a seemingly random assortment of animal sizes be useful? Also your stats are confusing, you should say explicitly that you're measuring height at the hip, not the head. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Who ever posted them, thanks for alerting me, or not. The seemingly random Theropods shown are becasue the scale was for a friend, and he asked for them. And, the quality aint at its best, and the Spino's legs loook like they are in the wrong place. But hey, it was my first try at one, so it aint that bad, though who ever posted them could have posted the one without the Tiger and Deinotheirium. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Theropod scale chart

[81] What do you think of it? Incasae you wonder whats up with the Bahariasaurus, it is based of it being synonymous with Deltadromeus, and the two being closly related to Limusaurus and Elaphrosaurus. The base used for Bahariasaurus was a Limusaurus restoration. And i have just spotted that a scale line is missing were it is supposed to go through the guy. Ill fix that later. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently re-evaluating and re-checking measurements on my own theropod diagram, so I'll let you know what I come up with ;) Anyway, is there a way you can smooth out-anti alias the outlines? It looks a bit jagged. I'd also recommend outlining the outlines in white so they don't bleed together. Don'tr have a problem with basing Bahariyasaurus on Limusaurus, though between B. and Delta the tail is almost completely known and seems like it should be longer. I'd check the Limu diagram you used as a base against measurements for individual elements from B. and D. because I doubt such a small animal would remain isometrically scaled up to such a large size. For example, the pubis in theropods tends to be about the same length as the femur. In Bahariyasaurus, the pubis (and presumably, the femur) is about 1m long. Yours looks like it's almost 2m. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What if you illustrate a siluette by yourself, with the found bones placed on their right place in the body (like my [Tyrannosaurid IVPP V4878.JPG Shanshanosaurus])? Then, you can scale the "bones" to thge right size against a scale bar on the computer, and you can get the right proportions. That's my idea. Conty 11:45, 22 June 2010.

Something has just occured to me. The length measurment i based Bahariasaurus from is based on some femur length from Deltadromeus(which according to the Deltadromeus the largest is 1.22m). But the full lengths taken from them were from when Delta was always shown like this, so its actual length when based on Limusaurus may be different. A forum friend of mine scaled a Limusaurus skeltal to match the large femur of eltadromeus (somehow, he didnt use scale lines so im not sure how he did it) but it came out far smaller than 13m+. [82] Ill smooth out the edges etc, though it will take a while using only Microsoft Paint. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

MS Paint? Yikes! You should try some of these free programs... I can't vouch for them personally but anything must be better than MS :) [83] MMartyniuk (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Apatosaurus scale chart

In response to a current discussion on the talk page, I whipped this up. Scaled based on Hatman's skeletals. The 26m length estimate given in the current article must be based on Diplodocus proportions or something... MMartyniuk (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's based on Hartman's skeletals, is there much we can add? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Spinosaurus skull

Please check my image, I'm not sure about it :( --AS ^sa 12:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty close to the published diagram, what are you unsure about? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

About everything :) --AS ^sa 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My only issue is that it implies the skull is more complete than it is. Could you use gray for the unknown portions? MMartyniuk (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i'll do it later --AS ^sa 08:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Eotriceratops scale revisited

I was looking at the Eotriceratops article regarding some differences in published size estimates, so I thought I'd also revisit the scale chart. Conty's is close but both animals are a bit too large and the shape/size of the Eotriceratops skull is wrong. The paper doesn't provide a skull reconstruction but I pasted together the relevant element figures all scaled to the meter in Conty's chart. The result is here: [84]. Here's my own take on Trike vs. Eotrike, based on the figures in the paper. What do you reckon? Have I fouled up any element placement, spacing, etc.? MMartyniuk (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Eotriceratops (inaccurate size), Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus (by Conty).

Ha, ha! Thank you Martyniuk! I didn't knew my work was flawed. I did a meticulous skull drawing, based on this profile. However, it has been said it was putted together from 50 pieces ([85]), so i could possibly be questioned... Anyway, good work! Unfortunately, i have used my estimated Eotriceratops size in many projects, so I have to change them now... Conty 09:12, 6 August 2010

Ah! I hadn't seen that image, that helps greatly. Before you change anything, I'm going to scale that based on the figures in the paper and see what comes out :) MMartyniuk (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that Conty, looks like you're skull diagram was mostly correct after all. I think I misinterpreted the position of the orbital horn. My updated chart is on now. However, yours is still too big. I scaled the photo to match the actual fossils, and there's no way it's 3 m total length. Only if you measure along the curve of the frill is it 3m, which is what the authors were referring to I guess... giving them the benefit of the doubt ;) Although, given how fragmentary the parietal is, I wonder if it could have had a longer, Torosaurus like frill instead... MMartyniuk (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lesothosaurus.

Lesothosaurus restoration made by "Conty".

Lesothosaurus made by "LadyofHats", claimed to be inaccurate.

I have noticed that the major Lesothosaurus restoration is claimed to be inaccurate (I guess thats because the pronated hands). Therefore, I have tried to make a new. I have been wondering if my restoration have too well developed forelimbs, and i the head have the right shape (compare with my references [86] and [87]). What do you say? Conty 07:08, 16 August 2010

Looks pretty good, though the skull doesn't seem er, pointy enough. The forelimbs do look a bit big, not not by much. The hands may be too big though. For the record, the old illustration was inaccurate due to the painful looking, severe hyper-extension of the knee in the background individual. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. How about some indication of the caudofemoralis muscle on the tail? And some more pronouced toe pads, like shown here: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/footprints-and-footpads-trusting-those-tricky-tracks/milan-2006/ And another thing that was wrong wit the old drawing is that the hind legs rotate too far back, the femur would apparently loosen from the hip socket if that really happened. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentaries! Conty 07:08, 16 August 2010

T. Rex adult with feathers

Hi, it's me again, giving it another shot. I have been interested in tyrannosauroids for the past week, and I've come to the king. I'm following Thom. Holtz's Theory that Tyrannosaurids may have some sort of feathered display. I am in the process of making a T. Rex Illustration that will surely take a while. Maybe it might be original reasearch to have Confusciousornis feathers on the forearm of the Rex, but the idea of display feathers for tyrannosauroids is not. --Your Old Pal, Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I forgot: [88] --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, weather or not T. rex had feathers, it almost certainly would not have had vaned feathers like the one you show. They would have been simple and hair-like, as in Dilong, Sinosauropteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, etc. Feathers like the one you drew don't appear until advanced maniraptorans. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems I'm not very good with feathers >_>. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae skull update

Last year, I made a diagram with skulls of 3 Tyrannosaurids (see here). Now, I have updated it with more genera, and the skulls are based on real specimens. Do you think we can have use of this? Conty 09:58, 30 august 2010.

Hey, I don't have time to check these against the actual specimens but nothing jumps out at me as wrong. One thing I'd caution is using FMNH PR308. This is a weird specimen and has been heavily reconstructed in the past. I don't know if the current mount re-reconstructed it or what, but it was confused with albertosaurus for a long time and may be a new species of Daspletosaurus. Can you check it against a definite Das specimen? Also, why not reconstruct all the teeth in Bistaheverser as in the others? It looks like you also used juvenile specimens of Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, which should be noted in the caption. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lagosuchus

I am working on a Lagosuchus. Does it even belong here? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 23:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted Marasuchus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the Lagosuchus article is lacking. It only has a restoration and a skeleton, and it is a stub. --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but as it's not a dinosaur, it belongs at the other page.MMartyniuk (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Frame shift hypothesis illustrating

Last year, I made a diagram ment to illustrate the Frame shift hypothesis.

• The frame shift hypothesis claims that tetanurae descend from an ancestor with the fingers I, II, III and IV. Then, it losed I (not IV, as otherwise believed). As finger I dissappeared, the genes coding for how the fingers would look became refurnished, so the remaining digits II, III and IV came to look like I, II and III. This is claimed to solve the debated why birds have the digits II, III and IV, while theropod dinosaurs seems to have I, II and III.

Now, my old diagram was claimed to be too inaccurate for Wikipedia (see [89] and [90]), so I have made a new. What do you say about it? Conty 10:12, 7 September 2010

This looks accurate as far as the Limusaurus hypothesis goes. So it might be good for that article. But honestly, I haven't seen any other scientists support the claims in the Limusaurus paper. In fact, I've seen many now doubting the need for frame shift at all, and it's entirely possible the old embryonic studies are wrong, and that birds do have digits I-II-III rather than II-III-IV. Even if frame shift is true, there's no reason to think it occurred as early as ceratosaurs, or even avialae. For all we know it happened around the level of Ichthyornis or something. Basically, given that all ceratosaurus were prone to losing not only some but all of their fingers, Limusaurus probably has nothing to do with bird hands. Therefore, the most accurate diagram would leave off numbers and put ? next to all hands above Limusaurus. But that's not very useful, and it's basically another way of saying "nobody knows" :) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Martyniuk. But, who said that the frame shift happened as late as in Ichtyornis? Moreover, scientists before Feduccia has come to the conclusion that birds have the digits II, III and IV. Also, the scientsist claimed that the discovery of Limusaurus proved the frame shift (even thought it is good to be skeptic to such claims). But if you can make it better, you are free to do so. Conty 14:05, 8 September 2010

No one says it happened as late in Ichthyornis, but it could have for all we know. If there was a frame shift at all, we don't know when it occurred. The claim that Limusaurus supports the frame shift has been contested by a lot of other scientists who say there's no good reason to suppose that Limusaurus is evidence of the frame shift. (For example, finger loss is most likely a ceratosaur thing rather than an averostran thing.) Also, many scientists think (including other embryologists) that the embryological studies (not just Feduccia) saying birds have fingers II-III-IV are wrong. Albertonykus (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Who is those "many scientists" who believe the embryonic development studies are wrong? And by the way, dosent this X-ray talk for itself? Conty 11:51, 14 September 2010

It's mentioned here that the digit identies are "contested by some embryologists and is not universally accepted". More specifically, see the comments here; there are a number of papers that speak against the idea such as this one. And even if the hypothesis is correct, Limusaurus probably isn't evidence of it as mentioned here, here, and the aforementioned Tet Zoo. Albertonykus (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Epidexipteryx (Nobu Tamura)

Hi. For me the body looks too thin (talking about the perspective of a body, especially a small one, covered of feathers) and the configuration of the jaw and the head are just weird according to the fossil. But i don't know... What do you guys think about it?--Diucón (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It does look skinny, and personally I'd have given it about three times the amount of feathers. Especially for that size, I'd not expect such close-fitting plumage, very mammal-like. That said, it's mainly a stylistic complaint, and I don't know if the direct fossil evidence necessarily proves it wrong. Not sure what issue you mean with the jaw. Here's a site with a skeletal, but keep in mind the fossil is badly crushed and in a more ventral view. [91] MMartyniuk (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what i say, i mean, from a logical aspect or with avian biology knowledges as background it's strongly more plausible. More over, after reading the paper and watching the photos, i definitely would add more volume. And for the head, i feel that the premaxilla and the whole mandible are too long. PD:One point that i forgot is the background, that obviously need to be change or maybe you can erase it (?).Diucón (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobu had another version with no background that was much clearer, it may still be on Commons somewhere... MMartyniuk (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New Tawa restoration

New Tawa restoration

restoration by "ArthurWeasley"

I recently finished a new illustration of the theropod Tawa hallae, depicting it hunting a small therapsid. The illustration is based on information and images found here, and a skeleton illustration here. What do you think? I think it is better than my older restoration. Also, what do you think about "ArthurWeasley"'s version? Conty 12:10, 26 October 2010

Yeah, I think your new one is pretty nice. Something's off in AW's though, the arms look like rubber or something... FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New Dilong restoration

New Dilong restoration.

I decided to make a new restoration of Dilong paradoxus, an update on my old restoration. What do you say? Conty 08:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but the eyes and nostrils are way too big. Eyes are set too low in the socket too it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Does it? Even when compared to the skull ([92])? Conty 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part? The nostrils would be fleshy, this is not a bird with a beak remember, so they would probably be small even though the hole is big. Think of ceratopsians for example, do you ever draw them with huge nostrils? And see here: [93] As for the eye, looks like it would fill up the entire socket, and sclerotic rings always show this would not be the case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have decreased the size of the eyes, as well as the nostrils. I have also added (a small hint of) eyelids with naked skin, like birds have. Is it better? Conty 08:35, 10 December 2010

Much better, still looks like the eye is a bit too low in the socket? FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean FunkMonk? Do you mean the eye should be placed higher up on the head (more like a crocodile), or do you mean it should "bulge", like the eyes of a frog? Conty 17:15, 12 December 2010

Yeah, higher, the sclerotic ring always seems to attach to the upper part of the orbit. And I think it should actually bulge less. What I say isn't the final word, by the way, I'd wait and see what Dinoguy says before adding to the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)