WP:PALEOARTWP:PALEOART

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Discontinued yearly archives:
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.

If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be added to the requested images list or by including "Request:" in the section title here, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.

Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[6] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[7]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE^[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

Per project consensus, AI-generated paleoart is not accepted, and will be removed and nominated for deletion when encountered. From our experience, AI paleoart is always inaccurate, and since it derives from copyrighted, human-made artwork, is is both unethical and legally questionable.

Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page:

Criterion sufficient for using an image:

If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria sufficient to remove an image:

Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.

Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
- Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
- Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
- Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
- Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
- Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
- Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
- Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, two animals which did not live together.
- Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
- Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.

Click here to submit a new image for review

^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Images in review

Dmitry Bogdanov unreviewed megathread round 1

While evaluating an old Simolestes restoration by DBogdanov for inaccuracies to fix, I noticed it was never reviewed, and wondered how many of his older images this is the case for. It turns out it's a lot, so I thought it was time to finally get them over with here, as many of them are very widely used. I know these megathreads are cumbersome, but I don't see any other practical way of getting through this. But there are so many images that it seems they have to be posted in several rounds (one round per Commons category page[8]). FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably worth splitting these up by clade so people with different specialties can review them without some getting lost. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the next batch, but damn, this took time... Of course, anyone is welcome to rearrange the gallery accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to sort out all the mammals at least, might do the rest later. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fear, whenever menial organization work needs to be done, I'm always on the scene. I also alphabetized all the sections. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope there'll be help for that when/if I post the next round! FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibians (temnospondyls, stem-amniotes, etc)

Here's all the amphibians (temnospondyls, stem-amniotes, and other non-reptile and non-mammal tetrapods). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see now a lot of these have exposed teeth, but I guess they should be covered by lips? FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-mammal synapsids

Here's all the non-mammal synapsids. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterosaurus is in need of major revisions, its posture is outdated based on its closest relative Tapinocaninus Rubidge (2019) . Its considerably shrink wrapped heavily and based on the evidence we have dinocephalians most likely didn't have hair. Eru Calypso (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this doesn't apply to the head only restoration? In which case I don't think it's worth the effort to fix the other one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the bust could maybe benefit from having its teeth covered? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've hid the non-canines of most of the useful ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess many of these needlessly have exposed incisors and even canines? FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetrodons posture is dated see Scott Hartmans skeletal and article on the subject [9] , and in general most of the mural work seems to have glaring issues with posture, Brithopus is considered nomina dubia Kammerer 2011. I would also say most of these are too shrink wrapped. Eru Calypso (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, being able to stand upright doesn't mean it wasn't able to crouch and sprawl (resting pose etc., which some of them seem to specifically be in, though the walking one is iffy)? So I'm not sure we can say they're all downright inaccurate? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added four brand new ones, and a skull diagram. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've finally got time to do a deep dive and have a crack at going over all of these. Broadly, the hair on the therapsids is something I want to acknowledge as contentious, but since depicting hair on them neither here nor there with current evidence I won't count it as a critique. Onto individual reviews, starting with the anomodonts because I'm biased:

Anomocephalus: Nothing egregiously wrong, but I think the proportions are slightly off. I can't match it up with either the skull reconstruction of Modesto et al. (1999) or the fossil—the snout is a little too long and its dorsal surface too shallowly angled. Assuming the areas with highlights correspond to the bony landmarks of the skull, the orbit also looks too small and the zygoma arched too high. That said, we're not shrinkwrapping and wouldn't see these landmarks anyway, and colouration doesn't have to correspond to them, so these could be ignored. You could quibble the visible teeth, but the mouth is open slightly so I'm not worried about that, and they are its most prominent feature. Overall I'd still call this passable, ideally with revisions, but not a priority.
Australobarbarus: As far as I can tell, this shouldn't have tusks, but with limited accessibility to Russian literature I'm not entirely certain on that. The snout is too deep (with the nostrils too low) and the beak too hooked—cut off the existing beak below the nostril and you'd just about have it right. The tail is very short comparing it to photos of the material and just compared to other dicynodonts in general, not sure why. I'm not sure where the 'hump' over the shoulders and neck comes from either. Body proportions otherwise at least seem to match photos of a referred skeleton. Needs revision.
Aulacephalodon: So this is intended to be A. bainii, but the tusk is very small when A. bainii is known for its hypertrophied tusks. I suspect it's taken cues from the "A. peavoti" skeleton mounted in the Field Museum, which lacks tusks and has a distorted, compressed skull, which could also be why the cranium looks so shallow compared to typical A. bainii. I presume the paired nubs at the front of the snout are intended to be the nasal bosses, in which case they are much too small and the flat surface of the snout separating them too wide. Otherwise, I think the body proportions are fine. Potentially workable, but needs revision.
Biseridens: Exposed teeth have already been edited out, skull matches the fossil material, body is reasonable extrapolation for a very early diverging anomodont. Pass.
Cistecephalus: Proportions and anatomy look good. Small eyes are accurate to known sclerotic rings in other cistecephalids, even with relatively large orbits like Cistecephalus. Pass.
"Dicynodon": Actually Vivaxosaurus, like Australobarbarus I can't match it to any known specimens, but it approximates the overall shape and might blend several skulls? It's got the diagnostic anterior lobe on the caniniform process (proportionately sized to the holotype), but the snout is convex and bulbous rather than diagnostically shallow sloping. The tusks also seem to be smaller than figured specimens, and the upper beak may be too hooked. The dentary may need to be a little deeper too, but these sort of things could depend on the specimen(s) used as references. Overall, broadly depicts the right morphology, deviations from specimens could be chalked up to taphonomic or even individual variation, with one diagnostic feature that appears incorrect. Could be passable, but needs revisions.
"Dicynodon": Actually Euptychognathus kingae, based on a skeletal reconstruction of a pretty complete specimen by King, so the postcrania is fine. The skull of the specimen it's based on is damaged, however. The premaxilla in this specimen is damaged and most of the dentary symphysis is missing, so both the premaxillary and dentary beak would be longer, especially the dentary which is longer and shallower in the holotype than King's reconstruction. Both beak tips also appear to be out-turned in the holotype. Needs revisions to work.

DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishes

Here are the fishes of various kinds. I also moved the comment about Antarctilamna up to this section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctilamna ultima descripted here is based on juvenile specimen described here[10] (unfortunately Wikipedia Library does not work for Springer paper right now), which is only tentatively assigned to that genus, so it could be controversial. Although, the article of Antarctilamna was edited by what appears to be describer Robert Gess himself, and the article conclusively states that the specimen in question is in fact a juvenile of this species, so Gess seems to be personally certain of this. That said, I think some commentary is needed either way, since research has come to inconclusive conclusions on the matter. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely have thoughts about the cartilaginous fish, and I'll leave discussion of the bony fish to someone more qualified.

Brochoadmones looks to be very closely based on the specimens and figures in Hanke & Wilson (2006), which as far as I know is the most recent detailed treatment of this taxon. Unusually, Bogdanov's has an additional prepelvic spine that isn't present in the fossils, giving his a total of seven prepelvic spines instead of the accurate count of six. This seems to just be a simple mistake, as the specimens are well-preserved enough that such a spine would've been preserved if it were present, so I would suggest minor tweaks if possible to remove the seventh prepelvic spine.

Removed a spine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above about Antarctolamna, both of Bogdanov's reconstructions differ significantly from what's been proposed for material more confidently assigned to the genus, and the page itself may have some conflict of interest concerns. They do closely match the Waterloo specimen, so the question is just if that specimen actually belongs to this genus rather than one of accuracy.
The Caseodus matches both the skeletal reconstructions and figured remains of C. basalis in Cope (1895) and Zangerl (1981). The two currently recognized species of Caseodus (basalis and eatoni) are identical in every aspect besides the shape of the teeth, so this reconstruction is a good genus-level approximation. A minor complaint is that the gill slits are positioned very close to the back of the skull, overlying the gill arches themselves, rather than opening further back near the pectoral fin. The size of the gill chamber in Caseodus isn't known, though, so I would call this a minor complaint at best and not something worth worrying about. I give this reconstruction a pass, although I wouldn't mind to see the gill position tweaked if possible.

Should be pretty easy to move the gills, I don't know enough about where exactly to place them, though. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply, the 5th gill opening would presumably sit just before the pectoral fin. The gill slits themselves sit quite a bit further back than the underlying gill arches in living sharks to make room for the gill basket, although there isn't any literature specifically suggesting to what extent this was the case in eugeneodonts (and thus I don't think its necessary to adjust the drawing). I would consider this adjustment totally optional, I don't think its all that pressing and would by extension apply to all(?) of Bogdanov's Paleozoic shark recons which put the gill slits directly above the gill skeleton. Gasmasque (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Campodus is a weird one, one and I've been meaning to comment on it for quite some time now. While small amounts of skull material that might belong to C. agassizanus have been described in Ginter (2018), these are extremely fragmentary and ambiguous, and the genus remains largely known by its teeth. This drawing is interesting because its very clearly based on the absolutely gorgeous body fossil listed under the eugeneodonts here (also seen here alongside some questionable information that's been transcribed to the Wiki in the past). The thing is, this specimen has never been scientifically described to my knowledge, and has certainly never been described as a genuine body fossil of the historic wastebasket Campodus. There is something of a mystery about what this specimen actually is and where it comes from, Richard Carr even suggested it may be a Fadenia from Greenland, if I remember correctly. The University of Nebraska site has several mislabeled fossils, including multiple Romerodus orodontus called "cladondonts" (spelling error theirs) seen here. This exact Romerodus specimen is photographed and correctly labeled in Gerard Case's Pictoral Guide to Fossils, and it is worth noting that the illustration of it is strikingly similar to Bogdanov's own cladodont Glikmanius reconstruction (a genus known only by teeth as of 2008). I say that neither the Campodus or the (also unreviewed until now) Glikmanius should be used, as both are very closely based on mislabeled fossils of totally different fish. If the Nebraska specimen is ever described, Bogdanov's "Campodus" would make a great life reconstruction of whatever taxon that ends up assigned to.

Gasmasque (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give a pass to Acrolepis, Aidachar, and Allenypterus. Birgeria needs minor revisions; the ventral lobe of the caudal fin is too long. It should be shorter relative to the dorsal lobe of the fin. Cladocyclus needs major revisions; the head is way too long and the mandible should be more upturned. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any good references I can follow for the last two? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They both have images of the fossils on their respective articles. Birgeria may be passable depending on which species it is meant to represent since one species has a much more dorsoventrally symmetrical caudal fin. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of fish knowledge makes the Cladocyclus too difficult for me to fix, looks like there are all sorts of head elements that would have to be significantly warped in a specific way that I simply don't know about. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Here's everything else. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at the Campylognathoides - inaccurate, but definitely salvageable. General proportions look good; the feet could make look a bit longer, but skull shape, wing length, tail length, etc all seem to match Witton's skeletal very closely. Main issue is the wing musculature - it'd be pathetic on any pterosaur, and Campylognathoides in particular has an especially overengineered shoulder. Witton frames it as a "pterosaurian gorilla" in his book. So the lower arm should be very prominently muscled, not a twig. Other issue of note is the teeth, which are so long and thin they protrude past the bottom of the jaw. Should be much more blunt and unspecialized; Witton's skeletal and a clear image of a skull are both on its page as reference material. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get that done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the crest is speculative, so may or may be worth removing. The overbite is also erroneous, and there's a shrink-wrapped fenestra that might need erasing. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the above isues. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other things I'd like to mention:

Chasmatosaurus is a synonym of Proterosuchus, and the species depicted, C. yuani, is very much invalid as well.

What can we assume the image depicts, then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the article on Proterosuchus: "Chasmatosaurus yuani was named by C. C. Young in 1936, based on specimens from the Induan-age Jiucaiyuan Formation of China. It is considered a valid species of proterosuchid, but is not formally assigned to Proterosuchus. It is considered to be in need of taxonomic revision. It is more closely related to Proterosuchus goweri than to other species of Proterosuchus." A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Even though the binomial name is invalid, the skull's shrinkwrapped, so it needs revisions. And, perhaps it should have lips, as I would lip proterosuchids. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would that look? Considering how the upper jaw considerably overhangs the lower jaw, I'm not seeing how lips could even seal the mouth. I found this attempt[11], but even there, one version has the frontmost teeth exposed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the frontmost teeth exposed. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:39C3:CAF8:E529:E440 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to say. Only the frontmost teeth of the animal should be exposed. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:A265:CB57:A775:95A2 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've hid the hind teeth and removed the sunken fenestrae. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They still look that visible to me. Perhaps smoothen them out? 2600:4040:5100:FC00:69B2:C57E:12F1:4817 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, those spines should perhaps be removed. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:69B2:C57E:12F1:4817 (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be overdoing it, even in modern reptiles, such as monitors, you can see faint indications of the fenestrae. Not sure why the spines should be moved, do we have any evidence against them? FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the fenestrae don't need to be blurred any further, I still highly recommend you remove the spines as a lot of depictions show it without them. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:69B2:C57E:12F1:4817 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not much of a rationale, though, it's not like those are complex features, they exist independently in many reptile groups. I did find a few other proterosuchid restorations with them as well, but in general, new, professional restorations of these are few and far between. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, pass for Chasmato,no further edits necessary. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1D18:D25A:A698:ED91 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceresiosaurus is shrinkwrapped, around the body.

I made the belly thicker. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it still needs some revisions. It should have visible teeth, a key feature among sauropterygians. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The teeth are visible in the image, but are obscured by the object in its mouth and the angle of the animal's head. I think if nothing else needs to be done besides the teeth, this is a pass. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyamodus' head is inaccurate.

Simolestes is horribly inaccurate.

Both Batrachotomus and Chalishevia need lips. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C465:B262:458:3F7F (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that last lip comment, isn't this still just optional? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Are you sure? Rauisuchians and erythrosuchids most likely had lips. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:56C3:8359:F3ED:5590 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any source that states this explicitly or rules out lack of lips entirely? It sounds like it's the same debate as for dinosaurs, with no conclusive evidence. For our purpose, there's difference between "most likely" and "inaccurate", only the latter have to be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, so in that case, I agree with you. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:732F:345A:CF8F:34FF (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tho I myself would lip rauisuchians, I am unaware of any papers expressly arguing for the presence of them in this group. That being said far as I can tell the number of fingers, toes and corresponding claws does not match what we know from members of the group and tho the tail is only partially preserved both Scott Hartmann and the Museum für Naturkunde in Stuttgart show a much deeper tail based on the few caudal vertebrae we have (Gower and Schoch 2009). I will concede that this might be a perspective issue however.Armin Reindl (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The digit and tail stuff could be fixed, what needs to be done with the former? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chalishevia and Batrachotomus don't need lips, even though I and @Armin Reindl would personally lip both erythrosuchids and rauisuchians. However, the number of digits and the tail depth, as above-mentioned, should be changed, and the skulls are shrinkwrapped, so those need some working too. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any good reference for what to do with the digits? Because I'm not sure what to do there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what the issues with Cyamodus and Simolestes are, so they can be appropriately fixed? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Cyamodus has spikes decorating the back of its head and the rim of its shell, which is now outdated, here's a more up-to-date recon-https://fossil.fandom.com/wiki/Cyamodus?file=Reconstruction_of_Cyamodus_orientalis_size.png As for Simolestes, the discussion below has details. However, IMO this is just too inaccurate-long neck, long tail, incorrect tail flukes, and the belly of the second individual is purple, a color implausible for plesiosaurs. Here is a skeletal https://www.reddit.com/r/Naturewasmetal/comments/hv9ys4/simolestes_vorax_by_sassy_paleonerd/ Long story short, Cyamo needs minor revisions, Simo needs major revisions. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Simolestes look rather long-necked and long-tailed, don't they, Slate Weasel and Amirani1746? FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the neck is necessarily wrong, the holotype of Simolestes has ~20 cervical vertebrae, using a 3.2 cm centrum length for the only measured midcervical gives a total neck length of 64cm assuming fairly constant centrum length (and not taking cartilage into account), the snout tip to occipital condyle length is 73cm, so I don't think the neck is unreasonably long in the front individual (the back individual looks like it's somewhat longer-necked though). The cervicodorsal transition looks like it could use a bit more meat on it. The tail, however, does seem rather long; it almost looks longer than the torso. In Hauffiosaurus the tail seems to be about as long as the trunk, in Peloneustes it's typically reconstructed as a good bit shorter, and while incomplete, it does not look like it would have been particularly long in Sachicasaurus; the latter two taxa are probably better models for body proportions. The iconic not-Liopleurodon skeletal shows a slightly longer tail than trunk, which might be what the proportions here were based on, but I have no idea what, if anything, this was based on. I'm somewhat concerned about the tooth arrangement as well, having 5-6 symphyseal tooth pairs is diagnostic of Simolestes, but there only seem to be three here. I haven't done a rigorous check but looking at the figures from Noè's 2001 dissertation I'm also somewhat suspicious of the head shape, the practically straight jawline in the toothbearing part, the gently rounded "chin", and the positioning of the eye all seem suspect. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ceresiosaurus has some bizarre anatomy on the trunk, I don’t know how to precisely describe what’s wrong but it should be more smooth rather than the way it is.The tail is also too lizardy, nothosaurs likely used their tails for propulsion so reconstructions should include a more paddle shaped tail. Neck also appears too long and the body/tail too short. Driptosaurus (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made the belly fatter, but I can't seem to find other restorations that give it a paddle-like tail? Any skeletal to go by if I am to make the neck shorter? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothosaur tail fins are a fairly recent development and I don't see many reconstructions with them either. The one on the nothosauruswikipedia page has one. In 2021 This paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-021-00563-w) is the most recent one I can find talking about tail propulsion in nothosauroids. There's no preserved soft tissue suggesting a tail paddle but just about every aquatic animal has some compression on the tail for better hydrodynamics, so a round tail is unlikely.

This paper also mentions tail-propelled swimming.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158448

For the neck length, the neck seems a bit long compared to the skeleton on the page, at least in relation to the head size. It appears closer to C. lanzi than C. calcagnii. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The neck on the image in the infobox is very clearly compressed by taphonomic forces. Several of the vertebrae are overlapping and the neck itself is bent in half. I think the neck in this image is fine as is. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will say pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's missing teeth. So it needs just one minor revision. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:69B2:C57E:12F1:4817 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any good reference images for the teeth? FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LARIOSAURUS_VALCERESII_life_restoration.jpg

Maybe this will help, considering Lariosaurus is a close relative. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8481:C93B:C087:48E4 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campylognathoides proprtions are wrong - the humerus and radius/ulna section of the forelimb is way too short Skye McDavid (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthened based on the skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just noticed that pedal digit V seems to be entirely missing. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not much of it would be visible due to the perspective, no? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zygolophodon (Miomastodon) proavus looks fine. Compare to a 3D model of a Zygolophodon proavus skull from Oregon. It might be the only correct reconstruction of Zygolophodon proper on the internet (most restorations of "Zygolophodon" on google images are actually "Mammut" borsoni). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far just examined both Zygolophodon and Tetralophodon, and at a quick inspection, both restorations seem to check out. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now here is a pareiasaur described in the last year... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unktaheela specta

Life reconstruction of the Polycotylid plesiosaur, Unktaheela specta, described in late December of 2023. As always, if there are any changes I should make, I will do so as soon as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShamuBlackfish (talk • contribs) 9 September 2025

After adding a {{unsigned}} tag to this section, I noticed that it had been added nearly 2 months ago, meaning if I hadn't added the tag, it would have been archived with no reply. I think FunkMonk would have advice for this reconstruction, as I can't say much about it besides that it looks odd compared to other plesiosaurs, especially the lack of a caudal fin. -BlueEleephant (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am wrong: this section is actually four months old, so maybe, the spontaneous edits made to it throughout that time kept it from getting archived. Either way, this image deserves to get reviewed by an expert. -BlueEleephant (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on these guys (we have a few editors who are), but the tail-shape seems in line with how polycotylids are generally restored now? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Who are the plesiosaur experts amongst the people active on this page? -BlueEleephant (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images by YameenØriøn

These recons haven’t been reviewed yet, the lobopodians look rough.These are not used anywhere so it shouldn’t be a problem. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^| Talk^ 01:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucigenia needs claws. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^| Talk^ 20:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the eyes are too big in the lopobodiens. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^| Talk^ 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facivermis lacks a tube. Radiodont2011 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facivermis lived in a tube but it didn’t make it and wasn’t part of its body so it’s fine, is there is tube on Junn11’s diagrammatic reconstruction? Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 16:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junnn11's reconstruction is diagrammatic; it's meant to show the anatomy, not how it looked in life, so it's acceptable to exclude elements that aren't part of the body and that it didn't make to show parts that would otherwise be obscured (in this case by the tube). This reconstruction aims to represent how it would have looked in life; this would have included a tube, even if it didn't make it, and even if it's not part of the body. Radiodont2011 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it says its a bad childhood drawing probably never going to b3 used so I guess we can just say that there are some problems, its not going too b3 fix. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 22:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Radiodont2011 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the conulariids, though? That image could be very useful, though I know so little about conulariids that I cannot even attempt to review it. Radiodont2011 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vendoconularia seems consistent with the recon in the article apart from being more rounded but that could just be style. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 13:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lobopodians should be tagged as "inaccurate paleoart", but I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how. Radiodont2011 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thamks for reviewing mate, and I was looking forward to use these later on even if I said I won't use em I've changed my mind so I would highly appreciate you if u could tell me if there are other probs in the paleoart.

Again, I'm rly gratefull. YameenØriøn (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

plus would u pls point out de probs in the conulariids? I feel the cambrorhytium depiction is a bit rounded eh? YameenØriøn (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know much about conulariids. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no probs, thanks for your attention mate. YameenØriøn (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Megalania size chart

Could someone add the 5.5 m estimate to this size chart? It's been bothering me that one is not present here recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otodusm (talk • contribs) 28 November 2025

Some MOAR arthrodires

I'm back, and I think I cooked with this new batch.

New Bung hit the scene, I have improved my modeling skills over the past few months, more complex color schemes, proportions, scale-less skin texture AND better suture normals for dermal cranium. Also, I based the body proportions on Engelman's 2023 supplementary materialon section 5 (conclusions) where his measurements placed Bungartius' total length as 178.8 cm.

Hey! Hit the gym! Jokes aside, here's a Gymnotrachelus school. The fishes are about 74 cm, also based on the supplementary information seen above. They are fusiform in shape, have finely serrated gnathals, the morphology of fins and the color scheme are what you'd expect from an open water fish.

Enjoy. PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, these are a huge improvement artistically and look very nice visually! That said, I'm really not sure about the Gymnotrachelus scene(?), it is quite hard to focus on the anatomy of the fish themselves at thumbnail size. Something similar to the Bungartius with a lighter background and only a single individual would be preferable if not trying to depict a scene, or alternatively you could keep the schooling behavior and place them in an ocean environment, which would make them both a bit easier to see and could serve to furnish a paleoenvironment section. As for the anatomy of the Gymnotrachelus themselves, why have you given them separate shark-like gill slits extending far beyond the gill opening? Gasmasque (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that since the Orbit-Opercular length measurement for arthrodires goes to the cranio-thoracic joint, that's where the gill arches would be, and the individual gills need to vent the water passing through them. The homologous submarginal (= operculum) is pretty small in comparison to the distance between that and the cranial neck joint. Plus, the exact nature of the arthrodire gill condition is pretty enigmatic, both in fossil record and at least to me.

On one hand, you have one gill cleft at the posterior border of the pharyngeal gill cavity where the water flows out of, on the other hand you have Engelman for example saying stuff like, due to the position of the branchial arches in relation to the endocranium being constrained across gnathostomes, the effect will be that the enlarged mouth from the dimensions of the cheek and mandibular arch would cause the gill slits to be covered, at least in his case study, Dunkleosteus.

Given the positioning of cheeks and jaws in relation to my inferred position of the branchial arches, the gills would have plenty of space to have individual slits, plus the submarginal "operculum" would be small enough to permit multiple slits, though that's probably due to the extensive space caused by modifying the orientation of the redescribed fossil reconstruction in antero-posterior view. I wanted the Gymno to have a more natural head elevation as the reference image had the head levitated to the extreme and the mandible swung down. so I had to rotate the image and make sure the elements except the stationary pectoral girdle were aligned properly when modelling and before any normal bump mapping could be done.

In the Bung, this problem is not applicable because of the tight fit of the branchial arches and the possibility of the combined cheek+submarginal+mandible unit getting in the way and working as a specialized "pseudo gill cover". PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any papers or sources showing or explaining evidence of multiple gillslits in Gymnotrachelus despite no evidence for any other placoderm having multiple gillslits? Mr Fink (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know but I think it would infringe WP:OR. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this constitutes original research, and if I can be blunt it isn't particularly well founded original research. I don't think there is any reason to expect shark-like gill slits in this genus based on current evidence, and I have not been able to find any recent sources advocating for that. Notifying @EvolutionIncarnate, since she has worked closely with Engelmann and is more knowledgeable about arthrodires than I am. Also, please do not add this to the page if there are unresolved accuracy concerns. Gasmasque (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is no evidence that these placoderms would have multiple gill slits, due to how jammed together their gill arches are and no indication they would not have an operculum EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enchoteuthis

Life restoration of the extinct muensterellid Enchoteuthis melanae

So I made this reconstruction of Enchoteuthis a while back, but forgot to post it here for review, most of the anatomy is based on Greenfield’s diagram, however I have also added some speculative papillae above the eyes based on modern octopods, which I thought would fit well given this groups relation to modern octopods. Would be very open to criticism from anyone knowledgeable on cephalopods. Fossiladder13 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any soft tissue for enchoteuthids, so it's all a matter of uncertainty, but I do have some nitpicks with this. The general body shape looks fine, but the mantle fins are a bit weird. I cannot really see it in the dark, but it looks like they are conjoined at the top? I don't think this is a condition seen in any octobrachian; it also looks like they come out of the body at the widest part when they should originate closer to the dorsal surface of the body. As for the eyes and the speculative papillae, while I must admit that they do look pretty cool, they are very much unlikely, as are the eyes themselves, which are very octopus-like. Octopuses have eyes like that because they are benthic animals often times inhabiting complex reef environments, but when you look at pelagic octopuses like Ocythoe, Haliphron or argonauts, you see much simpler eyes without any papillae. See also cuttlefish compared to pelagic squid, etc.

As for the arms, they are probably fine; the interbrachial web in Muensterella is described as very short, and its presence actually cannot be entirely confirmed at that, but this varies a lot even amongst species of the same genus in modern cirrates, so it probably doesn't matter. As for the suckers, in Muensterella they are described as creating a zigzag pattern the closer they get to the distal end of the arms, so they stop being in a straight row, but this also varies wildly in modern-day taxa, so it doesn't matter, I think. Dean Falk Schnabel (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ve uploaded a new version with the recommended corrections, hopefully this looks better. Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pass from me Dean Falk Schnabel (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Schinderhannes

I know this is tagged inaccurate, but revisions have been made to the file since, does it fix the problems? Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 02:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs p-elements. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gobiosuchus

Life reconstruction of gobiosuchus, to portray its body proportions and arrangement of osteoderms with the given measurements, descriptions, and limited pictures of the specimens

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, I would say maybe get rid of one of the teeth at the very front of the dentary, since you don't depict any of the other teeth in pairs it makes it seem as though their are four caniniform dentary teeth as opposed to three on each side. Otherwise it's very good. Driptosaurus (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the 1997 paper describes "the enlarged 4th dentary tooth" and the pit for it more than once (as its widespread on crocodyliformes), though im aware of the conflicting drawings showing said tooth as the third, i personally chose that to be a reconstruction artifact considering the very widespread enlarged 4th tooth as an homologous feature as they write about LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I have no suggestions. Pass Driptosaurus (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a version with just the reconstruction, both the current version and one without to scalebar and head zoom in could be useful. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 03:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coalbrookdale Reconstructions

I have made 4 reconstructions of various animals from the Coalbrookdale Formation. I don't know if any of these would be useful on the Coalbrookdale Formation page, but they might be useful for some of the individual animals' pages.

Aquilonifer spinosis.
Carimersa neptuni and Colymbosathon ecplecticos.
Kenostrychus clementsi, Punk ferox, Offacolus kingi, and Cinerocaris magnifica.
Carduispongia pedicula, Thanahita distos, Protaster sp., Haliestes dasos, Nymphatelina gravida, and Offacolus kingi.

UltraLuther (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They all look great to me, I would suggest them for the Kenostrychus, Carimersa, and Aquilonifer pages. Prehistorica CM (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're quite dark, which makes them difficult to see at thumbnail size. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also Thanahita needs revisions as it needs the tentacle like modified lobopods, as mentioned in the article and apparent on the current reconstruction. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does have the tentacles, I drew them with stripes to better differentiate them. I can see how that'd be hard to see though; I'll make sure to increase the brightness of these images. UltraLuther (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I thought they were regular walking lobopods as they were close to the ground. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 23:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FunkMonk. These are beautiful reconstructions that would be great to have on their respective pages, but I think they should be brightened slightly as the darkness makes the subjects hard to see. Wiki.Ichthys (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for Thanahita, looking at the virtual reconstructions on the page, maybe it’s preservation but the tentacles seem to be too long in your recon, but I don’t know. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it’s preservation as the length in the virtual reconstruction is inconsistent with the feeding tentacles in relatives, anyway, the virtual recon only shows known material. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 03:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image from paper with inaccurate cordaticaris

I know this is from a paper but there are a few problems, the frontal appendage placement is kinda weird, it appears to wait her have no frontal appendage and only endites or more likely, it lacks P-elements, also one of them does not have visible frontal appendages or P-elements, plus they lack setal blades, so this should be removed from the pages where it is in sue, right? Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 22:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i will agree, the cordaticaris is very weird. this image also seems to include multiple plagarized elements (agnostid, mollisonia, cambroraster, etc). Prehistorica CM (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the best replacement in the pages it is used in and are the crops usable, maybe it’s mostly just the Radiodonts that are innacurat.e Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eremosuchus

Been a while, struggled with motivation but thats not important. Did a quick, admittedly fairly tentative size comparison for Eremosuchus since I've expanded the page the past few days. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaceros life restoration

Reconstruction of Victoriaceros kenyensis for the Victoriaceros page Dynamoterror1011 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructions by me

Arctocyon primaevus
Limnocyon verus
Taotienimravus songi
Potamotherium valletoni
Puijila darwini
Phareodus encaustum

SeismicShrimp (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

czatkobatrachus restoration

please review as this is my first attempt at paleoart, i based my restoration on this document [12], Triadobatrachus, Cane toad and Common frog for colors Evilwizard87 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't forelimb have four fingers? Also seems it is bit too frog-like compared to Triadobatrachus. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat froglike but I feel like some of it is just perspective. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 20:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poposaurus

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with these, pass. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Elasmosaurus Paleobiology

Here’s an illustration I’ve made of the Campanian plesiosaur Elasmosaurus platyurus devouring a juvenile Tylosaurus, based on recent research into the feeding habits of Elasmosaurids which show that some of them were much more raptorial and capable of taking on bigger prey than previously thought: https://sobekswimmingpool.wordpress.com/2021/05/30/what-sea-dragons-ate-plesiosaur-diets-revised/

MakairodonX (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been formally published, if this is just a random website then this shouldn’t be used. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 03:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The blog actually happens to be heavily researched as it’s run by three biology students who are citing research papers on the subject they’re talking about, and they’re also alluding to a then-upcoming paper that was published in 2023 on the ecology and feeding habits of mosasaurs from the Bearpaw Shale of Alberta and which states that the dietary preferences of the local Mosasaurus and Prognathodon species were similar to those of large Elasmosaurids and the mackerel shark Cretodus: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363611314_CSVP_2021_Abstracts_Feeding_ecology_Bearpaw_mosasaurs MakairodonX (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ammonites are obviously not the primary subject of the illustration but they should not have an operculum like Nautilids. Dean Falk Schnabel (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could say they are nautilids assuming they existed at the time. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cannot, because Nautilids would not have tentacles like that, nor camera-like eyes. Dean Falk Schnabel (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetrodon grandis illustration

Here’s an illustration I’ve made of a Dimetrodon grandis standing upon a rock under a full moon, in order to highlight the potential nocturnal behavior of this Early Permian synapsid. MakairodonX (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t the dimetrodon too small, maybe the bottom should be removed, also the eye is weird. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 03:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try to correct and rework the image by increasing the size of the Dimetrodon and changing its eye shape, and I can also decrease the side of the cliff too. MakairodonX (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that nocturnality of Dimetrodon suggested here[13] should take with grain of salt, as other study by same authors is criticised.[14] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So What do you all think about the second version of my Dimetrodon illustration? MakairodonX (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: please make sure to upload updates as "new versions" of existing files, rather than entirely new files. "Upload a new version of this file" under "File history" on the Commons page (e.g., here). -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that. MakairodonX (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eardasaurus

Hello again. Can I have another review of my drawing? This time I try to reconstruct Eardasaurus. I mainly used the skeletal photos on Wiki. But admittedly I have a bit difficult time estimating the head height dimension since the skull was quite flattened. As for the body, I used Peloneustes since they are both basal thallasophonean and closely related? Sorry if I am wrong and thank you in advance as always...

DD (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, I have tried to give it some color. Does it look better now? DD (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the body shape could be a little smoother and more streamlined, but as long as the proportions are okay, I don't think there's any problem. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

aah I see. Thanks for the input... I will try to make the body more streamline mainly by reducing the back height. For the smoother, should I just erased most of the body line and roughness detail? DD (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I think personally. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make some repair from your input. Does it look better now? DD (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian biota

Leptomitus ("Leptomitid")
Dalyia
Fuxianospira gyrata (why this article is just for species)

Added to articles by @BrennanThePaleoDude: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I see uploader and artists are different people, especially shown here[15] so probably shouldn't labelled as "Own Work"? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can get Saureal (original artist) to reupload them! BrennanThePaleoDude (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah reuploading is not needed, just do appropriate credit in file description? Although as Prehistorica say maybe fine as it is. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

leptomitus and fuxianospira are not usable (fuxianospira lacks a pneumatocyst, and leptomitus has an osculum), dalyia might be fine. these were commissioned by the uploader so own work is excusable i suppose Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dalyia is likely to be an encrusting graptolite, not a red alga (see [16]), so I would say that this reconstruction is also not usable as it should have zooids. African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Verrocaris

A quick reconstruction of Verrocaris, at this resolution you could argue the auxiliary spines are not visible and use this as Tamisiocaris which is a potential problem. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 02:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to reiterate that a whole-body reconstruction of an animal known only from its frontal appendages would not be very useful for an article. Proportion is not bad according to Anomalocaris, but details are rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamisiocaris

I tried to make a better version of my rough Verrocaris and due to some mistakes I ended up making this Tamisiocaris. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 01:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is too dark, sorry, the background remover erases a lot of the actual thing so I have to make a dark piece and it’s dark in the places not erased partially by the background remover so it is not easily fixable. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 17:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction of the Bermuda Hawk

A quick illustration of the Bermuda hawk I made because there exists almost no paleoart of this Accipitrid. I look a lot of liberty with this reconstruction because no contemporary descriptions of the bird exists to my knowledge other than one account from the Wikipedia page where it was said to resemble a "sparrowhawk". I based the illustration off the proportions of a sparrowhawk and attempted to make the plumage similarly remeniscent of the species. Due to the species being the type species of its genus, as well as the only member, its place in relation to other Accipitrids isn't well-understood. As a result I didn't know any related birds I could base the reconstruction on, so the plumage is a complete guess, though I tried to make it appear suitable for a woody subtropical environment with mottling and browns (Bermuda is dominated by conifer forests). Gone Extinct (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it looks great. Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to hear! Is there anything that stands out as needs improving? Gone Extinct (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. I'm tempted to suggest adding more elements from the environment, but it's clear that you want focus on the beast, and anything additional would distract from that. Mr Fink (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have a tendency to blur up my backgrounds when I get the chance lol (stems partially from my inability to nicely render environments that don't look kinda off). Also just a question, how do I know when this is sufficiently accurate enough to post on the actual article? Gone Extinct (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think either someone officially states "accurate" or no one (else) comes for further suggested improvements Mr Fink (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have reconstructed the tibiotarsi as being relatively gracile and skinny, but in life they were more robust in proportion to the body than those of the red-shouldered hawk. In general the animal should be a bit more robust (especially in the toes) as it's similar in size to the Red-Tailed Hawk (B. jamaicaensis). The leg anatomy known is more like Buteo lagopus than anything else so I would look at those for reference. The plumage being sparrowhawk-like is fine but the fossil material shows the actual proportions of the animal as being quite different and relatively robust.

Citation:

https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d0e6508c-fcbe-420d-9aef-a0cbde9d20aa/content Driptosaurus (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! That's exactly what I'm looking for. I'll make the appropriate anatomical changes and replace the file when I'm ready. And thanks for the cite too, having references will make this far easier. Gone Extinct (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Driptosaurus I've bulked the leg up to portray it more accurately in life. I used mostly red-tailed hawk leg anatomy to base it on, though I did breifly look at rough-legged buzzards for help with texturing. I think for the most part the tibiotarsi has been bulked up sufficiently, though any more tips will be taken into account and added in future versions if needed. I lengthened the talons to be more in line with both reference species and the Bermuda hawk's bird-catching behaviour as stated in the citation as well. The cuff has also been 'fluffed' up more to aid in implying thigh structure. Gone Extinct (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job. That bird looks appropriately beefy now. Pass from me. Driptosaurus (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sick, thanks! I'm already editing the article to improve on its content and declassify it as a stub now, so I'll add the image when I get the chance. Thanks for helping with the anatomical accuracy. Gone Extinct (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Anytime. Driptosaurus (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see issues accuracy-wise, so I'll just add that it's nice to see some recently extinct birds being restored for once. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree! Holocene extinctions in general need more paleoart, especially birds Gone Extinct (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Velocephalina

File:Velocephalina.png

I found this while rummaging through the creator’s user page (really more of a sandbox). Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 13:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a copyvio image from thesis. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update, this was deleted over on Commons after this discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colymbosathon and Cinerocaris

I noticed neither of these animals' pages have any images, so I made a diagrammatic and life reconstruction for each.

A life reconstruction of Cinerocaris magnifica.
A diagrammatic reconstruction of Cinerocaris magnifica.
A life reconstruction of Colymbosathon ecplecticos.
A diagrammatic reconstruction of Colymbosathon ecplecticos.

I can definitely increase the brightness if needed, but these are already brighter than the last ones I uploaded. UltraLuther (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These look fantastic. The brightness is not an issue at all here and the anatomical diagrams are very informative. It's not every day you see an illustration of an ostracod.

My knowledge of arthropod anatomy is fairly limited, so I can't comment much there, but I do notice that the small extension on the Colymbosathon's dark red appendage doesn't seem to be present in the life reconstruction, is that intentional? Also, maybe it would be beneficial to have the appendages labeled in the diagram? Wiki.Ichthys (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I completely missed that I hadn't drawn the 2nd appendage's endopod. I can easily fix that, as well as put labels on the diagram. UltraLuther (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mammals from Port Kennedy Bone Cave

Teleopternus
Tapirus haysi

Added to List of species in the Port Kennedy Bone Cave by @Fridge Eater: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks About File:Metaspriggina and Maripolia.png

I just noticed that I was mentioned in a conversation held in November last year in a talk page section about Cambrian fish due to the fact that I've made several illustrations of them over the years I've been on Wikipedia. In particular, @Zhenghecaris stated that the presence of a tiny fin was inaccurate. While the fossils themselves do not preserve any clear fins, I took the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" approach due to the presence of fins in related animals like Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia — not to mention the presence of fins in other, non-vertebrate chordates, extant and extinct, such as lancelets, tunicate larvae, appendicularians, and Pikaia. As such, a small fin could have plausibly existed in this animal. Where I would concede on, however, is the presence of visible fin rays resembling those of bony fish, which would not exist regardless, as is the case with my other pre-vertebrate illustrations also mentioned in that conversation. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I usually just follow the article description as chordates are interesting but not my specialty. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations of some Burgess Shale Fauna

MakairodonX (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Anomalocaris: Placement of front pair of carapace is wrong, compare with File:20190908_Radiodonta_Anomalocaris_Anterior.png, also middle tail fin shape is also wrong.

-Opabinia: It should have 15 pairs of fins, while it have only 13.

-Hallucigenia: Last two pairs of lobopods should have only 1 claw, and first three pairs of lobopods shoudn't have claws at all.

There is also a general lack of detail that I don't think is useful for articles. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also Opabinia lacks setal blades. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 00:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is a really cool layout and the colours are cool but anatomically, as others have pointed out and beyond that which i dont feel the need to comment on, it needs some work. i encourage you to keep at it. Prehistorica CM (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there were to be a new version I would suggest just drawing everything on one paper as the taping of the images looks bizarre. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 18:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relative sizes are horribly off, Hallucigenia is a few inches long, not larger than cambroraster. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t the triblobitex have antennae, one of them appears to be molt but it is confusing, Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made this as a thing for my user page but I’m wondering I it’s actually usable to any extent. Tamisiocaris borealis|Talk 21:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamisiocaris

I decided to make a new version of my Verrocaris reconstruction as the replacement ended up being turned into a Tamisiocaris, note that gnathites on the frontal appendages are not mentioned in Oxman et al. 2025 and are instead based on actually looking at the fossil images. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 18:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that digital enhancement means that some erased lines are highly visible. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 18:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "gnathites" are simply one of the pairs of endites, which are positioned like that because the specimen has been "twisted" in the preservation process (from Oxman et al., 2025: "The specimen is twisted along its length. The five most proximal podomeres are seen in lateral aspect... Seven distal podomeres display their ventral surfaces"). Even if the specimen did have gnathites which the authors did not mention, it would still be original research. Radiodont2011 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Radiodont2011 I think I fixed it. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is better. Radiodont2011 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do think that ta-tea-two-te-to is right that since this is a fragmentary taxon, this image might not be the most useful. I would at the very least include the entirety of the frontal appendages (without cutting the ends off), since those are the only part we have, and I would also make it a head-only reconstruction to clearly center the frontal appendages. In the future, I would recommend focusing more on more complete taxa. Also, in the future, probably best not to make several new sections for reconstructions of the same taxon by the same artist; just put new reconstructions in the same section. Radiodont2011 (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The digital enhancement did work very well; this looks very neat. Good job. Radiodont2011 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I’m annoyed by the lack of visual editing and it takes ages to find the last section, I also often mess up with wikitext, I still remember the time when I put the taxobox inside gallery tags. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just put a comment under the old section with the new reconstruction? Radiodont2011 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should avoid this next time but the problem is that the appendage was located too close to the edge, I totally underestimated the space needed to draw the appendage, it takes quite a bit of space to draw 15 endites, also this it the first time drawing a radiodont at a more sophisticated angle, I agree that it is not very useful as it is only known from appendages, I thought I would only be including the head and maybe the first segments, I ended up drawing the whole thing minus the tips of the tail fan which didn’t have space and were pushed to the edge of the paper, then I subsequently cropped out half of the thing, Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that yu could do tha. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider posting images as a gallery instead of thumbs, as it will clutter the layout and make it harder for the next review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a new version of my old Tamisiocaris without crazy shading (this is actually a completely new illustration at a similar angle), I omitted the second endite pair on all but the shaft endite as the rest is clogged with auxiliary spines. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 23:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The P-element probably shouldn't extend so far back (it even seems to overlap the first trunk segment). Radiodont2011 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to fix it and as some of the lines were light I darkened up everything but it ended up blurring the setae on the frontal appendages. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 01:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks somewhat better; there are still things I might change about the head and the P and H elements (they still extend too far back, there is no boundary between the first trunk segment and head), but more importantly, I again am not sure that this image will be particularly useful: Tamisiocaris is fairly fragmentary, and the Tamisiocaris page is already quite cluttered with images, so there may not be room for another. Radiodont2011 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would actually vote for no reconstructions as the current one is also highly speculative. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 13:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you put yours on the review page? Radiodont2011 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made it before I decided that. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 21:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I coul$ to make it better as the file already exists, I hope it fixed the problems, I omitted auxiliary spines on second endite row as the image would be too messy and omitted it completely on the second one which is more cramped. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another Tamisiocaris reconstruction is not needed. Radiodont2011 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in continuing this discussion if we still haven't recognized the obvious problem of downward-looking eyes. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3D Reconstructions and size charts of Vendoconularia and Protechiurus.

3D reconstructions of the protechiurids, Vendoconularia triradiata and Protechiurus edmondsi.
3D reconstruction of the protechiurid, Protechiurus edmondsi.
3D reconstruction of the protechiurid, Vendoconularia triradiata.

Size chart of the protechiurids, Vendoconularia triadiata and Protechiurus edmondsi.
Size chart of the protechiurid, Protechiurus edmondsi.
Size chart of the protechiurid, Vendoconularia triradiata.

Some more 3D reconstructions and size charts from myself, this time of the protechiurids, Vendoconularia and Protechiurus, including the two together for the Protechiuridae article. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurdiidae frontal appendage

This really shouldn’t have gnathites, this is supposed to be a generalized morphology of a hurdiid but gnathites are not that widespread within hurdiids, hurdiinae and aegirocassinae lack them and so do Falciscaris, ursulinacaris, mosura, and infercambriensis; it should be excluded as special features such as dorsal flaps (this goes slightly into or but most of hurdiinae are more similar to cambroraster and Stanleycaris and relatives are too, lacking in them), elongated body, furcae and lack of auxiliary spines, just to name a few. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 01:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

its supposed to be an informative diagram regarding hurdiid appendage anatomy and terminology. the gnathites are fine. Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,the aim is making it informative instead of representation of the trends. Not to mention gnathites are exclusive to hurdiids but not an extremely rare traits (at least 4 species got it) and they're possibly ancestral to hurdiid itself (likely homologous to the inner endites of non-hurdiid and reduced). Same goes for dorsal flaps in the generalized hurdiid diagram. Junnn11 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iraniplectus

thanks to people knowledgeable on fish for helping me on the accuracy of this one LiterallyMiguel (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a spine emanating from the center of each "star scale" Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ticinosuchus, Rauisuchus, Turnersuchus

Ticinosuchus skeletal
Ticinosuchus skull diagram
Rauisuchus skull diagram
Rauisuchus skeletal
Turnersuchus skeletal
Procerosuchus skeletal, a reassesment is needed to verify the validity of this taxon
"rauisuchian" maxilla for the elliot formation page

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good work (as always) on the Rauisuchus stuff. Pass. Will review the rest when I have time. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions-

maybe get rid of the hand on the 'rauisuchian maxilla' image. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have that there.

For ticinosuchus, this paper suggests only 9 teeth are present in each maxilla compared to the 14 in your image. [17] I couldn't find anything in the nesbitt paper that contradicts this, if it's an incorrect understanding of the specimen please let me know.

Pass for everything else. Driptosaurus (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the input!

About ticinosuchus, after many conversations with people about the interpretations of desojo 2012 (including people that personally took photos of the skeleton in exhibit), it came as a conclusion to deviate from their interpretation of the maxilla (and other bones) in some aspects, in this case, its preservation state likely isnt good enough to rule out the presence of more maxillary teeth after the ones preserved in-situ, and a toothrow of 12-15 teeth that extend along the bone's length is more in-line with other relatives.

Regarding the maxilla, i just thought the hand was a non-intrusive fun detail, but i'll take it off as requested LiterallyMiguel (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have insight on your process for that. Good work as always! Driptosaurus (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3D Reconstructions and size chart of Nimbia

3D reconstructions of every species of Nimbia. From top to bottom, N. occlusa, N. dniesteri, and N. paula.
Size chart of all Nimbia species, including the tentative N. paula.

Some more simple 3D reconstructions and a size chart, this time of the species within Nimbia. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

N. dniesteri is the attachment disk of frond-like Ediacaran animals, i.e. it is Aspidella. N. paula is a misunderstanding that can be ignored, most likely also an Aspidella. N. occlusa is not actually a disk or a ring, but this has not yet been described. So, is there any meaning in the drawings for Nimbia? Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I am aware, most studies note discoidal forms like Nimbia to be probable synonyms of Aspidella, instead of outright synonyms (See the recent Ivanstov & Zakrevskaya's 2025 paper, where they mention N. occlusa and N. dniesteri in a list under the title of "List of fossil species of “jellyfishes”, probable synonyms of the attachment structure, Aspidella terranovica").

As for N. occlusa not being a disk/ring, but such a thing not being described, effectively doesn't exist in the eyes of Wikipedia. You can only mention something like that if there is a source to back it up, if there is not, then that'd be seen as WP:OR. Also this confuses me slightly, because as far as I am aware, we do have a description of what N. occlusa looks like (Fedonkin (1980), and further detailed added by Hofmann et al. (1990)). Same technically goes for N. paula, as whilst that is most certainly tentative at best (something I've made mention of in the article), I am not aware of any papers discounting it and synonymising it with any other discoidal forms, although it won't be to difficult to remove it from the size chart or reconstruction image if/once that happens.

Also regardless of all this, I believe it is still important to make reconstructions of such things to show the public what they look like, specially in the absence of any free to use images of the fossil material or other reconstructions, even if they may one day actually become junior synonyms of Aspidella. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

- The dimensions of Nimbia oclusa from the original Fodonkin's description are: diameter from 15 to 40 mm, ridge width 3-5 mm. The inner radius is 3-5 times greater than the outer ridge width. The ridge is segmented, with segment widths from 1.5 to 4 mm.

Your drawing is out of proportion: the inner radius is 8.5 times greater than the ridge width.

- The dimensions of Nimbia paula are not given in the short description (Ivantsov et al. 2015), but there is a photograph with a 1 cm measuring stick. Diameter ~5.2 mm, ridge width ~1 mm. The inner radius is ~1.6 times greater than the outer ridge width.

In your drawing, the size of Nimbia paula is overestimated by 4 times, and the proportions are out of proportion. Furthermore, in the diagram, Nimbia paula is drawn with a question mark, which in itself raises questions about the appropriateness of such a drawing.

- The dimensions of Nimbia dniesteri from the original description: diameter from 10 to 30 mm, ridge width 3-6 mm. The ridge has a trapezoidal cross-section.

The drawing misrepresents the proportions and sizes of different Nimbia species, does not show their 3D form, and is not a reconstruction, as the organisms' appearance is not reliably known. Nimbia are convex ring-shaped ridges on the base of a sandstone layer, i.e., they are parts of organisms submerged in the ground.

Dozens of genera and species of simple discoid fossils described in the last century are a heavy legacy of the "dark ages" in Ediacaran paleontology. Currently, among professionals, almost all of them are deliberately consigned to oblivion as trash taxa. Why aren't they all clearly synonymized with Aspidella? In many cases, it is impossible to determine the nature of fossils or determine the criteria for distinguishing genera and species: the attachment discs of feathers, diverse microbial colonies, and diverse sedimentary formations all look similar. Furthermore, the attachment discs of animals of the same species can differ dramatically in fossil form due to different taphonomic conditions, different ages of individuals, sediment characteristics, and manifestations of seasonal growth.

Hoffman's work. Note that it constructs a very flawed formula for attributing fossils from the Twitya Formation to Nimbia oclusa from the White Sea: "Our specimens also compare closely with the Circulichnis montanus reported from the Vendian Danilov and Zharnov Formations of the Ukraine, as well as the Nimbia gaojiashanensis and Annulusichnus regularis from the Sinian Dengying Formation of Shaanxi Province, China." Given the great similarity in shape and size, it is possible that reexamination of the latter taxa may reveal them to be synonymous with Nimbia occlusa. Our specimens are therefore assigned to this taxon.

Currently, the relationship of Nimbia gaojiashanensis and Annulusichnus regularis with the genus Nimbia has been rejected; they are Gaojiashania tubes. Specimens of "Circulichnis montanus" from Ukraine are lost. Hoffman's article makes no comparison of the fossils with the White Sea specimens of Nimbia oclusa, and their relationship is essentially unsupported. Moreover, the Twitya fossils are 100 million years older than Nimbia oclusa from the White Sea and are considered microbial colonies (Grazhdankin 2007). Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

I thank you for the wealth of feedback on my modelled reconstructions, and will certainly make sure to rectify the issues you've pointed out.

As for why N. paula has a ? on the size chart, that is because I didn't quite clock the scale bar on the photo in Ivantsov et al. (2015), and the fact said scale bar was 1 cm in length, so thank you for pointing that out! Also for N. dniesteri, the reason for its larger size is because it it based on the Sonia Sandstone specimens, which were measured to to 45 mm in the longest axis. The same paper also shows that Nimbia is not just a ring as seen in Fig 4. g & h, with clearly differentiated material between the matrix and specimen, though I can certainly see the ring needs to be made more pronounced at least as its clearly the main feature, perhaps even I could make the central region notably more transparent in the models to make the rings stand out better.

And for the Twitya specimens, I had kind of forgotten about that paper by Grazhdankin & Gisela (2007) discounting them, so I've already rectified that in the main article, thank you. Though I do not know of any papers discounting the Kazakhstan specimens yet, so that of course will remain for now.

And yes, the whole ordeal with these forms is certainly very interesting, and I can agree that most of them most likely form some insane synonym tree (as is suggested with say Ernietta, Namalia and Kuibisia, though like with Aspidella, not formal), and I do hope that at least some day, someone or some people are able to hunker down and get to the bottom of this properly (if thats even possible in the future of course, considering, as you've mentioned, its quite impossible or very, very hard to do right now), because if this conversation is anything to go by, the current situation certainly causes alot of backs and forths, headaches and so forth! DevonHalDraedle (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferable to rely on holotypes, which are the reference specimens of a species. All other specimens are either correctly or mistakenly attributed to it. Nimbia has such simple morphology and an unclear nature that some less responsible researchers label any ring-shaped fossil as Nimbia.

Many holotypes of Ediacaran discs are so uninformative that studying them is useless.Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Hm, that is a good point there, alrighty. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've updated the 3D models and size chart, so that they should now match the proportions of the original material for each species properly. Also tried to emphasise the rings much more as well in both.

(Wikipedia might be a bit slow to update the images, so if it looks like nothing has changed on your end, then you might need to wait a little bit, or check the images on commons.) DevonHalDraedle (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Patagosmilus

Hello again. Sorry for asking another review while having image still being reviewed. This time I tried to reconstruct Patagosmilus mainly based on here https://stri.si.edu/story/prehistoric-predator I admit that the ear is very speculative and I based it loosely from other "deemed accurate" recon such as from Serpenillus or the one that show Thylaccosmilus have quite a peculiar front view. As always, is it good enough before being colored?

DD (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to give it color. Does it look better and usable now? DD (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stupendemys

Added to article by @Disfrasaurio: without review. How is this, especially @Armin Reindl: who edited article? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think it looks good. It has the correct skull shape rather than just using Caninemys like some older mounts, the art takes into account the scales that overly the skull sutures. The only critique I have is that the "horns" are drooping rather than being pointed upward as reconstructed by Cadena and colleagues in 2021. I am curious whether or not theres a reasoning for that that I'm simply not aware off. Otherwise I think its good.Armin Reindl (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. My name is Edwin Chávez and I'm the author of this drawing. I'm taking note of the observations and making corrections to the Stupendemys illustration. I'm going to replace it because the "horns" on the carapace are indeed curved too far downwards. I'll upload the updated version shortly. Best regards. Disfrasaurio (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you can simply upload a newer version of the image and overwrite the old one on wikimedia (the option should show up on the upload page in the "version history" section). Regardless, thank you for contributing, it's definitely appreciated. Armin Reindl (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback and for the guidance to improve my work. I really appreciate it. Disfrasaurio (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boreostemma
Xenastrapotherium

New works submitted by same author. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cascolus

Any changes I might need to make before using these? edit: Just noticed a stray line on the diagram which I will remove

A diagrammatic reconstruction of Cascolus ravitis
A life Reconstruction of Cascolus ravitis

UltraLuther (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe making the life reconstruction more outstanding from the background? (like the life reconstructions of Cinerocaris and Colymbosathon). Currently the animal is a bit difficult to recognize in thumbnail. Otherwise I see no issues. Junnn11 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simosuchus, Galahadosuchus, Magyarosuchus, Sillosuchus

Simosuchus skeletal
Simosuchus skeletal (osteoderms omitted)
Galahadosuchus skeletal
Magyarosuchus skeletal
Sillosuchus skeletal (holotype)
Hypothetical (and conservative) size comparison of the large referred vertebra

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was there for the creation of the Simo and it was extremely rigorous, so it's definitely a pass for me. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iharkutosuchus

Was making a drawing that included this taxon so I extracted the PNG for wiki purposes. Olmagon (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too hard to make clear that each osteoderm has a raised ridge? because otherwise it would be pretty good LiterallyMiguel (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review for this restoration of Aciculolenus

Note that this is not my work. The image came up during a GA review as potentially dubious. The antennae and tail spines may be embellished or invented. Here is the study where this species was described. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The antennae and tail filaments are based off of antennae and tail filaments seen in trilobites that have had them preserved. Mr Fink (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is is that is the most likely interpretation based on phylogenetic bracketing? I can't judge, as I don't know much about trilobites. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

antennae are present in all trilobites. if by "tail spines" OP means the flexible antennae-like cerci emerging from the posterior, those are only known in a single species of trilobite in a different order, and should generally be avoided. however, without soft tissue of specifically aciculolenus, we can't say it didnt have them. i dont know if thats worth removing the image, but it probably didnt have them. Prehistorica CM (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it can just be removed from the image? FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of cerci is particularly common in apokylytros’s art, but would it really be unreasonable speculation unless they have relatives without them, we only know a few dozen species with soft parts so anything is possible. Tamisiocaris borealis|Talk 03:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baru Darrowi

Reconstruction of Baru Darrowi based largely on the Armin Reindl skeletal on the page with some tweaks for accuracy. [Photobashing was used to create a reference image, but the photobashed image is not visible in the final version. ]

Life restoration of the mekosuchine Baru darrowi.

Driptosaurus (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks where it should be, pass! LiterallyMiguel (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pachyrhachis

This art in article seems proportionally wrong. But seems there are no other images of this taxon, as fossil image uploaded by Ghedoghedo[18] is later found to be a misidentification of Eupodophis. Because of its evolutionary significance, I think we should have at least one legged snake reconstruction. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Schinderhannes

I tried making a life restoration of Schinderhannes as the only one on Wikipedia is the obsolete one by Nobu Tamura, I think a median eye is reasonable enough speculation considering that other basal (or specialized) hurdiids like Stanleycaris or Mosura. I should have drawn it in ventral view but I was drawing something else at first and it just worked out like this. Tamisiocaris borealis|Talk 15:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is likely that this has a median eye, but I see no reason why the shape of the H-element should be different from Stanleycaris. That is, it should only cover the front of the head, and the median eye should have been further forward than the lateral eyes. Well, in any case, I don't think this image is that useful for taxa that have not been studied much. By the way, why did you change your userpage? Having multiple accounts without a valid reason is not allowed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t get my password onto the different device I’m using and since I currently don’t have access other device and I csn’T remember my 65 digit password I have to use a different account. Tamisiocaris borealis|Talk 01:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's your fault for setting a password that you can't even remember. Why didn't you change the password on your main editing device? And if your device access loss is temporary, there's no reason to go to the trouble of creating a new account, since all you're doing in new account is uploading images that you can't use in articles. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed mammals by Frantisek2112

Honestly, I think there's a problem here with the lack of proactive reviews of mammal art. Brygmophyseter, Victoriaceros, SeismicShrimp's mammals, Port Kennedy Bone Cave mammals, Patagosmilus, Boreostemma/Xenastrapotherium, all haven't got any comments. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, problem is that we don't have so many mammal-experts. I think the solution would be that our few mammal artists review each other's works. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Teraterpeton skeletal

Every dpiction fo this animal is currently innacurate

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what a weird little freak. Pass Driptosaurus (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Umbogaulus reconstruction

Based on skull images from the description paper of U.galushai. Multituberculate15 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good, a pass from me. Mr Fink (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible for you to review other mammal arts above? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suchosaurus problems

While currently rewriting the article on the original spinosaurid, Suchosaurus, I noticed two rather glaring errors, which I will describe in the respective images:

In this image, the holotype of S. cultridens is numbered as NHMUK PV R36563, whereas it is supposed to be 36536.
This image is misleading, as the true fossil material of S. girardi is numbered 4 and 5 in Sauvage (1897) [5].

Amirani1746 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think here is not what such thing is discussed? At least could be WP:DINOART but it is not art discussion? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images by Flutua

Hamadasuchus
Xenodens
Dsungaripterus
bonus, Njalila by SamuuBorealis

Hamadasuchus one is added to article by @Flutua: and @SamuuBorealis: without review. Later editor also added pixelart of gorgnopsian, although I don't think those two are same artist, and I think just found mistake of embed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reconstruction of Njalila property represents the animal, though that is largely due to the choice in medium. There are certain features such as the shape of the anterior portion of the nasal and the musculature of the jaw that I don't believe can be properly represented in this resolution. The are in my opinion also issues with the stylization but that's less of an issue than what I mentioned before. SeismicShrimp (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hamadasuchus does not properly represent the proportions of the animal's skull. There are a number of anatomical issues, mainly things present in modern crocodylians that would be absent in peirosaurs.

The skull was a bit more dorsally compressed in life.
The teeth should be straighter and the maxilla should undulate more.
The joint of the jaw would have been farther behind the squamosal.
The nostrils would sit in a more horizontal and anterior position.
The nasal of the skull juts out farther than the premaxilla.

Driptosaurus (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Dsungaripterus has pseudo-teeth instead of actual teeth? Also, the crest seems too close to the extent of the bony core. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shringasaurus, composite skeletal reconstruction from measurements and pictures

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My only suggestion here would be a little bit of shading on the anterior elements of the skull, as it's unclear how they are interacting with the bony septum- the big dorsal process on the maxilla appears as though it could be in contact with or far away from the septum. A little shading, like you did on the postorbital bar of this Acresuchus skeletal [19] could definitely help indicate the depth of the skull from a lateral view. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, i dont understand your request

the nares are conjoined into a singular opening at the front, without a septum dividing them, its only bordered by the premaxilla and the nasal, and aren't visible in lateral view, where do you suggest i could add shading? LiterallyMiguel (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard- I was looking at the nasals in dorsal and didn't realize how far back they sit and that they would be covered. Driptosaurus (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

[a]