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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE^[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

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[7]). 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]

Mammals

Pass after suggested revisions were made. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments on the mammal artworks can go under here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these are broadly fine, and many are pretty clearly done straight over historical skeletals. The only one's I'd mark as explicitly iffy are the Andrewsarchus (for reasons that have been discussed pretty thoroughly, being overly based on mesonychians or carnivorans rather than closely related whippomorphs) and the Barytherium. I think the intent here was to show something intermediate between a trunk and normal lips, but the bizarre giant drooping upper lip is probably not tenable. The cranial material for Barytherium is not really well preserved or figured from what I've been able to find, but for what it's worth Moeritherium is from a similar grade in Proboscidea and has been argued to not have any trunk or expanded nasal/lip structures. Triloboii (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Andrewsarchus is fine to keep as is to illustrate historical views (it's all the way from 2007). As for the Barytherium, could be modified, but based on what? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this perhaps? [8] A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a preliminary edit[9] just to show how the snout and nostril could be shifted, any better, A Cynical Idealist and Triloboii? It is similar to this[10], or should it be even more like a proboscis (you both seem to be arguing for different things)? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image I offered was just based on other reconstructions I've seen from other artists. If there is compelling evidence in the literature that Barytherium didn't have a trunk, then obviously that should take priority. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After our further discussion on Discord I've now given it more of a proboscis and moved the ear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one shown as Chalicotherium is actually Anisodon so fixed, but may need file name change. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I just noticed Dmitry himself had left a note in its description about the inaccuracy of the claws, can someone confirm and point to what they should instead be based on? "My picture is based on skeletal drawing of Chalicotherium from R. Carroll's book (Vertebrate Paleontology, vol.3). It was Chalicotherium grande. But today the right name of this species is Anisodon grande. By the way, probably picture needs some correction - the "claws" on forelimbs wasn't so "claws-like", they most resembling "hooves". Picture by myself, dmitrchel@mail.ru" FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This model [11] was made for a museum of Anisodon. The claws are fairly recurved, but not very long. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the claws in our restoration are even more hoove-like, so not sure if there really is an issue? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks fine personally. I just offered a different angle to get a better idea of what they may have looked like in an oblique view. If you think the current image reflects the hooves/claws accurately, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it unchanged. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [12] , 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]

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[13] (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]

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[14], 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]

DiBgd Rhamphorhynchus (2016)

Apparently unreviewed Rhamphorhynchus from 2016, used in infobox. Several issues immediately apparent, including head too large and inaccurate pedal digit V. I would consider this unusable but I am not editing the page because of wp:coi. Interested in hearing others' thoughts as well. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems well within the fixable. I guess the toe is too short? Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major revisions The head should be about the same length as the torso. In this image its like a full 50% larger than it should be. The neck is also too short. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the latest changes[15] per Discord, what do you think, Skye McDavid? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy with various things and haven't had time to check Wikipedia. Proportions are better, but pedal digit V should be articulating in the same place the others are, rather than articulating so much more proximally. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I think I get it, isn't it more a matter of moving the rest of the toes closer to it? And drawing them going all the way to the same area of articulation of the foot? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or actually, I still not entirely sure I get it, but I've moved the toes so they are closer. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes this is better Skye McDavid (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macroraptorial whales

Zygophyseter varolai
Acrophyseter robustus
Brygmophyseter shingensis
Albicetus oxymycterus
Livyatan melvillei
Scaldicetus caretti
Squalodon calvertensis
Prosqualodon davidis
Eosqualodon langewieschei

Life reconstructions of several species of Macroraptorial sperm whale. based on known material, with general external appearance inferenced from a mixture of Kogia and Physeter traits, with some aspects, particularly fluke shape, referenced from Orcinus, as they would have filled similar niches. all individuals depicted are male, which is why they are shown with a anal keel akin to male sperm whales, as well as many delphinids. please review. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition in Shiga Fossil Museum seems showing longer visible snout of Brygmophyseter,[16] but it is up to your interpretation I guess. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The gums in many of them don't seem to be covered by lips, as sperm whales would indicate for their relatives here. Do any whales even have exposed teeth apart from a single river dolphin species? FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the top teeth are partially covered by lips in those with open mouths, although that might be difficult to see, the bottom jaw, comparatively, is lacking lips, as Physeter and kogia do. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the lips barely cover the base of the upper teeth, and while I won't press the issue more because we simply don't know for these extinct taxa, other toothed whales have their upper teeth barely visible in lateral view even when their mouths are open: [17] FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Dunkleosteus77 has comments, having written most of these articles. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The teeth of Eosqualodon are not correct. This has great images of the skull. It doesn't look like Zygophyseter and Acrophyseter have enough teeth here, and Livyatan has too many teeth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above, Jfstudiospaleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the above issues be acted on, Jfstudiospaleoart? They seem to be non-trivial. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added Squalodon, an archaic delphinoid noted for its large serrated heterodont teeth. restored from known material, while they are recovered to be most closely related to Platanista river dolphins, the overall build and body shape is based primarily on slender oceanic delphinids, as being a freshwater cetacean freshwater tends to result in a suite of particular features we can assume absent in these extinct, marine forms. tooth/lip coverage is based partially on Platanista for the large front teeth, while the back teeth are covered by lips. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3D reconstruction of Alienum

Decided to take my 2D recon of Alienum and make a 3D recon.

3D Reconstruction of Alienum

DevonHalDraedle (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the possible gill slits should be a bit more obvious like on the 2d recon. Zhenghecaris (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darkened them a little because yeah, looking at them again they did kinda vanish into the surrounding body, hope they're a lil bit more distinct now. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks better I feel like this should replace the 2d version on the taxobox since the proportions match the fossils more, the body is smoother and less pixelated and the body is curved not solid straight like the 2d one and more natural. Zhenghecaris (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fin like structure on the bottom of the main body but that might also be hard to see. Zhenghecaris (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2025 (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.

Hadromos

Hello all. May I ask for another review for my reconstruction? This time I have made image of Hadromos which is another barbinae from my country Indonesia. I based the body from this image https://www.google.com/search?q=hadromos&sca_esv=578129023&rlz=1C1GCEA_enID1052ID1052&biw=1536&bih=730&udm=2&sxsrf=AE3TifObmDd6hTL0xcv3nMCJlkXsIcP9aQ%3A1757429282201&ei=Ij7AaOL6C4yW4-EPnOuqwAU&ved=0ahUKEwjik9Wg9suPAxUMyzgGHZy1ClgQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=hadromos&gs_lp=EgNpbWciCGhhZHJvbW9zMgcQIxgnGMkCSPMGUABY2QVwAHgAkAEAmAGGAaABpAeqAQMxLje4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgigAsYHwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAgsQABiABBixAxiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGIoFGArCAgcQABiABBgKmAMAkgcDMC44oAfoMrIHAzAuOLgHxgfCBwUwLjMuNcgHHg&sclient=img#vhid=ICa0gu0K-HmA1M&vssid=mosaic The full description can be found in this paper https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2020.1762627 (have to use Sci Hub or Wiki Library). It said the head takes approx 37% of the body. But I admit it is quite difficult to restore the head since it is very disarticulated. So I mainly based the height of the head based on the body depth.

So as usual, is my image overall form good enough? Thank you in advance and sorry for my ever long ranting...

DD (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to give my reconstruction some color while at it.. I based it on some barbinae that have reddish color. Does is look ok? DD (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barytherium Size Comparison

Pass No revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey folks, here with a size comparison for Barytherium grave. The second specimen here is described in a thesis I don't think I'll be able to get my hands on, but a different source had listed measurements for all of its limb bones. I think this should be mostly correct, but I'd be happy to rework this if I can find a copy of Delmer 2005

B. grave size chart

Triloboii (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass No obvious issues, well grounded in the sources.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fail Houcaris (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Normannognathus

Added to article without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass unless anyone else has issues, although the stray pycnofibers on the face and tail, alongside the eyespot marking on the front of the crest, are a little on the speculative side. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revisions - while the preserved portions, strictly speaking, are congruent with the fossils, the proportions seem highly questionable. The size of the skull looks in the range of one and a half times the size of the torso, and almost as long as the wing finger. This is a lot larger than the skulls of better known gallodactylids like Petrodactyle and Cycnorhamphus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I thought it was good to use...I just realized it's inaccurate. Also, the neck is too short and wide. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this unusable. Completely out of proportion and the crest as illustrated is not the logical keratinous extension of the bony crest on the preserved. There is no basis for the series of notches at the base of the crest. Also used on frwiki, should be removed. Skye McDavid (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tawuia paleoart

hello, I am an amateur paleontologist looking intoto upload and how have my most recent illustration of the Tawuia organism reviewed to upload. The image consists of a plain white sketchbook background without lines and the main illustration which I used oil pastels to create. The only other artist reconstruction currently uploaded is by Tourmaline Ctenacanth on the official Tawuia Wikipedia page. This is my first attempt at writing and submitting an image so thank you for your patience. Also, since I’m new I don’t except know how to submit the image. Sorry for the trouble. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve uploaded a few times before but I am mostly a active on Wikipedia so I can’t teach you you can give a link to the art and I can upload it for you, also tell me what license to use. Zhenghecaris (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, “https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%E2%80%99s_recreation_of_Precambrian_organism,_Tawuia.jpg” and I used Creative Commons attribution 4.0 license. Hopefully this helps. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This illustration, which was made by me only, was inspired of a real fossil depicting a Tawuia specimen with weird bends and curves.

Henry Sims 222 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. There do seem to be some specimens that are bent like this. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the reconstruction is wrong but maybe it would be nice to crop out a bit of the background, for example the underlying papers and whatever is behind that. Houcaris (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, although there seems to be a version with just that on the Tawuia article. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions for my next illustration? I was thinking the tuanshanzia since it is my second favorite organism from the Chuanlinggou Formation. If not, are you planning to make any new ones? Not trying to put any pressure on you, just curious. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interesting to see your Tuanshanzia illustration. In terms of suggestions, it's probably best to pick species that don't have reconstructions on Wikipedia already or only have outdated ones. Maybe some species from the early Ediacaran Lantian Formation, or perhaps some stromatolites? Or maybe Glossophyton? A paleoenvironmental reconstruction would also be pretty useful, as long as said environment has enough information on it. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m honestly thinking of making a longfengshania illustration. It has a simple shape with a bulb-like circular head based on fossil information. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good choice. Longfengshania and Chuaria have needed to be split from the Tawuia article for a while now. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never learned how to create new Wikipedia pages with information which I will likely need to upload the longfengshania image so I might need someone to edit for me. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you just search a page and click create if it doesn’t exist or create a draft but I might want to create the article. Houcaris (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created it but the article still needs a lot of work. Houcaris (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted my first citation to add to the longfengshania article. Hopefully I did it right, this is the first time I’ve did it and I just added simple structural information. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, aside from the timespan being wrong. My only note is that the phrase "more varied" isn't correct in this context as it isn't being compared to anything. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections. Also, I didn’t make the time span Henry Sims 222 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe the timespan was there when it was first made. Also forgot to mention but I think the Longfengshania image is cropped a bit weirdly. I think it should probably include the whole organism. Otherwise seems pretty good. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s either that it’s just because of the banner or a more complex problem I had where since I had to blend oil pastels while making the illustration, the bottom holdfast-like structure couldn’t finished, that’s likely why. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make a Tawuia dalensis illustration? It’s the only other species of Tawuia I haven’t illustrated but the Tawuia page is already very full. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, I think there should be a gallery section for reconstructions if the page is full. Houcaris (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably enough on the page already, but if you want to add more I think a gallery would be the best way to go about it. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Added one. Houcaris (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should make a reconstruction with a background, for example Tawuia next to Eldonia. Houcaris (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of the first animal that popped into my mind. Houcaris (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison could be good, but there's not really much reason for one with Eldonia. I've been thinking about making one for middle Proterozoic (Orosirian-Tonian) Macrofossils. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’d be nice to get some reconstructions of algae from the Doushantuo Formation, alongside the likely annelid Wenghuiia from the same place. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason there is a version that is just that with the background removed is because I published that as my final version and I didn’t know the other two were actually on the Wikipedia commons page. Henry Sims 222 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diandongosuchus

Pass No revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

completeness diagram in the small box
only key elements illustrated in dorsal to avoid too much speculation, and for visibility of those elements
isolated lateral png
skull retro-deformation

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, as always with your skeletals. An instant pass. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shucaris

This is on Shucaris and Erratus.jpg the Shucaris looks fine but I feel like the erratus is a bit speculative with Isoxyid style appendages although it is not included in ixsoyida. Zhenghecaris (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this image was already reviewed. frontal appendages strongly implied by phylogenetic bracketing Prehistorica CM (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diania cactiformis

Pass No revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reconstruction of two Diania cactiformis.

Putting this here, the behaviour is somewhat speculative but based on the specimen ELEL-SJ102058 which preserves two stacked individuals. Would make a solo render but there are already plenty images. Prehistorica CM (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass another excellent reconstruction from Prehistorica. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simbakubwa kutokaafrika skull

Reconstruction of the skull of Simbakubwa kutokaafrika, a hyainailourine hyaenodont from Kenya

To go along with my rework of the Simbakubwa article, I have created a skull reconstruction of the taxon (see the description on Wikimedia for details regarding the species used to reconstruct missing elements). I'll admit, I fully expect to have to rework some stuff, as I still have very limited experience with mammals, but an attempt has been made. Borophagus (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative pass - I'm not a mammal expert but it looks good to me, good work. I think it can be added to the page and revisions can still be made later if necessary. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nektognathus

Pass No revisions necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A life reconstruction of Nektognathus

I'm surprised that Nektognathus hasn't gotten a reconstruction yet so I decided to make one after bulking up the article. Transparency is to highlight the internal anatomy while also making sense via parsimony and size. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell this looks pretty good based on the available specimens, though I would wait for others to voice their opinions. btw I love how you based the eyes off of those seen in alciopid polychaetes. Fossiladder13 (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it being transparent works both in an artistic and realistic sense, due to its small size, and the fact that it was inhabiting pretty deep water in life. Fossiladder13 (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you felt it was fine I added it to the article. Houcaris (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Megistotherium osteothlates skulls

Cranial elements from two Megistotherium specimens (top), and a composite scaled to the larger of the two (bottom)

Since I drew a skull reconstruction of Simbakubwa (a little bit above) the other day, one which heavily referenced the holotype skull of Megistotherium osteothlates, I figured I'd make a new reconstruction for that taxon as well. Might do it for more hyaenodonts/oxyaenids (if I ever get around to that clade), we'll see. Borophagus (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, tentative pass - I'm not a mammal expert but it looks good to me. I think it can be added to the page and revisions can still be made later if others comment. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmirosaurus

skull of kashmirosaourius
Life restoration

Added by @Humzah Rouf Phu: without review. This user also uploaded this file[18] but it is copyvio from the paper[19] which is shown in edit history. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the copyright policy when I uploaded the file [34]. I apologise for that, rest assured the skull and the other restoration have been made with the information provided by the research paper Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279712744_The_Permian_temnospondyl_amphibians_of_India

The above given research was used in reconstruction and in accordance to that the painting has been made Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request a review for kashmirosaurus Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion postcrania looks bit too tall, but maybe this is due to posture. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no fossils showing the neck and other parts of the body I took an average posture of Archegosauridae (the family kashmirosaurus belongs to) resulting in such look Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda hard to tell, but the skull looks deeper on the new reconstruction than last time? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't draw the curve of the skull very well making it less visible on the one drawn by hand, the digitally rendered one is more accurate with that Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, how did these "digitally rendered" files come into being? The skull, for example, looks to be a close match for the top-middle diagram of figure 2 in the provided source, but there are some inexplicable aspects of the image. The sutures of the tabular are completely absent, and there aren't any lateral lines (beyond some subtle crack-like features on the snout and what seem to be bony rims around the eye). If these were generated by another human being or an AI tool, you need to indicate so. NGPezz (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I use skull texture and liquify that and extend that on to the refference skull from the source so that they match accurately, this might be the reason it looks so similar to the figure 2. The updated version has sutures. I have also added the crack like grooves too. The shadow on the white background has been generated using AI tool Humzah Rouf Phu (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choeropotamus and Thaumastognathus

Hi folks, here with more EEPAs, this time the choeropotamids Choeropotamus and Thaumastognathus

Thaumastognathus Portrait
Choeropotamus Portrait
Choeropotamus size chart
Thaumastognathus size chart

Triloboii (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosura

It just occurred to me that none of the images of Mosura fentoni have been reviewed the most needed one might be Junn11’s since it’s the only one that’s not from the original paper and there are no new features that have been described and the authors probably knew what they where doing. Houcaris (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jun reconstruct taxa based strictly on the descriptions in the papers, it is not often reviewed here, but I believe it is a needed process. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to pass some of them through review, but regarding the Mosura size diagram I think it is perfectly in line with the description. Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proxilodon

Hello again. Sorry for asking another review while having another image not fully reviewed. This time I happen to draw Proxilodon. The head reconstruction reference come from here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2013.728998 while the body is, unfortunately, quite speculative. As far as I am aware, there are no post-cranial remains except for the humerus. So I mainly based it from other gymnarthrid such as Sparodus and Cardiocephalus. There are also silhoutte from this paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210319 that I used. As for the scalation, I admit I'm having a bit of difficult since we haven't know the exact affinity of microsaurs. So I make it scaly but not too prominent. The paper I used at least mention that gymnarthrid have scale (but not osteoderm like scale)

As always, is my image good enough to be use for the taxa page? Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesosaurus and Peteinosaurus

Used in pt Wiki. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lips on a pterosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all that unlikely, anurognathids had lips. Still, Peteinosaurus, being a possible dimorphodontid, should have exposed teeth. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears to have too few toes and the tail fin shape is incorrect. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peteinosaurus, not Mesosaurus. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how do we know anurognathids had lips? FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have fossilized evidence, but anurognathids most likely had lips. After all, their skulls were wide and froglike, and it's believed they might've had pycnofibers ornamenting their mouths. 96.230.200.108 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've reiterated this claim, but have yet to provide any actual sources to back it up. Has this been proposed in the literature? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but a lot of paleoart depict anurognathids with lips. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:B72C:2780:962:4850 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really evidence, though. Either way, seems this one isn't salvageable for other reasons below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. However, it's still possible that anurognathids might've had lips. Even so, Peteinosaurus (might be)/is a dimorphodontid, a group usually reconstructed with exposed teeth. Even so, I am unsure whether it should be fail or major revisions. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:F712:5F95:7FF4:52A7 (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right though, paleoart isn't evidence. We can only speculate. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:F712:5F95:7FF4:52A7 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not fully sold on dimorphodontids being lipless. Mark Witton seems to think they could have had lips, and while I don’t remember his exact reasoning I trust him when it comes to pterosaur recons, so I’d say it’s a pass for me. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Peteinosaurus: Lips are probably the plesiomorphic condition so I don't seen an issue there. Body shape looks a bit odd. Of greater concern to me is that the ulna is out of proportion with the humerus (the ulna is ~1.55x humerus length in the illustration as measured in ImageJ, when this should be ~1.25x as reported by Wild 1978) and the fact that the propatagium seems to attach directly to the tissue surrounding the radius as if there was no pteroid present. This is unusable as is but may become usable with major revisions. I am not qualified to comment on Mesosaurus. Skye McDavid (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

My name is Gabriel, and I am the paleoartist responsible for the artwork in question. I am a paleontologist in training, and I have only just been informed that a scientific review is required for image publication. For that, I sincerely apologize for any problems this may have caused.

Regarding the illustrated animals, here is the scientific rationale behind each piece:

Mesosaurus tenuidens: This illustration was created for the Corumbatai Geopark Project. The geopark's area includes the Irati Formation, where fossils of Mesosaurus are found here in Brazil. The individual depicted is based on a nearly complete fossil we discovered during one of our excavations. The coloration is speculative and based on an actualistic approach (the principle of uniformitarianism), drawing a comparison with modern animals that use countershading (a dark dorsal side and a light ventral side) for predation or camouflage. The sail-like tail is an interpretation based on the fossil's elongated chevrons. The more robust forelimbs with interdigital webbing are features expected in semi-aquatic animals; however, I acknowledge that there is no direct fossil evidence for this in Mesosaurus. The elongated teeth are based on in-depth studies of the species Mesosaurus tenuidens. Researchers suggest that this dental feature enabled the animal to feed on small crustaceans by functioning as a filtering mechanism. This species was recently classified as the sole taxon of its group, with Stereosternum and Brasilosaurus now considered synonyms representing different ontogenetic stages, according to a paper from last year. (From my scientific perspective, I find this analysis somewhat inconsistent with the fossil evidence, but I respect the current consensus).

Peteinosaurus: This reconstruction is more complex. The illustration is based on the phylogenetic hypothesis proposed by Baron, et al (2020) for the classification of basal Triassic pterosaurs. In this framework, Peteinosaurus is placed within its own family, Peteinosauridae. Therefore, its anatomical features are reconstructed by analyzing the plesiomorphic traits of earlier-branching clades. In both Baron's analysis and my own (for an article currently under submission), they are the sister group to Dimorphodontia. Some paleoartists depict dimorphodontids without lips. However, it is my understanding that most basal pterosaurs, with the possible exception of later branches like Rhamphorhynchoidea, likely possessed lips. This makes sense from my perspective, as early ornithodirans probably had them. (It is worth noting that the presence or absence of lips in archosauromorphs, especially with a scarce fossil record, often depends on analyses of ecological niche and diet. The absence of lips would lead to tooth desiccation. Therefore, unless an animal has a semi-aquatic/aquatic lifestyle or salivated profusely, I find the presence of lips to be the more plausible hypothesis).

Azhdarchid Pterosaur: The depicted azhdarchid is an illustration of the new Brazilian pterosaur, Galgadraco. Admittedly, the fossil material is very fragmentary, consisting of only a small cranial bone. Therefore, the entire reconstruction is based on comparisons with more complete skeletons of other azhdarchid pterosaurs, along with speculation, such as the vibrant dewlap. The coloration is a tribute to the Jabiru stork (known locally as Tuiuiú) from the Brazilian Pantanal.

Anzu wyliei: Lastly, I added a recently completed illustration to the Portuguese-language page for Anzu wyliei. As I mentioned to the colleague who directed me to this discussion, I was unaware of the review process.

My sole intention in posting these images was to fill gaps on the Brazilian Wikipedia, as pages for animals like Mesosaurus, Peteinosaurus, the aforementioned azhdarchid, and Anzu lacked illustrations. My goal was purely scientific outreach, not to showcase my own work.

Therefore, I apologize once again for any confusion or violation of the rules. I am fully open to having my work analyzed and am willing to make any revisions necessary to represent these animals as accurately as possible according to the current scientific consensus. GabrieMacrothorax (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no need to apologize, your restorations are appreciated, but especially if you would consider modifying them according to the commentary here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime they've uploaded an unidentified azhdharchid (added to gallery, of little use with no name), so I've notified them of this review page in case they make more. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echinochimaera pair

Echinochimaera meltoni

The scaling and anatomy are based primarily on descriptions and skeletal reconstruction from Lund (1988; Fig 1. & 2.), and those in Lund (1977; Fig. 5-8, Fig. 12-13). Additional references from photographs of fossils, including the holotype male. Larger denticles intended to be implied by dotted texturing over the body, and details such as the labial/lip cartilages are added because they are suggested to have plausibly been present in life in descriptions of the taxon, despite being unpreserved. While bright colors are typically added in reconstructions of this genus, the in-life coloration is not known, and dark pigments are absent from the body, implying it was not darkly patterned. I opted to go for a countershaded sandy brown since this was a small, shallow-water fish. Gasmasque (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Another high quality illustration from Gasmasque. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gasmasque: I get the impression that these are supposed to represent sexually dimorphic male and female forms? If so, it would help if this was made clear in the file description. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on Commons clarifies that the male is lower and the female is upper, apologies for not specifying in the post here. It is indeed meant to showcase the dimorphism, and since this is meant to be a more in-life style restoration I have not added Venus and Mars symbols like on some of my more diagrammatic reconstructions. Do you think it would be worth adding those for clarity? Gasmasque (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, when you look at the image on Wikipedia you can only see the description section, and I didn't see the Commons caption. Apologies. I've changed the Commons desc to include information from the caption. I think adding sex symbols wouldn't go amiss to be honest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled Uintatherium skull

Labelled skull diagram of Uintatherium anceps

When I put Uintatherium up on the Article Workshop yesterday, it was suggested (and I thought it was a great idea) to include a skull diagram of the genus. It was tricky, but I think it's in a good condition now, courtesy of a lot of greatly appreciated feedback from Jens Lallensack. Borophagus (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total nitpick, but I don't think that Uintatherium's 'horns' are actually horns- they seem to just be projections covered in skin like giraffe ossicones. I would avoid using the term horn just to prevent confusion, but because they are sometimes called horns informally I don't think this is unusable or anything. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would err against referring to them as horns, but that seems to be the predominant way of referring to them in the literature, which is why I opted for it. Borophagus (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "jugal" commonly used by mammal paleo? I was under the impression that this bone was called the "zygomatic". Is that just a convention in human anatomy? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically it is called the zygomatic, at least in my experience with probiscideans. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my sauropsid bias getting the better of me. Will tweak that. Borophagus (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "squamosal" is also called the "temproal". A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise (hopefully) rectified. Borophagus (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be correct, this should rather be "temporal bone" and "zygomatic bone" (or "zygoma", if you want), I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Opted to go with "zygoma" in the name of saving space. Borophagus (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunella

I made this reconstruction of Sunella grandis and several other taxa found in the shujingtuo formation in the foreground is Sunella grandis, the soft anatomy is based on Isoxys and the median eye is based on Combinivalvula, another individual is on the left and the probable sexual dimorphism is shown while in the background is a Radiodont chases a Caudicaella. There are probably some mistakes as I don’t do much paleoart. Houcaris (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general carapace shape is based on https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xingliang-Zhang/publication/274776187_Soft_anatomy_of_sunellid_arthropods_from_the_Chengjiang_Lagerstatte_Lower_Cambrian_of_Southwest_China/links/554182740cf2322227316e98/Soft-anatomy-of-sunellid-arthropods-from-the-Chengjiang-Lagerstatte-Lower-Cambrian-of-Southwest-China.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ. Houcaris (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficut to distinguish the animals from the background. Maybe erasing or lightening the background would help> Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’ll do it within three days but I’m more worried about the anatomy and I think everything is a bit too speculative. Houcaris (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Houcaris (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reconstruction isn’t that good so I’d like it if someone made a better one for the article. Houcaris (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decuriasuchus quartacolonia

Reconstruction of the extinct loricatan D. quartacolonia

WIP reconstruction since the model on the page has some issues. wanted some feedback before I moved on to more details and the right limbs. I am aware there is a “border” between the body and neck scales, this will be fixed in the final reconstruction. Skeletal reference is in the top left. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the skeletal reconstruction? I'm also curious about the nasal crest that you've given the animal in the reconstruction. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nasal crest is reconstructed as a keratin cap on the nasal projection. It’s similar to the tissue covering the little bumps on the back of the skull of Cuban Crocodiles, forming “horns” out of relatively small bits of bone. Skull ornaments are not uncommon in pseudosuchians so I considered it reasonable. The skeletal is here. Driptosaurus (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that skeletal has many issues and (tracing a decently taphonomically deformed/flattened skull, the way the skull attaches to the neck with the parietal sticking out, and the clear shrinkwrapping of the silhouette), i would encourage tweaking with that in mind LiterallyMiguel (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in the skeletal, the osteoderms also overlap themselves in the wrong orientation, which is reflected in your piece.

Each osteoderm should be on top of the one behind it LiterallyMiguel (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with your comment regarding the skull attachement to the neck (I did not give enough volume to the muscles attached to the parietal) and the osteoderms being incorrect (which is also an issue with the skeletal in the description paper), I disagree with the skull shape being too far off. This figure: [20] from the description paper provides a reconstructed skull (f) that isn't far off from the one I did. I will adjust the other things though. Driptosaurus (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is the fairly uncorrected figure i was talking about, which still doesn't account for taphonomical deformation LiterallyMiguel (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I am modeling the restored skull shape off of Prestosuchus since they are thought to be very closely related, potentially even the same taxon. I will tag you when I complete the fixes to the restoration. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

using prestosuchus is a good idea LiterallyMiguel (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed skull and osteoderms. Generally increased the depth of the skull, added neck musculature, and gave it a smoother dorsal surface. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking better, the torso could be a lot deeper, the contour of the arm and its musculature couold be a bit better defined l(ike the legs), and adding an ear (which would be around the level of the quadrate, below the level of the first osteoderm in your drawing) LiterallyMiguel (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added more musculature to forelimbs, deepened torso, added ear. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of unnecessary white space around the animal that makes it very small at thumb size. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That's a quirk of the way the WIP files are exported. When the anatomy of the animal is good I will upload a version with an appropriate image size and a transparent background so it can be used for phylo trees. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass No revisions necessary.Houcaris (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forfexopterus

Happened to be making a drawing featuring this taxon and noticed it doesn't have good life recons on the page so I extracted a PNG of the animal. I'll admit the pycnofiber crest is speculative, inspired by what's seen in certain herons and spoonbills during their breeding seasons. Olmagon (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for me, matches the proportions/tooth count/skull shape of the fossil material. Nice to see some paleoart for this animal. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would also say pass Skye McDavid (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hesperosuchus skeletal reconstruction

These will come with their respective expansion of the article, and explanation about history and how reasonable their referrals are

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by the white circles in the orbits for the skull recon in dorsal view. Are those for eye size? Scleral ring? Otherwise pass for me, it's good to have all these versions to choose from. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

going along what i wrote for them in its article, they're palpebral bones!

they are perfectly preserved in this specimen, and it is very likely they are present in all of crocodylomorpha, but given their rarity in preservation they dont get drawn much in skull diagrams LiterallyMiguel (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. Thanks for the clarification. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass No revisions necessary.Houcaris (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Waukesha Biota

Hello, I made a reconstruction of the Waukesha Biota. I also uploaded Papiliomaris on its own, I hope the black background isnt too much of an issue as it would be difficult to get the transparency of the shell to look right on a white background. I acknowledge that this reconstruction is one of many possible interpretations of the unfortunately short and strangely worded description paper. I can upload any other animals from this piece individually as well if there is a need for it. Prehistorica CM (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much effort I think it would be nice if most (if not all) the animals get posted, Paleozoic stuff tends to be quite lacking in available recons on their pages, and even if they already have one, it wouldn't hurt to have more on Commons anyways. Olmagon (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

added probably the most useful ones Prehistorica CM (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s just because of the viewpoint but the parascorpio doesn’t appear to have eyes but as it could have easily been blocked by the algae it isn’t that much of a problem otherwise I can’t say much, I don’t review paleoart much. Houcaris (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These all look really good, I believe the Papiliomaris recon works fine, with some added notes of its speculative qualities. Also the trilobites look very nice as well. Fossiladder13 (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only worry with the Papiliomaris is that the 'antennae' being interpreted as raptorial appendanges in the reconstruction might count as original research. Even if I also believe that they're raptorial there's no formal basis for this claim and no source to cite for it past consensus among people online. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I havent made a claim that they are raptorial, I've only attempted to recreate what is described and illusrtated in the figures of the paper. The overall shape of the appendages is based on the outline tracings in Figure 3.8, as well as Figure 4.1 and 4.4. The frontal appendages are described vaguely as setose, and Figure 3.2 shows two distinct kinds of setae - one group is fine and closely set together, the other set (presumably distal) is "coarse" and could also be described as spines. Still, the first and second antennae pair can only be reconstructed speculatively, and I won't claim that this is the only, or best, possible interpretation of the fossils. Prehistorica CM (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay that's a fair point, it's not like it will diminish the educational value at all. Pass for all imo. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protosyngnathus

Hello again. Can I have my reconstruction reviewed again? This time I made another Sangkarewang Formation fish which is Protosyngnathus. I mainly based it from here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2022.2113832 I am sorry for not inserting the link of the image in Google since there are no image of the fossil. You have to use Sci-Hub or Wiki Lib to acces the paper to see it

For the overall fin position and shape, I mainly based it on fistulariid and aulostomid since the paper said that Protosyngnathus is most similar to these two group. So as always, is my image good enough? Sorry if it is very thin since I am trying to make the outer line less visible after adding the color. Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only criticism of your restoration is that fistulariids and aulostomids hold their bodies and tails rigid/straight. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. Mr Fink (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah I dont take account of that. And yes, I just see more carefully and agree see aulostomids have rigid tail. But aren't fistularia sp have flexible body and some photos or illustraction depict them quite bended?

I have to admit though. If you take a look at the specimen photo in the paper, it is preserves in straight position. So should i just keep it at relatively straight? DD (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have straighten up the body. Is it good enough? DD (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is hard to see. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:2099:1E96:B2AE:9F53 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it is still the basic shape because I still want to see if there are something to be fix. I will color it now since it is accepted after I chante the body position DD (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The position is much better now, yes. Mr Fink (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much! I will try to color it now then.. DD (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypselorhachis speculative size silhouette, based in Ctenosauriscus, and a comparison to it

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of available material I think this is good. Pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dromicosuchus

Aided with morphosource scans of the holotype

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for me, great work. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 'et al.' doesn't need to be italicized :)

Megistaspis digestive system

Digestive system of Megistaspis (Ekeraspis) hammondi with crop and intestine in yellow and digestive caecae in blue. Inferred parts have white scoring.

Interpreted from and partially traced from Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 2 of Gutiérrez-Marco, J., García-Bellido, D., Rábano, I. et al. Digestive and appendicular soft-parts, with behavioural implications, in a large Ordovician trilobite from the Fezouata Lagerstätte, Morocco. Sci Rep 7, 39728 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39728

I will also ask J. C. Gutiérrez-Marco what he thinks.

African Mud Turtle (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. García-Bellido said that it looks accurate. Does it get a pass? African Mud Turtle (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah Prehistorica CM (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunella grandis

Made a drawing of Sunella grandis soft parts are based on Isoxys, apart from the eyes which are based on Combinivalvula. Houcaris (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carapace is based on https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/4541257?searchText=Sunella&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DSunella%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A22fc336d317f5d55d1243ef67e8ca2d4&seq=6 Houcaris (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now I’m adding it to the article. Houcaris (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall seems acceptable, although image quality may need improvement. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but really I don’t know what to do with the image quality. Houcaris (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this,[21] made using Paint.NET only taking few minutes. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine but maybe blurring things a bit would be better as if the quality is increased it would show all of the shading mistakes dramatically as I’m not very good at shading. Houcaris (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I’ll fix it on the original copy sometime today. Houcaris (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version since I couldn’t edit the original as I lost it, Houcaris (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t really figure it out, by it I mean paint.net. Houcaris (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one that doesn’t include shading and uses pen instead of pencil.

Houcaris (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some white spots due to lighting I might fix that later. Houcaris (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I traced over it on the computer.

Houcaris (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to know which version is best. Houcaris (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that both art have more top-angle of head but carapace is from bottom angle. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I feel like the pencil version is better, also I remade the pencil version. Houcaris (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem I pointed out remains unresolved. The head and frontal appendages are clearly drawn from a top-down angle, while the carapace is drawn from a bottom-up angle. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll fix it soon and I think the frontal appendages may be worth removing as although Sunella is found to be related to Isoxys in several studies none of the fossils preserve frontal appendages. Houcaris (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot pygmy hippopotamus size comparison

Made using an unpublished sketch by @Piranga94: (formerly 4444hhhh). (Piranga94, it would be good to confirm here that you have given me permission to use this sketch). I am aware the right side feet are lifted off the ground somewhat, which is due to the way the photograph of the mount this was based off was taken [22]. I am not good at fixing silhouettes and my efforts making the right feet level with the ground plane would probably make them look very wonky and worse than just the floating feet. Anyone else competent has my permission to edit the silhouette to fix this if they so choose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to make one for Myotragus as well, based on the skeleton in this figure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another dwarf hippo, this time Hippopotamus lemerlei

. 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Request: size charts of extinct Sicilian wolf

Not sure if an extinct Holocene taxa is acceptable here, but would it be possible to create two gridlined size charts with human silhouettes for comparison, one showing the extinct Sicilian wolf, and another showing the same animal together with the Italian and Eurasian wolf? The first one is needed for the article on the subspecies in question, while the third is for an upcoming article I am writing on Italian wikipedia about the wolves native to Italy. Measurements of the two still living taxa are from J. R. Castelló's Canids of the World, and are as follows:
Italian wolf: Shoulder height - 65 cm, body length - 95-115 cm
Eurasian wolf: Shoulder height - 72-85 cm, body length: 105-160 cm.
Measurements for the extinct Sicilian wolf are from this paper:
Sicilian wolf: Shoulder height - 54.6 cm, body length: 105.4 cm
Available wolf silhouettes could be based on the following:

Thanks in advance Mariomassone (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confractosuchus and the juvenile ornitischian it swallowed before dying

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shading on some of the carpals in the lateral view makes it unclear if they represent known or unknown material. Driptosaurus (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked LiterallyMiguel (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded a new version of the image, it is not appearing on Wikimedia. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

huh, that is weird, i went through the whole procedure but it seems it didn't upload

should be there now LiterallyMiguel (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is uploaded correctly now. No complaints other than that, pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ombilinichthys

Hello all. May I ask for another review of my fish drawing? It is an another inhabitant of Sangkarewang Formation which is Ombilinichthys. I made my reconstruction based on here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2014.906444. Luckily the writer provide a complete skeletal reconstruction and it is also can be seen by just using google. I tried my best following the description like 29-30 scales on its lateral side.

As always, it my image good enough to be used? Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, I tried to add some color. Is it good enough? DD (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is fine, but someone good at fish should see. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for you for your input... Yes, for all the fish expert, some input would be very appreciated DD (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramathallus & Rafatazmia

Here are some reconstructions of the 1.6 billion year old possible red algae Ramathallus and Rafatazmia. I didn't make these specifically for wikipedia, hence why they were done on lined paper, but I figured that I might as well upload them since I had them.

Ramathallus lobatus
Rafatazmia chitrakootensis

‪Tourmaline Ctenacanth (‪talk) 03:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT an expert on this field but even if it is accurate the Rafatazmia looks a bit too much like an earthworm sticking out of the ground maybe it would be nicer for a background that makes it clear that it isn’t terrestrial. Houcaris (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. The ground was meant to represent the stromatolites in which these organisms were preserved as well as the cyanobacterial filaments found with them, but I can definitely see how it could make it look terrestrial. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These look nice and line up with fossil material very well.

If you wish, I can clean these up for you for use on their respective pages (and fix up Rafatazmia as per Houcaris' critique), as your reconstructions have been very helpful in, well, helping people know what these things look like! DevonHalDraedle (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very helpful, thanks! Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terminonaris robusta

Skull diagram of Terminonaris robusta, based in SMNH P2411.1 ("Big Bert")
Skeletal reconstruction

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the femur may not be correctly articulated with the acetabulum in your image. In this description: [23] which is the only pholidosaur hip material I could find images of, you can see the 'socket' of the acetabulum is both above and below the opening between the ilium and the ischium. I understand your depiction is of the animal high-walking, so the position of the femoral head might be slightly different. However, this paper [24] shows the approximate position of crocodile femora during a high walk and they seem to be articulating with the acetabulum rather than the preacetabular process of the ilium. If this is different in pholidosaurs please feel free to ignore this, but I was unable to find anything differentiating pholidosaur hips from crocodylian hips in this way. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked LiterallyMiguel (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calyptrina striata

This is used in the article and doesn’t seem to have been reviewed. Houcaris (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a quick look, this was uploaded by one of the authors of this paper [25], namely Aleksey Nagovitsyn. The reconstruction itself can be found in Document S1 [26] from the aforementioned paper.

As such, I think this is all good, given how the fossil material looks, and it is also noted in the document the soft-body parts are speculative, as is the case for most reconstructions for tubular forms from the Ediacaran, something that most definitely should be stated on the page itself under the image. DevonHalDraedle (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be helpful to state that it was from a paper. Houcaris (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elasmotherium sibiricum

Hey folks, here with an illustration of the head of Elasmotherium, following the boss interpretation as stated in Titov et al 2021

Elasmotherium

Triloboii (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanosuchus

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian fish

both of these are used in articles and have been on the review but in a thread which was mostly going over the ichthyostega so these never really got any comments but the files have been revised several times so they might be fine also maybe there is new info on the anatomy. Houcaris (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2003-2004 studies reconstruct Haikouichthys with more Metaspriggina-like head,[27][28] although not sure if it get revision after that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it isn’t in any of the other images of Cambrian fishes that need review too. Zhenghecaris (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which used to be used in the article also needs review. Zhenghecaris (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of recons by me

Prohesperocyon wilsoni
Leptolepis coryphaenoides
Italopterus magnificus
Georgiomeryx georgalasi
Climacoceras gentryi
Canthumeryx sirtensis
Blickomylus galushai
Pliolophus vulpiceps
Aprixokogia kelloggi
Palaeotragus inexspectatus
Pachynolophus eulaliensis
Koristocetus pescei

SeismicShrimp (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something for PrimalMustelid and Dunkleosteus77. I see other sections here that might need their comments. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Koristocetus, I can see it's definitely playing more into how modern kogiids look like, but the rostrum of Koristocetus is supposed to be distinctly narrow and the supracranial fossa doesn't extend onto it so I wouldn't think you'd get such a broad and stocky snout (maybe just perspective though). The blowhole was also "greatly asymmetric" (which is pretty common for physeteroids) but I'm not really seeing that here (again, maybe perspective). And this is more a nitpick than anything, I'm not really getting the color scheme. Why is the top of the head the lightest part of the body, wouldn't that just make the most vulnerable part of the body a huge target? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to reply until now due to being busy, I should have time to fix your issues with Koristocetus soon, anything I should fix with Aprixokogia or is that one good? SeismicShrimp (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven’t had a chance to the the colors but I did remember that I partially based the pattern off of Risso’s Dolphin. It’s there any reason why Koristocetus could have a similar pattern? SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpes mathisoni

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sacabambaspis by Petr Menshikov

Original restoration was failed due to inaccurate anatomy (see here). Here is a WIP on a corrected version. Sittaco (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The body is missing a thin midline ridge of dorsal scales, but otherwise it's acceptable. The pose of the rendered version doesn't really clarify its proportions for the sake of the average visitor, so it would be good to have the basic dorsal and lateral views rendered somewhere at the end of this process. The head is still problematic. The mouth is way too large, it probably would have been barely more than a slit in reality. The ventral shield should be more convex, especially in its front half. The eyes could probably be a bit closer together, though I see you've already made a good effort at going in this direction, so it's not a huge priority. The biggest changes needed are the nostrils, which should be much more widely spaced. In the fossil, the nostrils are suggested to lie in the little gaps between the eyes and the armor plate in the middle of the head. In other words, each nostril should be much closer to each eye rather than the other nostril. The very front of the head is just a solid T-shaped plate of armor. Some good references can be found at page 54 in Benton (2015), and page 86 in Janvier (1996). NGPezz (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also just checked the source you used (Miyashita, 2016) in the earlier review. I think I see where things went awry: Sacabambaspis is one of the few vertebrates with a paired pineal eye, and I think you mistook that for its nostrils. If you look at Figure 13 in Miyashita's study, the actual nostril opening is labelled with "Nasal aperture". The nostril spacing is very wide, more than you might expect from more normal vertebrates. NGPezz (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Version with changes according to comments. Sittaco (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are looking good, it'll be interesting to see how it looks fully rendered and in different poses. NGPezz (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See files in the gallery. Sittaco (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like lower body is too extended compared to figure in Miyashita 2016? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Version with a bit less extended lower body. Sittaco (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I feel like Miyashita's reconstruction is too flat compared to every other reconstruction of the animal (including the front view by Janvier, 1996). In my opinion the image files are just right, so I'll remove the inaccurate tag from the front-on view. NGPezz (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, by the way there is also this poster which may help for reconstruction although since this is unpublished one could be against Wikipedia policy, but at least help for proportion?[29] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting poster, but it doesn't change the reconstruction too much. I think it's fine to stay within the realm of published studies, and I think that the images are more than sufficient to pass review. NGPezz (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isoxys

This reconstruction by Ghedoghedo is, as far as I know inaccurate but I feel like it would still nice to make sure. Zhenghecaris (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t be a problem as it is not used though. Zhenghecaris (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is used in articles and the carapace position loooks inaccurate.

Zhenghecaris (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the carapace of Isoxys is extremely laterally narrow, with the carpace descending almost vertically downwards. Ironically, figure 5 in the same paper this restoration comes from demonstrates this really well [30]. Unfortunately, given that we already have a decent Isoxys restoration for another species, I'm not sure how motivated anyone is going to be to make a replacement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s used in Paleobiota of the Burgess Shale and tulip beds I’ll remove it when I hav3 time. Zhenghecaris (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophoca and Chapalmalania

Acrophoca
Chapalmalania

Was making a drawing with both these taxa so I extracted these PNGs for wiki use. Olmagon (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophoca is a pass, though I would recommend shortening the tail of Chapalmalania. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:FAFA:F7BE:B49F:BF3A (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know most people who have drawn Chapalmalania give it a short tail but honestly I'm not really sure what it's based on since I couldn't find any record of vertebrae (let alone caudals specifically) being discovered. Considering that all other known procyonids have long tails and that most carnivoran families with megafaunal members retain long tails just fine, I didn't see much reason to give mine a short tail. Also the few reconstructions I've found which have been published in scientific literature depict it with a long tail (namely Figure 8 in de los Reyes et al (2013) and Figure 4.12(b) in Prevosti and Forasiepi (2018)) so I guess this interpretation follows published literature more closely. Olmagon (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australimicola

Relatively faithful to the original drawing in the describing papper. I did change the antennae just so it didn't end up looking like a direct trace from the original drawing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrosaurus maghribensis

Several specimens were referenced, but given the individual variation between the sizes of the bodyparts between individuals, i had to average the percentages to scale up each element, it is hard to explain, but in a specimen with a skull that was 8 centimeters longer than another specimen, the vertebrae were roughly smaller than the latter, the compromise below should be the best that could be achieved

skull diagram
Skeletal reconstruction
osteoderms removed in lateral view

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referencing for the osteoderms? I’m curious as to why they don’t cover the nuchal area like in other neosuchians. I tried to find some info but I might be looking in the wrong places.

Besides that the skeletal is fantastic and easily readable. Great job as always. Driptosaurus (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The anterior-most osteoderm starts at around the 9th cervical vertebra in articulated specimens of dyrosaurs, including hyposaurus LiterallyMiguel (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. That was my only concern, so pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Chaunoides antiquus

An update to my older C. antiquus reconstruction. Color is the only thing changed here, kept it dark in color except on the feet and face like in modern screamers.

Let me know if there's anything wrong with it. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oneirosaurus caballeroi life restoration

Hi there, I made a life restoration of the newly described basal plioplatecarpine mosasaur, Oneirosaurus. As of writing this, I will be busy with studying for an exam from now until Wednesday, after that, if there are any changes I should make, I will make sure to do so as soon as I can. Thank you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oneirosaurus_caballeroi_life_restoration.png ShamuBlackfish (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Colosteus restoration

This is an updated interpretation of Colosteus I wish to display on its page.

Papers used as reference are as followed, with descriptors of how I used them:

"Colosteus scutellatus (Newberry), a Primitive Temnospondyl Amphibian from the Middle Pennsylvanian of Linton, Ohio" - Used for skull reconstruction, scale reconstruction and proportion, arm placement and proportion, and generally the upper half of the trunk was referenced here.

"THE POSTCRANIAL SKELETAL ANATOMY OF THE CARBONIFEROUS TETRAPOD GREERERPETON BURKEMORANI ROMER, 1969" - Used for reconstructions of non-available post-cranial elements such as the hind limbs and tail, as well as general anatomical proportioning.

"The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik: postcranial anatomy, basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of skeletal evolution" - Used to justify a 5 fingered manus on Colosteids in general.

If there are other features you would like me to address please let me know, thank you.

Restoration of the life appearance of Colosteus.

ACasualWalnut (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a disclaimer that I did use Glaze to filter this image (anti-ai protection software), that's why there's a weird effect over it. Lmk if I should instead use a non-glazed version. ACasualWalnut (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool as hell. Maybe we could get a version with a white background? Prehistorica CM (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably grey IMO, white makes the darker details super hard to notice from my experience. ACasualWalnut (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats probably okay too. It's just a bit hard to see rn Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a mostly-black animal on a black background is nearly impossible to recognize without looking closely. Maybe experimenting with a few different background color options (grey, light blue, green, etc.) would be helpful. NGPezz (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echidnacaris briggsi

Here is a restoration of Echidnacaris briggsi I made. Please review for accuracy. This[31] was my main reference.

Radiodont2011 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trunk is missing the setal blades and strengthening rays on the lateral flaps. The H element on the head also doesn’t look big enough, tamisiocaridids had pretty large H elements. Also the endites don’t really change size that much, the first few pairs shouldn’t be that small. Also this is really just a bit nitpick on my part, but radiodonts didn’t really have that well defined segments on the trunk that you’ve shown here, they would’ve had skin more similar to that of velvet worms, but not as bumpy, and more loosely defined segments. I’d wait to hear incase others wish to voice their opinions. Fossiladder13 (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all this critical points, the appendages do not seemed joined to the body. It seems they are just drawn diagrammatically and then placed over the head. Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the advice! I have made the revisions you suggested. Radiodont2011 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uintatherium size comparison

First real attempt at a size comparison. The Uintatherium here is scaled to a skull length of about 73 cm (give or take a bit), and a height at the withers of about 150 cm. Not quite sure of the anatomy but I may just be seeing issues which aren't there. Borophagus (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[a]