Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Manual Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. 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" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). 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. For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Criticism of restorations should avoid nitpicking of minor subjective or hypothetical details and should be phrased in a way that is respectful and constructive. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Taleta by Nick Longrich

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 the Taleta by Nick Longrich. Any comments or thoughts?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The linework over the shoulder and hip is probably a bit extreme but that can fall under artistic style and is certainly only a minor issue if that. Not much is known of the taxon and in general the anatomy lines up with other lambeosaurines with perhaps slightly short limbs (no close relatives have good limb material to be sure of proportions). I think its usable. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Should we perhaps have all of Longrich's other uploaded restorations reviewed here? Few of them have been. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you think, but for me, the upper part of the beak has too little keratin. I wrote a similar comment about Taleta (UDL). Aventadoros (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have no nostrils or ear holes? And the proportions of the legs and body look off somehow, but I can’t put my finger on it. 49.144.196.194 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

According to information I saw on Discord, the colors were created using ChatGPT and were colored in the Studio Ghibli style, but I don't have a link to the original post. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a rumor and shouldn't impact how it is reviewed. Longrich has contributed art before, and even if he used AI to generate the color scheme, that shouldn't really matter. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good precedent to let any kind of AI modified art go into use. Not only are "Ghibli filters" highly immoral, but it could severely weaken precedents against more extensive usage of AI. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Granted, but I think its still hearsay. Do we have confirmation that that's what happened? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading some of what he's said about the reconstruction on facebook, it seems he used AI to colour in his lineart and then used that as a base for inspiration when it comes to colour palette and shading techniques. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think so. If you look closely at the sand you can see what’s obviously hand-made brush strokes with the “round brush” from Procreate (or a similar brush in another drawing program) 2001:4453:527:8500:79B4:E360:7EDC:B21B (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

• 
• 

Hesperonychus needs major revisions. The wing feathers are way too short and there don't appear to be any primaries attached to the second finger. Judiceratops needs revisions. The profile of the parietal does not match the figures from the paper describing it. This artwork has the parietal margin being mostly smooth and bowed outwards, but the paper depicts it as relatively flat and with a more pronounced indentation at the midline. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• I've added the rest of @NickLongrich:'s unreviewed palaeoart, though the last two have been on the review page in a mass-section before with little comment. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Pass for Leptorhynchos, Albertonykus, Chenanisaurus, and the size diagrams; I don't see any obvious issues. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the eye of the Chenanisaurus is twice too large, and shouldn't the Leptorhynchos have primaries too? All evidence points to sizeable primaries in oviraptorosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with minutiae like eyeball size when the taxon isn't known from enough material to really comment on that. Chenanisaurus is just a dentary, and as long as the rest of the body doesn't deviate from the remains of other well-known taxa (in this case really just Majungasaurus), then its fine as far as I can tell. Regarding Leptorhynchos, it looks like it does have primaries, they're just not very long. The length of primaries in oviraptorosaurs is really only known from Caudipteryx, and they aren't very long. Perhaps the primaries here are a bit too short, but that's not really something that affects the drawing as a whole like it does for the Hesperonychus because dromaeosaur primaries are known to be well-developed and long from numerous taxa. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Eye size isn't really that variable in closely related taxa, so I don't think it's a valid excuse to ignore it, it certainly isn't minutiae any more than giving a theropod huge feet if none of its relatives have it. As for the primaries, apart from Caudipteryx, we know oviraptorosaurs covered their eggs with the arms, which has been strongly implied was due to long wing feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'm not withholding a pass for suggestions for a reconstruction that are based on second or third-order assumptions about brooding behavior in taxa for which we have no evidence vis-a-vis such behavior. The primaries could probably be longer, but I ultimately don't think it holds back the reconstruction, and we can't even really say that it's wrong because there's no direct or even indirect evidence for their extent in this taxon. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think Fail for the Nicorhynchus; it's hard to tell with the low resolution, but the frontmost teeth appear to come out at an angle from the margin of the deltoid process (the flat front of the snout) and the actual palate, when they are very distinctly rooted on the deltoid process in coloborhynchines like Nicorhynchus. Given this is one of the most distinguishing traits of coloborhynchines compared to other anhanguerians and Nicorhynchus is only known from snout tips, this is an unacceptably fatal error for a reconstruction and using this would only confuse the reader. It's possible this could be fixed with an edit to the image, but given the highly sketch-like nature of the reconstruction I don't know if that's really worthwhile. Leptostomia matches the scantly known material fine and is a Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Could be easily edited, as I don't think anyone is going to bother making a restoration of that taxon anytime soon anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe if it was cropped - the front of the snout is hardly in focus when it's not only the only region known from the taxon, but from any coloborhynchine. Probably responsible to exclude the postcranium. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@LittleLazyLass: I tried fixing the image[1] by moving the frontmost tooth up, but also fixed some even weirder things like missing tooth-rows and extra hand-claws. After these photos[2] and this restoratrion.[3] I don't see cropping as a necessary option (cropping the only known part of the animal out?!), it's not like fragmentary taxa aren't routinely restored in full, and these species didn't really differ much in their body-plan anyway, so they're pretty safe. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Modified to fit fossil better per comments on Discord. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Suchomimus

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.

---

Newly uploaded and not used yet. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Skeletal diagrams of Suchomimus seem to vary considerably in the relative lengths of the arms and legs. Scott Hartman's skeletal has much shorter legs, as does the chimeric diagram from Sereno et al 2022. Other reconstructions have legs of similar length to this reconstruction, but its unclear to me how rigorous those are. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Are the hand claws a bit too gracile here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Chirostenotes pergracilis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Needs revisions. In the "Macrophalangia" specimen (CMN 8538), the hallux is much longer, reaching the distal end of the first phalanx of the second digit when drawn to it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis

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.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Which sources did you use to reconstruct the skull? I haven't seen a reconstruction that incorporates the nasal boss and the supraorbital bosses into a single structure. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe their proximity is variable between individuals and they are quite close together in a number of P. canadensis skulls. Though it would be good to know what its based on exactly. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the comment below, this is based on a specific specimen, and the skull condition in this drawing mirrors that skull very closely. I give this a pass. The skull could probably be larger, but I don't think that's substantial enough to prevent it from being used. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@A Cynical Idealist, @The Morrison Man It was based on the Dan Folkes skeletal (The Drumheller specimen) [4]. I also will add next comment, because it needs (maybe 2) minor fixes. Aventadoros (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Time for a minor revision:

1. Pachyrhinosaurus, like other centrosaurines, had structures on their skulls called rostral nasal scales, squamosal and parietal scales row, whose presence was demonstrated by Hieronymus et al. 2009. They are missing in this reconstruction; Figure 12 shows what they look like and where they should be located. [5]

2. The contact between the squamosal and parietal bones appears to be invisible. Centrosaurines were characterised by a stepped contact between these bones, so this should also be corrected. It is well reproduced in the work of Fiorillo and Tykoski (2024) (Figure 9) [6]

3. In my opinion, the epijugal (small horn on the jugal) should be a little larger and more visible. While exoparia may limit the visibility of the jugal, it should not affect the epijugal. Aventadoros (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

1. The nasal scales are continuous with the nasal boss, similar to P. perotorum. Parietal scales are also included at the two preserved areas of the skull where they would be indicated. Squamosal scale locations aren’t well indicated in Pachyrhinosaurus, with no preserved indication spots in the Drumheller specimen of P. canadensis, the specimen referenced here.

2. The contact between these elements is drawn as distinct here, to the degree it is shown by the Drumheller skull.

3. Your opinion on the size of this element doesn’t constitute critique; this element is also not preserved on the Drumheller skull. Ddinodan (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that squamosal scales were not preserved in the Drumheller specimen does not change the fact that other individuals of Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai, as presented in the work of Hieronymus et al. 2009, and other centrosaurines such as Centrosaurus, Wendiceratops and Furcatoceratops also had them. Scales on the skull are a general feature of centrosaurines, so I believe that the reconstruction should include them. As for the two previous comments, they can be ignored, because you are right, but I will not change my opinion about the squamosal scales. Aventadoros (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think integumentary elements should be required to match other taxa exactly when we don't have direct evidence for this particular species. Besides, not showing details of scalation in general is matter of level of detail, not an accuracy issue. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Scales of that size are visible even at this distance, and phylogenetic bracketing of close species is the default for determining unknown features. Anyhow, the comments here should make it clear to a certain IP that no images are "instapassed". FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @FunkMonk that some unknown features can be added based on close phylogenetic relationships, and we apply this principle in many of the graphics evaluated here. In the case of Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai, we have clear confirmation based on the work of Hieronymus et al. 2009 of the presence of scales on the squamosal bone. The presence of these structures in ceratopsids is also mentioned by Evans and Ryan (2015) in their publication on Wendiceratops - squamosal description (in this case, they are ridges). Therefore, I also believe that these scales should be present in this reconstruction of Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis, as we have irrefutable evidence for the existence of such structures in ceratopsids, including the genus Pachyrhinosaurus itself. Aventadoros (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Jeholosaurus

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.

---

Added by @Jeez Luiz art: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Major Revisions:

The shape of the beak seems too pointy and bird-like compared to the shape and structure of the skull. Not sure if this is the perspective or not, but the tail also appears too short (should be about the length of the body and head.) Also the fourth digit of the foot is absent. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Allosaurus fragilis

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.

---

Found in Commons, not in use. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Needs revisions The right hand is way too large to my eye and the neck is unusually robust. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the ischium appears to be absent. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:732F:345A:CF8F:34FF (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Unreviewed Dmitry Bogdanov dinosaurs

As I compiled the gallery at the palaeoart review[7], I realised there were enough unreviewed dinosaur images for a separate thread here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• 
  Apatosaurus
• 
  Alamosaurus
• 
  Cryolophosaurus
• 
  Carcharodontosaurus
• 
  Dicraeosaurus
• 
  Tsintaosaurus
• 
  Seismosaurus
• 
  Mamenchisaurus
• 
  Majungasaurus
• 
  Diplodocus
• 
  Torvosaurus

The crest of Tsintaosaurus needs fixing. The publication by Zhang et al. 2021 provides further information on its appearance in addition to Prieto-Marquez & Wagner (2013).

Zhang, J., Wang, X., Jiang, S., & Li, G. (2021). Internal morphology of nasal spine of Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus (Ornithischia: Lambeosaurinae) from the upper cretaceous of Shandong, China. Historical Biology, 33(9), 1697-1704. [8] Aventadoros (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it has been wrong since 2013, will just be a huge undertaking to fix. But if it was attempted, should those nostril balloons be kept? FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

We already have two perfectly good modern restorations, so I honestly think it has more value as-is to demonstrate historical understanding than it would have as an up to date Tsintaosaurus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Proportions on most of the sauropods here are wrong, only one I'm unsure about is the Dicraeosaurus. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Any that seem manageable to fix? The Dicraeosaurus was edited to have its teeth covered, but it looks goofy, because they were simply painted out, whereas I think the upper lip should be expanded down. I can do that if others agree. And note many of these images have been heavily edited over the years. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Any pointers at how these sauropods can be fixed, The Morrison Man? The images are widely used. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

All of them have very wrong posture and very wrong posture & anatomy. I'm honestly not sure they can be fixed to a point where they'd be accurate enough. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the Alamosaurus workable? I don't claim to have a particularly fine eye for sauropods, but its posture looks less archaic then the others. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I dont know what Bodganov based it off, but it looks nothing like what we know of related titanosaurs (as can be glanced from the other images on its page). Other than that, it could be workable within the size of the current image at least. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

How about the diplodocoids? Many of them have already been heavily modified, so should be possible to do so further. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Like I said above, posture and anatomy are off for most of them. A good example can be seen when comparing Matt Dempsey's Diplodocus skeleton with the art above. It could be fixed, but I'm not sure if its worth doing so. Especially with such famous taxa as these, some of them will have more (and more up-to-date) reconstructions available, and others should not be hard to get. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

We need to tag and remove them all from articles, then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus looks fine to me. Its hard to judge the proportions given the anterior view of the image, but the skull and arms look alright to me. The eyeball on the Carcharodontosaurus looks a little awkwardly placed, like it should be lower in the orbit. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There isn't much space in the orbit to move around in, though:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Just based on a quick glance at the actual skull as reconstructed, I guess its eyes were just that small and high in the orbit. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to say the Mamenchisaurus is a fail. The proportions are extremely off. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the Majungasaurus needs revisions. It only has 2 fingers, where it should have four. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to fix it. Not sure how it ended up like that, but you can see the original upload had overdeveloped hands. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Gave it some more fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise its a pass. The torso looks a little too robust, but I don't think its that big of an issue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Dicraeosaurus? It shouldn't have the same issues as the other sauropods since it's a closeup, right? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I moved its lip-line down and made its eye smaller, but it seems to be based closely on the Berlin mount, so probably fine otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Eoabelisaurus skull

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 the skull of Eoabelisaurus mefi, known material highlighted in white.

Eoabelisaurus skull reconstruction, missing parts filled in using Ceratosaurus, Spectrovenator, and Rugops. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if Ceratosaurus is really a good model here. Ceratosaurids had very long teeth (as does your reconstruction), but that's a particular of that group. Abelisaurids had, in contrast, very short teeth (look at Rugops or Abelisaurus, for example), so I would have expected a more typical abelisaurid morphology here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I chose to go with a more ceratosaurid morphology considering it lived 55 million years before the first proper abelisaur, and has also been recovered as a ceratosaurid in some phylogenies, I think giving it a derived abelisaur appearance would make less sense. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, but that was only one (?) study that proposed it as a ceratosaurid, so I am unsure why we should follow this particular opinion. Also, Rugops and Abelisaurus are not derived abelisaurids, yet had very short teeth. The age is not really relevant, all what matters is the phylogenetic position; I don't even think we have evidence for long Ceratosaurus-like teeth being the ancestral condition? If I remember correctly, those long teeth are usually considered to be a synapomorphy of Ceratosaurus + Genyodectes. But yeah, the phylogenetic position is unclear, and I guess it's fine if you say "reconstructed as a ceratosaurid" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Trinisaura

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.

---

Found it in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions The tail is way too short. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The proportions of the body also seem strange. Aventadoros (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It almost looks like it's meant to be a juvenile but does not seem to be described as such. Driptosaurus (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Pulaosaurus qinglong

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.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: shouldn't it have some feathers, like your other neornithischians (given its close relationship to Kulindadromeus)? 2001:4453:56A:4B00:644C:C7C5:B5E0:48BB (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

While I'd certainly say feathers are more likely than not in this taxon, I don't think we can say for certain what any given small ornithischian had integument-wise given Psittacosaurus is of a similar size to Kulindadromeus and was almost entirely scaly. Too many unknowns to enforce a specific integument as the standard right now. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The only integument preserved on the holotype is scales. Preservation quality is high enough (given the scale preservation and general preservation quality of the locality) that if there were substantial filaments, they'd likely be present somewhere. Ddinodan (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Pelecanimimus is preserved with scales (and no feathers) from Las Hoyas, which has very high preservation quality. However, Pelecanimimus almost definitely had feathers, so its possible there was some kind of taphonomic force that made feather preservation impossible even though the general quality is high. That said, I don't think its necessary for this restoration, and I'd say its a pass without feathers. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I specify this locality. The preservation at Tiaojishan has allowed for all of its published dinosaur fauna to be preserved with integument. Pulaosaurus is the only one from this locality thus far with no preserved feathers, yet it preserves scales at a similar quality. Ddinodan (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Thanatotheristes life reconstruction

life reconstruction

life reconstruction of thanatotheristes, current recon on the page is of a full body and lower detail of the head, despite this species being known exclusively from cranial remains. lack of lips is intentional as their presence in tyrannosaurs is still up for debate, and I didn't want the dentition to be obstructed, as this taxon is mainly known from the maxilla and teeth. follows known material and daspletosaurus. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Lips are pretty well-supported in tyrannosaurs, mainly because tooth wear analysis shows that they weren't constantly exposed on their outer edge. Additionally the jaw foramina more closely match lipped animals than crocodilian ISOs.

You can chech a pretty good review of theropod lip papers here:

https://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/03/new-paper-fresh-evidence-and-novel.html Driptosaurus (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Is that a jugal horn/scale? Most recent research indicates this was an anchor-point for the exoparia, not visible externally. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed with both previous commenters - it is more parsimonious for tyrannosaurs to have lips and 'jugal horn' is an attachment point for soft tissue exoparia. Additionally, the whole illustration looks out of focus/blurry, which makes its encyclopedic use limited in my opinion. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Triceratops species comparison

I did this image comparing the two species of triceratops heads in profile, please review Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

What's going on with the epoccipitals? They have individual scales on them? Pretty sure they would be separated from the frill by a margin too:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with FunkMonk wrt epoccipitals. As with previous reconstruction, the fact that a significant part of the image is blurry makes it encyclopedic use limited Skye McDavid (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I get the impression that there are also no ear holes, which should be located just behind the ridge connecting the squamosal to the jugal. Aventadoros (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Pulaosaurus (UDL)

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.

---

Pulaosaurus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Pass I don't see any issues. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Shri rapax

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.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

While there's no published skeletal, Cau's own restoration[11] indicates the first manual and sickle-claws should be proportionally a bit thicker and longer. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The manual claws are scaled appropriately. There is no figured material of any pedal elements, nor any mention of them in the holotype description. Ddinodan (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hence I posted Cau's own restoration and notes, which we can be pretty sure is based on known material. Supposedly some elements, at least the skull, disappeared prior to publication. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The manual claws are scaled appropriately. I will now include a quote from the description;

"Although no feet are preserved in Shri rapax..." Ddinodan (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, we can simply ask what Cau based it on. I assume it's the sister species, which would be pretty strong indication that we should show it too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you'd like to do some independent research beyond what has been published on this taxon.

The manual claws are scaled appropriately. I traced the shape of each during my sketch. Their recurve is reduced due to perspective, as dinosaurs do not hold their claws in lateral position.

There are no pedal elements preserved. Any adjustments you want in that regard are beyond published opinion. Because there are no pedal elements preserved, they are based on Shri devi. They are appropriately reconstructed based on that taxon.Ddinodan (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Cau just answered, which I think we should follow, both per him being one of the describers, and the parsimony of phylogenetic bracketing. This is the null hypothesis, and making them different is "opinion": "Theropoda Blog - It's based on Shri devi, the sister taxon of Shri rapax. Note that the differences are at the genus level, not the species level. Pending direct evidence of S. rapax feet, those of S. devi are the best inferred reference." FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, I used S. devi as reference because there are no preserved pedal material from S. rapax. Ddinodan (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Another restoration does not carry inherent authority, regardless of association with the study, especially when it's not even published as part of the paper. If Dan based it on Shri devi material and not even preserved in this species I don't see how there's any issue here. Unless there is any genuine issue with the restoration I think this is a Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, but oh well. We should generally follow reliable presedents and phylogenetic bracketing as much as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I did. Four times by two different people you have been told that my reconstructions pedal anatomy is based on S. devi. Ddinodan (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, take it from the horse's mouth then, the hand-claw and finger need adjustments, Cau made a Facebook post about this very image, and at this point I'm baffled why we just don't follow his lead instead of arguing in circles: "Some paleoart reconstructions of S. rapax are already circulating online. This one by Connor Ashbridge. Nice rendering, but please, note that the tip of the skull (whole premaxillary body and dentary end) is missing even in the cast so the skull in life was not that short. Of course, the snout is shorter than in other velociraptorines but probably not that blunt. Also, the pollex is more robust and the ungual more elongate than in the picture below: in the picture, it seems a generalized dromaeosaurid hand. It differs from the other species in having the tip of the 1st claw approaching the level of the 2nd ungual-phalanx articulation." FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I am going to reiterate my process to you one more time. And no, it does not include me adjusting the claws. Nor the skull.

When I reconstruct a new taxon, I bring all of the figured material into a canvas and ensure it is scaled appropriately. I then overlay this material on the skeletal(s) of a related, better known taxon; in this case, I used S. devi and Velociraptor. This helps me understand how things articulate and where they are placed.

I then do a sketch based on the preserved elements. In the case of skulls, claws, and other anatomical elements more likely to match their skeletal underworkings in life, this includes directly tracing the element. This means that I directly traced the shape and scale of the manual digits directly from Figure 11 in the publication for use in my sketch. These elements are TO SCALE with each other.

When it comes to the hand claws of theropods, they are reconstructed in a slight dorsal view, because the hands of theropods are not held with the fingers in orthographic left lateral. This change in perspective softens the recurve of the claw. And so, when I do my final linework, I take the sketched orthographic size and shape of the claw, and adjust to include the perspective.

Cau is welcome to say whatever they like about my reconstruction, that's their prerogative. I followed the published material as closely as I possibly can, and this is what comes out the other end. And I will say yet again, the musings of a publisher on their own opinion editorial blog do not constitute published opinion. Ddinodan (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks really good, the only thing is I’m not sure if the length of the premaxilla is considered here, as the skull only seems to follow what was preserved without considering the fact that the premaxilla is missing. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This includes the premaxilla, the skull in the reconstruction is quite a bit longer than what is preserved. Ddinodan (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! Then I see no issue with it. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

pass, also the colors are very pretty. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Vouivria

• 

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions The foot anatomy is very odd. The toes are all pointed anteriorly, which is incorrect. The tail also appears very short. The torso is also extremely robust, which doesn't correspond to what is known from Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan as far as I can tell. The shoulder anatomy is also very strange. The left coracoids appear to be further down on the torso relative to the right one. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Wudingloong wui

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Wudingloong

Wudingloong

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)