This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
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.
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
I might check the literature regarding the trilobite limbs over time but I'll trust your diagram for now, it looks good. As for Cambroraster, I have some issue. You've reconstructed it to show the difference in length/width ratio of the H-element, but even the paper states in the description,
"Given these similarities, the Shandong specimens are at least a similar species to the type species C. falcatus, and considering that the reticulate of the new specimen is also obviously shorter along the sagittal axis, we consider that the difference in the length-to-width ratio of the new specimens is most likely due to taphonomic deformation, specificly, from depositional compression of the shield into the sediment plane in a forward tilted posture." (Sun et al., 2020)
Given that this difference is then probably just down to ontogeny and perspective, I dont think its wise to present it as a certain morphological featrue via a diagram. That said, I do appreciate your efforts to make more diagrams. Prehistorica CM (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass: I don't see any immediate issues, tho I would remove the white spot that I can only pressume is meant to represent the point of articulation for the hindlimbs? Seems like an odd inclusion thats ultimately not needed for the purposes of this diagram. Armin Reindl (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the ears here are unusual. They're a bit above the auditory meatus, like they are in all mammals, and the animal has them resting a bit laterally. The skull here is modified from Machaeroides to match Apataelurus' mandible, and they do have pretty long, low skulls, which might make it look like the ear is weirdly far back Triloboii (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, the low angle of the ears threw me off but upon looking at the skeleton it seems quite good. I give these a tentative pass as I don't know too much about the group, but the proportions and overall anatomy seems right. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mahajangasuchus, rigorous skeletal reconstruction and specimen guide
I have been improving several of my old reconstructions, most are just art style improvements, but in this case I have redrawn it. Any comments? Qohelet12 (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, its been a while. Can I ask for another review of my drawing? This time I am trying to made Musperia radiata (page havent exist; I am planning to write it if this image got accepted). My reconstruction mainly based on the surviving photos in Taverne (2009) paper (New insights on the osteology and taxonomy of the osteoglossid fishes Phareodus, Brychaetus and Musperia). Sorry but I cant seem to copy the link of the paper here.. I am using Phaerodus for my main reference because they are closely related compared to with modern bonytongue from what I read? But as for the head,I am basing it on the Phaerodus species on the paper and the head remains sketch since I am aware that some Phaerodus have steepingly sloping head.
As always, is my based image good enough? If it is good enough, I am planning to give it some color (currently I made the sketch with a pen).. Thank you and sorry for my long ranting..
Sorry for asssuming again, but I assume thera are no major problem for the colorless image here? If so, I will continue to color it and use it at the taxa page.. DD (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it may take a while to get a review. Not every reviewer feels comfortable reviewing every artwork, because many people lack the specific knowledge to do so, and many reviewers are not active on Wikipedia on a daily basis, so it could take longer than a week for a reviewer with knowledge of fossil fish (in this case) to weigh in on this reconstruction. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay, I am sorry if I am rushing thing.. I usually check and follow up the question if I saw other image got replied. But I havent'upload my image. Are there anything major I should change for now? DD (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reconstructed skeleton of the new giraffid Orea including all of the (figured and described) material referred to the genus. This is the first mammal skeletal I've shared here, so comments are especially appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 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]
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]
Antarctilamna ultima descripted here is based on juvenile specimen described here[8] (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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
Pass - not much to do taxon than make it look like a standard early pterosaur, and this does. Representation of the exact placement/number of unpreserved teeth is speculative, but unavoidably so and rather minor. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Size of two European (probable) darwinopterans, Ceoptera and Cuspicephalus, plus a reconstructed skeleton for the latter. Comments welcome. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing that stands out here is that the 2015 paper on Cuspicephalus predicts a 1.2m wingspan, whereas the Ceoptera paper estimates a 1.6m wingspan for Ceoptera. Which obviously implicates that Ceoptera should be larger, but it's smaller here. Eyeballing it, Cuspicephalus looks more in the 1.5m wingspan range; but its skull matches the 326mm measurement very well, so I don't think there's much of an issue there. So it might be Ceoptera that needs to be larger? It doesn't look like those wings could unfold to a 1.6m span. I'm not a scaling person, so I'm not going to say this is wrong necessarily. But I'd definitely encourage double checking the Ceoptera size. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's complicated since Ceoptera is just postcrania and Cuspicephalus is the opposite. It doesn't help that Witton's skeletal for Ceoptera turned out to be somewhat problematic when I cross-checked with the measurements. I reconstructed these silhouettes by basically combining the Ceoptera postcrania and Cuspicephalus skull (also Witton's approach), assuming the general skull:body:wing ratio of Darwinopterus spp. to fill in the gaps since it seems to be a reasonable proportional match. If you unravel the wings, I'm getting just under 1.4 m for Ceoptera and just over 1.7 m for Cuspicephalus, neither of which are too far off of the published estimates (the latter's wingspan has been estimated at over 2m elsewhere). Of course, the fragmentary nature of both specimens means I could force either one to fit your numbers but these sizes aren't "wrong", per se, and shouldn't make the diagrams unusable. Keep in mind, the Ceoptera wingspan estimate is derived from a regression equation incorporating just its metacarpal, the only complete forelimb bone identified. In other words, I'm hesitant to just blindly trust that number when I independently reached a similar one when also acknowledging the other forelimb material. Hope this helps clarify the issue. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Cuspicephalus is at art review, I wonder if anyone can make a slight modification to add a soft tissue crest to Tamura's life reconstruction, as it considered parsimonious for the taxon. It's better than not having a reconstruction, but it is a bit frustrating. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the crests. Wonder why NT didn't do it to begin with, since he restored its relatives with soft-tissue crests already. And now we're here, did we ever get a convincing rationale for this[9]Kunpengopterus restoration not having a crest? FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, but I think all that needs to be done is make the pupil darker if I also do a crest. But only if there is consensus for it here. I think we should have insisted harder back then, Wikipedia is not for personal, speculative musings. FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd call it speculative; given the universality of albinism in vertebrates today, it would be very odd if pterosaurs could not be albino. If anything, the idea that there was at least some Kunpengopterus that looked like this is more guaranteed than any given "ordinary" colour scheme. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the point of Wikipedia restoration is to show a representative individual, and if not, an atypical individual should be directly based on fossil specimens. Anything else is just pointless distraction from our purposes. I'm sure there was a specimen out there that was missing half its tail, but there is no point for us in showing that. Anyhow, the main problem is its lack of a crest. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life Restoration of the head of Jupijkam paleofluvalis
I’m working on a full body restoration as well, but since the taxon is mainly known from skull material I think a portrait would be good to have on the page. Mainly based on Rutiodon, Mystriosuchus and Volcanosuchus.
Major revisions The rostrum shape doesn't reflect the actual fossil. The premaxilla of the fossil is sharply downturned at the tip. Rutiodon and Mystriosuchus also don't have downwardly-sloping mandibles as normally depicted. The dentary just ends before the sharp curve of the premaxially as far as I understand. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proportions still seem off I'm afraid, the downturn of the premaxilla is too gradual and its tip should almost face backwards while it just kinda tapers downwards here. The rostrum also seems a little short proportionally.
An a non-scientific note, I do not see why this image is both given a white background around the head but also transparency. It would probably best to make the entire background layer solid white. Armin Reindl (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll be honest, I underestimated the strangeness of this animal’s proportions when drawing it. I’m still getting the hang of phytosaurs, so thank you for helping out. The proportions and structure should be better now, and more inline with the skeleton. Driptosaurus (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skull diagram of Barinasuchus arveloi, composite of the holotype and equally-sized peruvian specimen
Size comparison silhouette of Barinasuchus arveloi, showcasing known remains
I'd like to replace the current diagrams, as these ones, aided with visits to the actual holotype and pictures from different angles, better reflect the morphology of what can be interpreted from the preserved remains LiterallyMiguel (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No notes really other than that towards the tip of the tail the silhouette is a little messy. It's a nitpick but I still wanted to bring it up.Armin Reindl (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this image on the article for Cuvieronius. It doesn't appear to have been reviewed. This image is in use on multiple pages. It appears to have digitigrade hindlimbs, which I assume is incorrect. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elephantimorph proboscideans including gomphotheres are largely digitigrade on both fore and hindlimbs, as you can see in this rigourous skeletal of Gomphotherium. That doesn't necessarily mean that the hindlimbs are definitely not wonky though. Looking at google images of elephant walk cycles and standing, I don't see them adopting a similar hindlimb posture. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of Cambroraster species H-element
Reconstructions over time of the legs of the trilobites Ceraurus pleurexanthemus and Flexicalymene senaria
Apataelurus kayi
Machaeroides eothen
Apataelurus size chart
Machaeroides size chart
Skeletal in lateral and dorsal view, arrangement and amount of rows of osteoderms unknown
specimen guide that includes the holotype and referred specimens
Skeletal
.jpg)
Belemnites, but what kind?
Skeletal
Ceoptera size
Cuspicephalus size
Cuspicephalus skeletal
Skull diagram of Barinasuchus arveloi, composite of the holotype and equally-sized peruvian specimen
Size comparison silhouette of Barinasuchus arveloi, showcasing known remains
.png)
.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kunpengopterus_antipollicatus_and_Allaboilus_gigantus.jpg){kind=link}