Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs

Dinosaur Image Review Archives

June 2006 - October 2006
November 2006
Current Image Review Page

Requested Image Signup

Guidelines borrowed from WikiProject Dinosaurs's frontpage for lack of a better thing

Criteria for using an image:

Any image that is anatomically accurate within known constraints.
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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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 or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria for removing an image:

Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
- Example: If a Deinonychus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via bracketing).
- Example: If an oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
- Example: If an image of Microraptor gui lacks primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
- Example: Nomingia should not be depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Similarly, Ceratosaurus should not be depicted with feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it was fully scaled.
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.

Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Approved images.

[edit] Images in review

[edit] Eoraptor

version 4

version 5

My first genus illustration. Please give it a brutal evaluation. Debivort 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the color and shading. The stripes are particularly nice, Debivort. I also like how you captured Eoraptor in motion. It does look alive. I feel like the chest is too small. I think the chest as shown in the current fossil reconstruction is a bit more robust. I also feel the shape of the head is a bit too "rounded", giving the impression of a beak instead of a snout. The head should look roughly triangular, whereas here the back part seems round. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - good observations. Sounds like I can try to fix them by manipulating this image, rather than wih a redo. Will post new version soon. Debivort 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the image is very "close"; if there's a way you can alter it then redoing it entirely, that would be cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a modified version. Let me know if the changes went far enough; if not it, is fairly easy to broaden the chest or triangularize the head a bit more. Debivort 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The head is excellent. Very well done. I still feel like the chest is too small or sunken in. When you look at fossil reconstructions like this, you can see that the chest is a little more than twice the thickness as the head, whereas in your drawing, it is only a little more thick (wide?) as the head. I hope you understand my meaning. Maybe it's because the back is more arched than in the fossils I'm looking at, but to me, the chest and belly still look a bit thin, like he's recently been through illness. However, it is very nearly spot on, in my opinion. Dunno what the others think. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: thanks for making a side-by side comparison, which really helps. And thanks for archiving the page. We're bad about that, around here, and when this page gets long, I actually cannot access the images on this page very well from home, as I'm on dial-up. So thanks for that, too. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Debivort 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Version 3 may address the chest. I think part of the problem was that in 1 and 2 the neck appeared to attach on th animal's left side, reducing the apparent chest area. I've fixed that. De-arched the back a bit, and broadened the shoulder attachment points. I'm not sure if it will ever be clear in this view that the chest is twice as wide as the head, since the angle is pretty close to a profile of the chest, but I think it's much closer to the reconstruction you linked. I also toned down the "ribbiness". Debivort 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! This looks very good. However, there are two things I didn't address earlier, for which I apologise. Eoraptor had five fingers on each hand, while your reconstruction appears to show just three. Would it be difficult to add a couple of extra fingers? Two were very small, if that helps, You can see here they're the last two digits "pinky" and "ring" fingers) and were pretty much non-functional. And the eye, which might have resembled those of crocodilians [1], should probably be a different color. Sorry I didn't mention this earlier. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The fingers are sure a lesson in not trusting whatever I pull off of google images. I couldn't actually see a fourth finger in the model you linked, btw, but hopefully this version captures what you'd expect. Oh and once I introduced a second color, I added a bit more. Debivort 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your infinite patience. This fourth version "does it" for me; I don't know what anyone else thinks. The colored eye helps bring him to live, I think. If the others approve, this could go up. The model I linked to had very, very tiny fingers (nubs, really); Eoraptor's smallest two fingers were presumably non-functional; you've drawn them well (and in the correct place, too!) Google has some good images, and they have a lot of outdated (or innaccurate) stuff. It is often hard to tell what's current; Dinoguy is much, much better at keeping current on theropod anatomy, but as he is currently very busy and can only edit for 15 minutes a day, you're stuck with me (and whoever else pops up, presumably). Again, thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Firsfron pretty much nailed all the points I would have brought up--version 4 looks darn good. The only minor quibbles I can find would relate more to the style than to anything that has to be changed. The skinny neck, the concave chest, etc., kind of remind me of old dino illustrations from "back in the day", which is actually kind of cool, in a way. I think it's ready to be included in articles, at any rate. The concavity of the chest (even if you explain it with a catlike flexibility in the back that wasn't present--studies show that theropod torsos were extremely rigid like those of birds) isn't a big enough error to omit it from use, IMO.Dinoguy2 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment Dinoguy. I'm not sure what is being referred to as the "concavity of the chest" any more, as all parts of it seem convex. Is it the ribbiness? Or the concavity around the abdomonen/thorax transition? I'll fix it if it needs it. Debivort 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fairly strong s-curve below the ribs is what I mean--there should be pretty much a straight line from the pectoral region down to the legs, only possibly becoming a little concave as the belly meets the pubis.Dinoguy2 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, do you like this version better? Debivort 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perfect!Dinoguy2 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrhinoceratops, Ornitholestes and some non-dino

My latest drawings... ArthurWeasley 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Teleoceras	Arrhinoceratops	Ichthyornis	Ornitholestes
Prestosuchus

Arrinoceratops looks great, Arthur. Looks identical to the sole fossil skull here. Prestosuchus also looks very nice, just like the specimen at the AMNH. Well done on those. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yep, I've drawn the Arrhinoceratops based on that skull and Prestosuchus based on the displayed skeleton. ArthurWeasley 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The ornithurine bird and the milk-sucker look pretty good to me (but I'm no expert). I agree that the Prestosuchus is just about perfect--and we really need some good rauisuchian images, slap that baby on Rauisuchia and Pretosuchidae while you're at it! The only one that has some larger problems is Ornitholestes. The head looks a tad too small, though that might just be the angle throwing me off. It looks like you gave it the old nasal crest, which has been shown to be just a bit of displaced skull bone by some recent papers. The main problem is the feet. Ornitholestes didn't have a reversed hallux, that's a feature of only fairly advanced birds (and maybe scansoriopterygids), so it should have just the standard dangling dewclaw in place of the backward-pointing toe. I'm also not sure why you've given it a dromaeosaurid-style hyperextendible second toe and enlarged claw, which is only a feature of deinonychosaurs. Ornitholestes was a pretty primitive coelurosaur, and had just about as generic a theropod bodyplan as you can get.Dinoguy2 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Milk-sucker". Heh. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, the old nasal crest got me. I was almost certain that I've read somewhere that Ornitholestes did not have a crest after all then I remembered about the reconstruction in the popular serie "Walking with dinosaurs" and had second thoughts... The rest of the drawing is based on the skeleton at the Royal Tyrrel Museum (see [2]). ArthurWeasley 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... It does look like it hjas a normal theropod hallux in that pic (though it's hard to see, and the angle makes it look more pronounced, but it's not contacting the ground). I'm going to ask around some forums to find out why they gave it a hyperextendible digit 2....Dinoguy2 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that John Ostrom thought Ornitholestes was closely related to dromaeosaurids, which is why the RTM mounted their skeleton with inferred dromie features. This turned out to be incorrect. Guess the museum hasn't done renovation or updating of their mounts in recent years.Dinoguy2 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Will redo Ornitholestes some other time. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] diplodocus size comparison diagram

Thoughts? It's a vector image, so quite easily modifiable. Debivort 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very excellent, Debivort. I very much like how you show the bones inside very accurately. You've got exactly 19 cervical vertebrae, which is correct. This is... wow. Very nice! The front half looks just excellent.

However, the tail appears too long. According to my sources, there are supposed to be around 80 caudal vertebrae, while your illustration appears to show well over 100 (I stopped counting around 90). The tail on your illustration appears to be longer than the neck and body combined, and that can't be right; it should be considerably longer than the neck, but not that much longer. Maybe if the last 20 or so caudal vertebrae were shown a little smaller, it would shrink up the tail end. This is very close, but the tail is just too long, I think. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. 82 or 83 caudal vertebrae I think now. Just to reassure you that I hadn't gone off the deep end tail-wise, I was working largely off this image. Debivort 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the tail was right the first time. I'm not sure about the cerv. vert. count, but the former image looks more like Scott Hartman's reconstruction (he's working on a paper re-evaluating Supersaurus and a load of other sauropod stuff, and has released a ton of extremely rigorous diplodocid skeletals to go with it [3]).Dinoguy2 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I was looking at the Diplodocus mount at the Senckenberg Museum, and the tail there is not any longer than the head and body combined, but if there are more recent reconstructions, then I apologise. Looks like the first one goes up after all! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That explains it. A lot of museum mounts were put up before the whip-tail was discovered in diplodocids. Compare the old and new AMNH Apatosaurus mounts, for example: the new tail has got to be at least twice as long as the old.Dinoguy2 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it's a vector image, have you considered actually uploading it in .svg format? Circeus 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never been able to get fonts to render correctly with SVG, whether they are embedded or not. Problems like not having the text render in the thumbnail at all, or the full size taking significantly longer to render to screen than PNG equivalents seem unavoidable. I am actually of the fairly strong opinion that it is an inferior format, but would love to hear an eloquent defense of it. Debivort 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mononykus and Agilisaurus version 2 + Heterodontosaurus and Metriorhynchus

Mononykus redrawn based on the skeletal recontruction pointed out by Dinoguy. Scuteless Agilisaurus. ArthurWeasley 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You've done a very nice job on the Heterodontosaurus; I particularly like the way you illustrated the infratemporal fenestra (the hole behind the eye socket). Agilisaurus looks nice, here, without the scutes (or, rather, the texture that looked a bit like scutes). Thanks! I'll let Dinoguy weigh in on Mononykus, if he's available. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good! The new Agilisaurus is spot-on, and I love the heterodontosaur, especially from a stylistic standpoint (very contrasty, makes it pop). The new Mononykus is sooo close to perfect I almost feel like a jerk pointing out that the dewclaw on the foreground foot is on the wrong side :) One little line in there should fix it, though. I really like the croc too, though I can't vouch for or against it.Dinoguy2 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The dewclaw, oops, what I was thinking? Now it's fixed (used same file name). Thanks. ArthurWeasley 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torvosaurus and Liliensternus

Two new theropod drawings. ArthurWeasley 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Torvosaurus

Liliensternus

These are both very well done. My initial impression was that the arms of Torvosaurus were a bit too long, but after reviewing the skeletal reconstructions, it looks just fine to me. I particularly like the nice attention to detail on both of the skulls, Arthur. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both look very good. The Torv's skull strikes me as a bit too small, but overall I think it's ok.Dinoguy2 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barosaurus

v.1

v.2

v.3

Thoughts? Debivort 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!! Impressive. I'll let the experts comment on the accuracy of the reconstruction, but esthetically, this is very nice. ArthurWeasley 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that aesthetically, this is a very nice image. The tail worries me a bit; there is something odd about the base of the tail, like it is raised too high. Sauropod neck flexibility is a touchy subject, with different paleontologists debating the actual flexibility, so that part does not worry me. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This was based on the Scott Hartman skeletal, particularly since Dinoguy vouched for them: [4]. Mine is a bit higher than his, but not much, compared to what seems the be the "normal" diplodocid posture outside of barosaurus. I can fix it if you think his reconstruction is too high to begin with, or if I should take his as an upper bound for a realistic construction. Debivort 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the reconstructions are just fine; I think, though, that the base of the tail on your sketch is a bit too high, as it looks almost as if the spine is broken there. I think it is an otherwise lovely image otherwise, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A new version with less lumpy tail Debivort 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the neck position. The current debate is about overall position--whether they could hold their heads high in a gentle s-curve or not. Extreme, almost snake-like flexibility of only a small portion of the neck as you have it would probably require some prettym assive dislocation at about the spot where the neck passes the first tree. Unfortunately, the pose is implausible no matter which side of the neck debate you're on, to the best of my knowledge. (The tail is ok, I think--it starts to get real bendy at the spot where all the chevrons and restricting bone processes get small and vanish, as you'd expect. This [5] [6] is probably a better guide for near-max neck flexibility.Dinoguy2 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Significantly stiffer neck. Good thing he was pointed in the direction of that frond - might have starved to death otherwise. Debivort 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great!Dinoguy2 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einiosaurus, Lystrosaurus, Elasmosaurus

Three more... ArthurWeasley 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Einiosaurus

Lystrosaurus

Elasmosaurus

just noticed that somebody has already posted three of my last five drawings under review on their corresponding articles. Please remove them if necessary. ArthurWeasley 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Einiosaurus: the bottle cap opening dinosaur!" All three of these appear quite accurate. No objections here! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Look good to me! The Eini's front legs should sprawl a bit more (like the Lystrosaurus)... but it's hard to notice and I guess is technically still debatable, though one or two new papers coming out should put this to bed.Dinoguy2 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Will leave the Einosaurus as is then...ArthurWeasley 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lambeosaurus

v.1

Immature individual grazing on tasty Cretaceous flowers. Debivort 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While technically it is very good, anatomically there are a lot of problems. Some of the ways the animals are bent/contorted are anatomically impossible (dinosaurs, like birds, had very rigid bodies, especially hadrosaurs, which were reinforced front-to-back with stiffening bony tendons). The tails, especially, would have broken if bent too far out of a flat-as-a-board pose. The tails were also pretty compressed laterally, and overall the animals look a bit too "fat". The leg on the juvenile is out of articulation at the hip and knee--the upper leg couldn't bend that far and the lower leg couldn't slant outward like that. The opposite problem with the rearing individual. The upper leg couldn't felx backward nearly wnough to create a human-like upright stance. While hadrosaurs might have been able to walk bipedally, it would be more a matter of lifting their front feet off the ground and retaining their horizontal posture than of rearing up very much.

I know perspective drawings like this (front on, odd angles, etc.) are very tough to get right (which is why I hardly ever try them, heh). On the more nitpicky side, the spinal ridges are too short (related to the fact that they're not compressed enough laterally, lambeosaurs had almost sail-like back verts) and the eye is a bit too big (Parasaurolophus has about the same proportions, not that the entire eyeball goes inside the hole of the sclerotic ring) [7]). Oh, one last thing (sorry to be so anal! ;)). The fingers are too seperate--hadrosaurs front feet were like "hooves", with all the fingers save one bound together in a "mitten", creating crescent-shaped footprints.Dinoguy2 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Aah, sad. Looks like back to square one. I think I should not try to be so extrapolatory with the posing, and just give the more standard views. Still, it's amazing that these things could function as stiffly as you are describing them. Debivort 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dinoguy's pretty much said everything here. I'll just add that artistically, it's very good, but the poses look quite awkward; as Dinoguy says, side views are probably a lot easier. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Awkward? hehe. An animal that can't bend its tail 20° without breaking it - that's awkward. Sarcasm aside, I'll work on a new version. Debivort 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you know why they're extinct. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably quite awkward-looking in life, yes. A lot of dinosaurs would have to have moved in jerky, bird-like motions, I think, especially theropods. Birds and some non-bird dinosaurs were basically stiff boxes with equally stiff extremities pegged on. The arms and necks of most dinosaurs were probably the mot mobile parts (and the tails in families that did not have them stiffened, such as the extra-flexible whip-tails of some sauropods).Dinoguy2 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olorotitan and Tsintaosaurus

I love hadrosaurs...ArthurWeasley 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Olorotitan

Tsintaosaurus

Both look fine to me. The Olorotitan is quite cool, don't see that one restored very often. Last I heard there's still some debate over whether the crest of Tsintaosaurus is real or a displaced nasal bone, though I'm not sure if any relevant papers have come out on it since Buffetaut & Tong-Buffetaut (1993) defended the presence of a crest, saying the same structure was found in two skeletons.Dinoguy2 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Olorotitan looks great; if only we had an image like that for all the better-known hadrosaurids!

Well just add the names in the most wanted images list. ArthurWeasley 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as Tsintaosaurus goes, in 2004, Godefroit et al. published The lambeosaurine dinosaur Amurosaurus riabinini, from the Maastrichtian of Far Eastern Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49(4): 585–618 (full PDF here), and, while they do not specifically mention the nasal crest, they discuss Tsintaosaurus throughout the work and refer to the Buffetauts' paper (it's listed in the reference section). I haven't seen anything more recent on this dinosaur. As far as the illustration goes, the caption can simply read "Tsintaosaurus depicted with nasal crest." (or something to that effect). Our current article already discusses the crest debate, anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all these info. Since I couldn't find any new info on the status of the nasal crest, I've chosen to go by the classic rendering of the animal (which reproduces as you probably noticed the exact pose of the skeleton as displayed in the Beijing National Museum, replica is displayed here).ArthurWeasley 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scelidosaurus and Hypsilophodon

Some classic old dinos. ArthurWeasley 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus

Hypsilophodon

Well, in my opinion, you have truly outdone yourself with Scelidosaurus, Arthur. It's really artistically excellent. Scelido is one of my all-time favorite dinosaurs; the pose is, in my opinion, just striking. I would like to see the beak a bit more pointed, but this is just awesome. You got a really nice pose from that angle, and I don't know how you did it. Congratulations. One problem I can see developing is that we will now have four images for the Scelidosaurus page, which is really just a stub. I am now planning a major expansion so that this additional image can be incorporated into the page. The pose of Hypsilophodon also looks good. One worry I have, though, is about the head. At least on my monitor, the orbit, the eyesocket, appears empty. Could just be that my monitor is too dark. Also, it was my understanding that Hypsilophodon had "cheek pouches", whereas here, the face appears quite gaunt. It could be that my sources are just old... maybe a second opinion is needed here. The gaunt face, coupled with the dark eye socket, in my opinion make it look a bit like he's recently deceased. Is there a way you can "bring out" the eye a little more? Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are excellent! I second Firsfron's comments on the Scelidosaurus, you've pulled off that perspective brilliantly. The Hypsie looks fine to me--it is a bit gaunt-looking, but this strikes me as more an artistic choice than an inaccuracy. I can see the small glint on the eye on my screen so it's apparent you've just gone with a dark-colored eye here, though with Firsfron's problem it might be a good idea to make the glint a little bigger (and maybe "lighten" the edges of the eyeball just a bit?). There is still controversy over whether or not ornithischians had fleshy, puch-like ("mammalian-style") cheeks or simply stretchy skin rear of the beak (the latter would result in the gaunt look you've given it). I've actually seen artists go so far as to have the "cheek" be composed of that inset jaw muscle/flap you always see restored on theropods (the name escapes me), so I thnk you're in the clear.Dinoguy2 13:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus is one my favorite too. How I did it? Well, I've drawn it on a sunday morning when I was still fresh (don't have much of these) and spend a wee more time on it than the others (Comparatively, most of the sketches were done quite late in the evening after sending my kids to bed), that probably explains it. Hypsilophodon was a quickly made one, I concede. I can modify slightly its look if you want, no problem. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jinfengopteryx

Drawing of Jinfengopteryx, after photos of the fossil, the non-reconstructed skeletal in the paper, and Scott Hartman's skeletal. Had to photoshop a bit to get rid of smudges, shadows, etc. Hope it doesn't look too wonky due to this...Dinoguy2 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jinfengopteryx

Size comparison chart

I really love the detailed work you've done on the feathers, Dinoguy. This must have taken quite a bit of time. Thank you. As for the accuracy, clearly you know more than anyone here about feathered dinosaurs, so I won't comment on this aspect except to mention the scale appears to be very close to illustrations such as this. I don't think the photoshopping has left any wonky bits. In other words, looks great to me! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a quick photoshop job to fix a few details that were bothering me (snout and rear foot looked too robust).Dinoguy2 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinoguy, part of my artistic inspiration came from your drawings...ArthurWeasley 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered! Glad I could help :D Dinoguy2 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lambeosaurus take 2

v2.1	size comparison

One good thing about profile views is that they make a size comparison figure very easy to generate. Debivort 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent, nice job! Yeah, the size charts are pretty simple to make. I'll probably go through my art folders and whip a few up for any longer articles that could use them.Dinoguy2 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, Dinoguy. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypsi again, Segisaurus, Sellosaurus, Thecodontosaurus

I've modified Hypsilophodon to a less gaunty face. The only known Segisaurus skeleton lacks the skull so I loosily based it on Coelophysis. Firs, you'll need to add some more entries to the list of the most wanted pictures (it's empty now).ArthurWeasley 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypsilophodon v.2

Segisaurus

Sellosaurus

Thecodontosaurus

They all look fine to me--I like how the new eye came out on the Hypsie :) Only nitpick is that the Sellosaurus has one too few toes, I think (should have one dewclaw-like toe on each side of the three functional toes).Dinoguy2 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all lovely, of course. My particular favorite is the Thecodontosaurus; you've really captured the enigmatic nature of this animal. Also, I will gladly come up with a new list; I didn't think you'd be finished quite so soon. You dinosaur artists are just too prolific! :) Expect a new list later today. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scale diagrams

First batch. Any glaring problems?Dinoguy2 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sauroposeidon	Psittacosaurus	Deinonychus	Caudipteryx
Juravenator

Nice. You've chosen quite a tall man as a reference (seems to be 1m85-1m90)... Not that it matters. ArthurWeasley 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem may be the pose of that stock image, as the feet aren't in a flat lateral profile. If I adjusted the heels down to the bottom grid line it might be a bit more normal in height. I was gonig for a 1.85 m (6ft 1 in) figure, which is my height :)Dinoguy2 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does the Psittacosaurus image come from? The hind legs look really strange (of course, Psittaco really looked strange, so...) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's this one [8]. The hind legs do look pretty skinny (theropodian even heh). I'll see if I can make them look a bit more normal in the diagram.Dinoguy2 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noasaurus

I guess we must be doing well re: illustrations if the most wanted genera are only known from skeletons like Noasaurus': [9]. Debivort 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks very good! Basing pictures on terrible remains is very fun for an artist, though, isn't it? I can't really complain about anything in the anatomy since there's no anatomy to complain about! ;) (Though most recent illustrations i've seen give it a more Masiakasaurus-like skull, since they were closely related.)Dinoguy2 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The length is correct, in terms of how long it is projected to be. The reason I requested this image is that many (or most) illustrations on-line still depict this animal with the now-discredited Velociraptor-like swiveling toe-claw. Sorry if this was really difficult. We still have many, many better known genera without illustrations, I assure you, Debivort! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as DG suggested, the lack of constraint made it pretty easy to draw him. Version 2 here has a more Masiakasaurish skull. Debivort 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I can't see a difference between the two versions (not that version 1 was bad!). Maybe you uploaded incorrectly?Dinoguy2 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The files look to be what I intended. The difference is in the lower jaw which is more uniformly triangular and less "L" shaped, and the articulation point is further back. Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant about how it should look more like Masiakasaurus. Debivort 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. The main feature I meant was Masiakasaurus distinctive down-turned lower jaw tip with protruding teeth (probably an adaptation for fishing).Dinoguy2 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I guess my inclination is to keep the skull looking more generic, rather than add traits that might be false positives. That said, I'm happy to change it if you think that version would be preferable. Debivort 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sellosaurus, Stenopelix, Venaticosuchus

Added missing extra digits to Sellosaurus. Firs, your new list of the most wanted is somewhat challenging. I've drawn Stenopelix with the assumption that it was some kind of basal Pachycephalosaur. Since skull is unknown, I tried to make it appear as a primitive version of Pachyceph without the dome. Body shape is based on the skeletal reconstruction on the www.dinosauromorpha.de page. Did not find much info about Venaticosuchus either. I used the skull you pointed out at [10], rest of the body is based on the more famous Ornithosuchus. ArthurWeasley 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sellosaurus

Stenopelix

Venaticosuchus

Artistically, these are, as usual, excellent. Venaticosuchus is known mostly from skull elements; in such cases, you can always just illustrate the head. The Ornithosuchidae are probably bipedal (Wikipedia's article on Venaticosuchus indicates it was quadrupedal, but I don't know where that info comes from). Skeletal reconstructions of Ornithosuchus such as this indicate a bipedal stance. The body of your Venaticosuchus looks short enough that it looks like it could walk on all fours or rear up on its hind legs, so I have no objections; dunno what Dinoguy thinks. As far as Stenopelyx goes, I apologize. Going by the skeletal reconstruction on dinosauromorpha.de, I assumed a full skeleton was known. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that Ornithosuchidae were strictly bipedal is debatable. The skeletal reconstruction you pointed out shows that the hind legs bones were not as sturdy as for instance the theropods and comparatively short. A bipedal reconstruction of the animal such as this shows that the animal must have been quite cumbersome if it has to go strictly on two feet. The head is quite big and the body quite long to be effectively counterbalanced by the tail for long period of time, that's why I have the feeling that they must have been only occasional bipeds but most often rest on 4 feet. This is of course a personal opinion and I won't challenge what experts would say. I can redraw a Venaticosuchus on two legs if you prefer (or just cut the head, this would be much easier :). ArthurWeasley 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, don't redraw! I was just commenting that in your illustration, it looked like he ould go either way, which, is, IMO, ideal. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that the idea of bipedal rauisuchians has been pretty well debunked in recent years, but I'm not sure on the current thinking regarding ornithosuchids. I think the way you've drawn it is actually a very good comprimise, as it looksl ike it could be a faculative biped if it tried. This would be in-line with the possibility of partially-quadrupedal lagosuchians, which are a bit more advanced.Dinoguy2 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

it has been happening quite a lot arround here :P i am sorry for disapearing like that. I wanted to ask you. since the list of dinosaurs for the CD is already finished. i was thinking on going back to the normal alfabetical list. unless you have anything that you need done. if so please let me know.. once again sorry for disapearing LadyofHats 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

LadyofHats, it's good to have you back. I've seen your beautiful drawings and hope you will continue illustrating dinos for wikipedia. In order to coordinate efforts between different artists we have created a page at User:ArthurWeasley/To do list which has a list of the current most wanted illustrations. If you want to draw one of these you can sign up for it and let other people know that you are working or will be working on it not to duplicate efforts. Again, welcome back. ArthurWeasley 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks. i will take the Zalmoxes to start with :D LadyofHats 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're going in reverse alphabetical order now ;)? Note, that the list is here to help us decide what to do next but you are not strictly abide to choose from it. You can draw any dinosaur you fancy at the moment, just let the others know about it. ArthurWeasley 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lady of Hats! Good to have you back! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sauroposeidon

[here]is the sketch -LadyofHats 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

oh man is it huge!

It looks very good! Sauroposeidon is only known from four vertebrae, though. Did you want to do one of those blackoutline ones, or...? Another question: is it possible for you to draw a human shape in comparison for this one? That way, even though the look itself is somewhat speculative, at least the size itself could be perceived. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

life seems to not like me :P In any case, after sooo long.. i hope i can find time to work a bit more here. to answer your questions. i wasnt thinking on those as siluetes. but since you wanted one i made it :D. LadyofHats 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Looks great! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhabdodon

Another dinosaur known from very scrappy remains. ArthurWeasley 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rhabdodon

It appears to closely resemble the skeletal reconstruction here, so no accuracy issues for me. :) Enough fossils have been found to produce a composite skeleton that's about 50% complete; it's not like I requested Laornis or one of the tooth taxa! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! And yeah, nearly 50% complete is not exactly "scrappy" for a dinosaur ;) Dinoguy2 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the skull and neck are missing, and there are only a few bones for the limbs. That's room for a lot of imagination. All we know is that it was probably related to Tenontosaurus so you give it a Tenontosaurus-like look, but what if it had frills or a crest or anything else out of "normal" for an iguanodont? After all Sauropods were all thought to be quite alike until the likes of Amargasaurus with its incredible sail, Shunosaurus with its club tail and Agustinia with its stegosaur-like spikes were discovered. But I agree that 50% complete is way more than a tooth taxon and "scrappy materials" may have been too strong a statement. Sorry about that. Question: of the 1300 and so genera listed, how many of them are actually known by more than 50% of the skeleton? ArthurWeasley 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no need to apologise! Dinoguy possibly has better insights into this than I do, and I can't actually comment on exact percentages, but the Dinosaur Genera List claims 630 well-established names, and the rest are nomina dubia, preoccupied, rejected, nomina oblita (sp?), or junior synonyms. This, of course, assumes "well-established" means something like "known from a relatively complete skeleton", which may not be the case. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zalmoxes

Here is the sketch. let me know if you hva no corrections to make the color version :D LadyofHats 12:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, only two issues I have--Zalmoxes should have three small fingers and two tiny ones [11], yours looks like it has four of equal size. Also, was the beak really that broad? I can't find any head-on views of the skull, but my guess is that it would be similar to Iguanodon [12]. Artistically this is one of your best, LadyoH. I really, really like the way you handled the skin texture with minimal drawn scales and lots of suggestive shading. Very cool! Dinoguy2 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thescelosaurus and Volaticotherium

I came across the paper on the discovery of this early mesozoic gliding mammal (Volaticotherium) in the last issue of Nature before realizing that somebody has already made an entry about it on wikipedia. Things move so fast! The head is based on the sketch of the skull from the Nature paper. ArthurWeasley 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)