From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Approved images 1.1 Guanlong wucaii by Dracontes 1.2 Velociraptor by Dinoguy2 1.3 Baby Trike by Sheep81 1.4 Heterodontosaurus Pics by Sheep81 1.5 Prenoceratops pieganensis 1.6 Abrictosaurus 1.7 Abrosaurus 1.8 Velociraptor Scale Diagram 1.9 Edmontonia

[edit] Approved images

[edit] Guanlong wucaii by Dracontes

Let me try hanging this one right here and see if it doesn't fall ;-) I rather think the Zhongda Zhang pic in Guanlong should be substituted in earnest. This was a bit rushed and the shading is not to my liking but I can correct it to some extent. I also took a few liberties in my interpretation but I don't terribly mind doing another one: I need the practice and the focus. Dracontes 10:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing wrong with it anatomically, and the technique is very good. As I mentioned before you might consider upping the contrast a bit, other than that I'd give it the OK. I think the press release image is probably better for the taxobox as it's a full-body perspective and color, but yours would be fine in the body of the article, I think.Dinoguy2 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I really like it. I will chime in with Dinoguy here and say I'd prefer the full-body image be used for the taxobox, so people get an idea of what the whole body might have looked like. Your close-up of the head is quite lovely, though, Dracontes, and would make a great addition to the body of the article.

Is it possible you would create some for the dinosaurs which have no images? There are hundreds. I just wonder what made you decide to do this dinosaur in particular. Thanks again for this lovely image. I'm sure we can put it to good use. --Firsfron 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

People said it has somewhat flat and that the dirty background didn't flatter it so I grabbed my pencils, eraser, scanner, computer mouse and reworked the bugger during this weekend. Now this includes a better scan job and a whole lot of image treatment in Adobe Photoshop and PaintShop Pro 9.

First of all, thanks for the feedback :-)

Dinoguy2, I hope the contrast isn't up too much, I may've exaggerated a triffle in that respect.

Firsfron, fine by me, "Head detail with different interpretation of crest" would be a good caption. I'm in a Guanlong binge right now so would you like one of the animal sleeping curled up like Mei long or scratching its head all bird-like?

Actually it was just artistical whim: I spent €4.25 in a 500-sheet ream of printer paper for my drawing needs and decided the first thing I would do when I got home would be to take the top sheet and draw up something. Then it somehow came to me that Guanlong had been under-illustrated, as seemingly everyone respects paleoartist Zhongda Zhang, of whom I've never heard about before and for lack of a better thing to do... I do hope however that my reworking of it hasn't taken the brilliance out of it.

Dracontes 10:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version looks great! Well done.Dinoguy2 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done! I made a bit of a mess so feel free to correct it... Dracontes 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well now that the image seems to have been accepted, do we remove it from this page? Or what? Sheep81 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just list new images above this one and eventually archive if the page gets too long? I'm not familiar with the procedure on similar pages.Dinoguy2 02:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velociraptor by Dinoguy2

Image Submitted for your approval- I did this drawing of V. mongoliensis based on Scott Hartman's skeletal reconstruction [1] (he was very rigorous about the measurements, etc on this one. It's partially based on unpublished material, though), specifically for the Velociraptor collaboration. Thoughts?Dinoguy2 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks really good. Only one minor issue I have is that it's based off unpublished material. Who knows if it's actually Velociraptor? In fact, it even says the skull is based on IGM 100/1015, which is not V. mongoliensis but a new species. Then again, as long as you get the head right, the rest of their bodies were all pretty similar so it probably doesn't matter.Sheep81 08:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe the caption should be changed to V. sp or just Velociraptor for now? On the off chance IGM 100/1015 is not Velociraptor, it will have to be moved to another article.Dinoguy2 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really beautiful, Dinoguy. I mean it. It's really awesome. You're quite an artist. And I didn't know the lovely image of Amphicoelias that graces our pages was yours. About this Velociraptor picture... the tail seems really too long. In the reconstruction, the tail is approximately the same length as the rest of the body. However, in your drawing, the tail is much, much longer. Even accounting for feathers, it seems to me that the tail is far too long, even accounting for the angle the rest of the body is at. Otherwise, lovely picture. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! The tail was actually pretty easy to shorten in Photoshop. New version is uploaded.Dinoguy2 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's shorter? --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be, might have to do a ctrl-refresh or something to see the changes.Dinoguy2 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Trike by Sheep81

Here is the one picture I have uploaded from my recent visit to Berkeley. It is a baby Triceratops skull. The real specimen (consisting of the back half of the skull) is in the UC Museum of Paleontology collection. This cast is mounted in the library. I took a picture comparing it to the much larger adult skull mounted next to it, but the picture was blurry, unfortunately. More images to come as I upload them over the next few days.Sheep81 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really unique, Sheep. I wish the front of the face was actually known! Regarding the image itself: I suppose I'm being picky here, but as with some of Ballista's images, I think a quick edit might be advisable. The picture should, in my opinion, really either include the entire description plate, or none of it. The current picture shows half of it. I would recommend a crop to remove the rest of it, or, ideally, if you have an original showing the whole description plate and skull, that could be substituted. JMHO, as always. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a real 'GOODY'. I agree ref. simple cropping (& perhaps a tad 'brighter'?) but otherwise brill! - Ballista 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Better? Sheep81 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice now, thanks - Ballista 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heterodontosaurus Pics by Sheep81

Two pictures of my favorite dinosaur, Heterodontosaurus, taken on my latest visit to Berkeley. This is just mounted in the hallway of the life sciences building next to a bunch of other fossils... pretty cool. It's a cast, the original is in London. There was considerable glare on the full skeleton picture, most of which I took care of. Sheep81 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

These are great. Heterodontosaurus desperately needs images - I would vote for the close-up to go in the Taxobox. - Ballista 04:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That article desperately needs a lot of things... ah well, one day. I think you are right about the taxobox. Sheep81 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, these are great. One thing you might want to consider, just as an option, is doing a cut-out of the head, so that the article looks like it has two separate photos instead of one (+1 close-up). I only offer this as an option. I would love to see the close-up in the taxobox, as Ballista suggests, but the full-body shot must go on the page as well. Nice work! --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, I think it's great just the way it is. --Firsfron of Ronchester 16:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree ref. both going in - just hadn't expressed myself clearly - now assume the bit Firsfron wants to 'scratch' is the bit about decapitation (i.e. not to scratch the recommendation to insert the images!). Whoops - forgot to sign! - Ballista 16:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant scratch the part about doing a cut-out. --Firsfron of Ronchester 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prenoceratops pieganensis

hi, i am working on a posible ilustration on the page Prenoceratops. yet i am having some problems with my sources so i thought you could help me. you see here and here it apears with shorter front legs. but here and here it apears with long thin legs. i took the second one becouse it is a picture of the bones, and yet i am not sure becouse the foto is so small.

Another thing i do not get is how many fingers it has. since in none of the sources apears clearly enough.

here is what i have done so far. it would be great to have your opinion... i wouldnt mind some new sources either.. :)LadyofHats 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

i made some changes. made the head biger and placed the figure a bit more dinamic. ( i still dont have clear how the feet should be). [here] you can see how things go. thankyou for the feedback.LadyofHats 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After a careful examination of the body, it does look pretty similar to the third link you provided. However, there should be no grass. Grass evolved during the Cenozoic [2], after this beastie became extinct. I'm also worried that the eye is overly large, but will research this.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected, the eye on your latest drawing is a bit too large, giving the animal a "cute factor". Also, according to this site, Psittacosaurus, not too distantly related, had four functional toes on the back legs, and three main "fingers" with two reduced side digits on the front legs. Hope this helps! Thanks for working on this image; we still are in need of many images. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would you go off-site to look up Psittacosaurus when we have a very nice featured article right here? Hmm? :)

Psittacosaurus does not in fact have five fingers on its hand, it has four. However, all other ceratopsians (including Prenoceratops) have five fingers and four toes. As for the rest of the skeleton, it has not been described yet. An entire skeleton is not known, just assorted bonebed material, all of which is from juveniles. However, the original paper did say that the material looks very similar to Leptoceratops so you might want to use that as a guide for the body. If anyone wants a PDF of the description I have it here.Sheep81 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I knew I'd get busted for that. Actually, I wasn't going off-site to look up Psittacosaurus: I Googled "Ceratopsian"+"manus" and came up with that site. Our current article on Ceratopsia doesn't seem to include digit information (Ceratopsians and Ankylosaurs had 5 in the front, 4 in the back, but I wanted a link). And, Psittacosaurus is a bit of a freak. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• i did had a look at the Leptoceratops it helped me quite a lot to understand how the bone structure of the head conects to the body. ( since in the other images i had it was looking rather funny) in any case [here] is the result. i made the eye smaller and more round, removed the grass, and worked in a hand with 3 fingers and 2 reduced side digits. ( i placed them to the outside like dogs have them). if you have any more changes let me know.. oh yes and about the "cute factor" i have been told quite often already that all my drawings have it.. even when i draw monsters :PLadyofHats 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

oh yes.. if you think the image doesnt need more changes let me know, do not post it yet. since i have a better resolution file. the one above is just for showing :) LadyofHats 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

I like it. I'm not sure what anyone else will think, but I think you have a very nice image here. The cuteness factor is reduced, there's no grass, the tail is short, just as shown in the model pictures. The coloring and shading seem really realistic to me. The frill looks very much like the sample drawings. The parrot-like beak is absolutely correct. This gets my vote, and I really look forward to additional pictures! Thank you! Anyone else? --Firsfron of Ronchester 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • placed the image on the article. but i can still change it at any time.LadyofHats 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to administer myself a wiki-slapped-wrist for coming in so late on this. I have kept out of these discussions, for the reasons I have mentioned. As I have already explained, my knowledge and expertise on actual detailed dinosaur form (& flesh reconstruction) is vestigial. BUT, this image is presented in such glorious detail that a couple of points/questions occur to me, that I shall put to the assembled company. 1. In terms of the usual evolution of the pentadactyl limb (and I don't know the answer to my question!) would the vestigial digits have both been lateral (i.e. IV & V) as in pic, or would it have been more likely that the functional ones were II, III & IV? If one digit goes absent or vestigial, as in dogs for e.g., it's usually digit I (i.e. medial). 2. With ref. to the eye (& I assume that no-one can actually know the final answer to this question) might it be logical to assume that the reptile/crocodile model is more likely than the mammal model? If agreed, that would add a more 'devilish' air to the pic, as well. As I said, these issues only arise because of the courageous detail clarity that is proffered. I feel utterly 'out of order' in bringing up these questions at the 13th hour. In case handy, websites with potentially useful eye pics are:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

- Ballista 11:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry, better too late and right, than never :D...1.- i have readed the article and in some sence i agree in your question, it was also in the Abrictosaurus that the small fingers where the I and the II. but when i think in the human hand the smallest finger is on the outside (V). what i could do is to take the hand down and do not show it. unless someone has a better source on it. 2.-i actually took no mammal model for the eye. but if you want a diferent one please [here] you can chose your favorite reptilian eye, and i will do my best to do it ;).LadyofHats 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my comment/queries - however, I would not wish to appear to be an authority on this, when I am not - should we await the comments of others, who usually come on line in a few hours time, before acting on this? Ref. the digits, the human confusion I can understand. It's because the human hand can be rotated, i.e. 'ulna' and 'radius' can slide/twist over one another, which cannot happen in most creatures, in whom they are either bound tightly together by strong ligamentar attachments or are actually fused. This means that, when the human hand is 'thumb outwards', the radius and ulna lie parallel. When 'thumb in', the radius and ulna partially cross and are not parallel (which is permanently the case in most animals). This is one of the potential problems of calling it a 'hand', when it's a front foot, in effect.

Neat collection of eyes - I suggest any one of A1, C1, C5, D2, D4, E2, E3, or my first URL that I put in my first message (crocodile eye). However, it's all conjecture, of course!

Over to you :-) - Ballista 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: There's also the eye of Velociraptor in

, as per our Velociraptor article.

Digits are numbered from the inside out. In humans, it is when your hand is pronated (most other animals' forefeet are permanently pronated). So your thumb would be I, all the way to your pinky, which is V. Mammals frequently lose or shrink digits I and V. However, the same is not true in dinosaurs. The smaller digits on a ceratopsian forefoot are indeed IV and V. I is about half the length of II, but just as thick. II is the longest, with III close behind. Only I through III would have contacted the ground. IV and V were vestigial and were on their way out (as seen in theropods), until something allowed ceratopsids to explode in size, and they became needed for support again. In ceratopsids, IV and V were still very short but thickened and would have contacted the ground. If you are drawing any dinosaur and want to know which fingers were shortest, it is a good bet that it would be IV and V (if they are even present). It is also a good bet that II is the longest. Sheep81 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Great exposition, thanks indeed - I knew I was out of my depth (other than knowing the 'thumb' is digit I) - thanks for rescuing me - I shouldn't have opened my mouth in ignorance about which ones would go vestigial in dinos. Any opinion to help us ref. eyes? - Ballista 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one more dinosaur finger fun fact--one thing I always, always, always seen done wrong is sauropod feet (Darren Naish recently wrote about this). All eusauropods had zero digits on their front feet. They walked basically on modified palm-stubs. Most did retain the thumb claw, but when the thumb was lost it became fused to the metacarpal in some werid way with unknown fuction. Just for future reference :) Dinoguy2 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, just chiming in about the eye thing--remember that a "slit" pupil vs. "round" pupil is functional. Slit pupils usually occur only in nocturnal-hunting animals (many crocs, some lizards) as they are an adaptation to low light conditions. For most herbivorous dinosaurs, I'd go with a more standard round (though i'm not sure what the function of the horizontal-slit eyes in goats and relatives are for, but there's not seen much outside mammals so I'd shy away from them. (Almost?) all bird eyes (including uber-nocturnal hunters like owls) are round too, so round is probably the way to go, pupil-wise.Dinoguy2 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, caprines (goats, sheep, and cousins) have horizontal pupils for use in climbing. Horizontal pupils collect more light along a horizontal plane, meaning that when a goat moves its eyes up or down, it can more easily pick out crevices and ledges at elevations above and below it. They also have tall heads with relatively short snouts so that their vision is less impeded by the snout, giving them near-binocular vision, which is also useful in climbing as it allows you to judge distance better. Caprines are superbly well-adapted for mountainous habitats... haven't even started on their feet or middle ears yet. I have worked with bighorn sheep, which can pretty much sprint up a wall. BTW, octopi and kangaroos also have horizontal pupils, not sure why. Rectangular pupils are also good for night vision, whether horizontal or vertical (see: cats). Sheep81 02:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • so do i change something or not? LadyofHats 22:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC).
    • I think it's good as it is.Sheep81 02:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think I've unintentionally proved my point that I shouldn't comment on drawings! Sorry to have intervened. - Ballista 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abrictosaurus

• ok i was thinking on doing the Abrictosaurus but then again there are some few aspects in wich i would need your opinion. here are the sources i found: [[9]], [[10]] ,[[11]], [[12]],[[13]],[[14]],[[15]].

• • now in the article you mention that none of the skulls found had the "tusks" and indeed none of the bone represantations on the sources had it. but then again all others do have it. so the question is with or without?
  • specially anoying i found [this one] did it had those spikes, or hair like things on head and arms?
  • another thing that i have noticed is that many dinosaur ilustrations have this human siluete for size comparation.. do you want something like that?
  • on the [skull] there is this bone like a needle that croses infront of the eye. is it a horn? or would be more like an eyelid?.. how should it look at the end?, no other source seems to really show it in any way. LadyofHats 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

• • • [here]there is a first sketch, even when i am not convinced by the form of the head. :P any coments accepted LadyofHats 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The head should be more lozenge-shaped, as shown here. As it is now, it's angular, much more like a theropod's. Abricto would have been a herbivore. Less bird-like, a little more turtle-like.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, AFAIK, the specimens of Abricto that have been found did not have the fang-like teeth, so were either female or the genus didn't have them. All spines and such are speculative, and probably shouldn't be added to the picture. It had no horns; that one picture is confusing.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • [here] is the advance. changed the head to make it more turtle like, shorten the head, neck and the body to fix proportion, changed leg position, actually changed the whole position, to have a clear 4 legs walking.

from the pictures i have it has 3 fingers and one small "bump" like a chiken would have.. right? would like to hear your opinion.LadyofHats 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the changes, LadyofHats. The hands: Heterodontosaurus, a closely-related animal, had five fingers. The shortest two are the ones on the outside. The back legs had four digits; the fourth digit was a little bit longer than a bump. The toes on the feet should be longer, less like cat's paws, and more like lizard feet. The animal would have been only 4 feet long, including the tail, if this helps you with scale.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "spike" over the eye is called the palpebral bone and forms a ridge over the eye, underneath the skin. Abrictosaurus is not very well known compared to Heterodontosaurus but probably was pretty similar if you are looking for a model. Sheep81 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • ok, removed thw oversized mushrooms, made the "eyebrow" more marked to show the "palpebral" bone. fixed the feet and hands... and well all the rest. [here] is the final version ( if you dont have any more changes, ofcouse)LadyofHats 12:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The forefingers need to be reduced: maybe not smaller, now, but thinner. The back foot still looks "wrong" to me, somehow. Still too cat-like, I think, although in my opinion the rest looks good. I don't know what the rest think, though. You can kind of see [Heterodontosaurus' foot here] (they were related).--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the small toe is on the outside of the foot instead of the inside. First toe is small, and the fourth toe is the longest (it is the middle of the three which actually contact the ground. Sheep81 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: The little toe should be on the inside of the foot, as opposed to the outside as in the picture. Other than that I really like it! Sheep81 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • actually i found the problem with the legs, while making the whole body more compact they went out of proportion, [here] you can have a look on what i mean. it will take me much longer than i though to fix it :P. I realised the mistake after looking at the [Heterodontosaurus' foot here] and compared with [the one here]...will let you know when it is fixed.LadyofHats 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, now what about [this]LadyofHats 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Really good, although the fourth and fifth fingers are a little long, they should be smaller. Here is a picture of the right hand looking down from the top. So the small fingers would be on the outside. See?Sheep81 20:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, as you can see, the first (inside) should be like half as long as the others but just as thick and with a claw. The fourth and fifth fingers don't have claws at all. Thanks for all your hard work on these pictures!! Sheep81 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • now that i call "THE" source, why didnt we started with that one? :P [here] it is the image. what do you think now? LadyofHats 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC).
    • Actually, now your fingers are the right proportions, but they're in the wrong positions. This is so close! The picture I showed you was of the right hand, meaning that the tiny fingers (IV and V) are on the outside of the hand. Basically you just have to swap the hands. I wrote a bunch about fingers down below under Prenoceratops.
  • somedays i just stand with the wrong foot.. really. [and now]???LadyofHats 23:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC).
    • Looks good to me now. If others approve, I would move it down to the approved images section. Sheep81 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Anatomically it's very good, though the face is, again, a bit anthropomorphic for my tastes, and hard to pin down why. The position of the mouth almost makes it look like he's talking... maybe a closed mouth would look a bit more realistic?Dinoguy2 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe make the beak visible? Sheep81 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think it may need cheeks too.Cas Liber 10:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, looking at wrong image :) Cas Liber 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what you call "anthropomorphic" is the already mention "cute factor" in wich i declare myself guilty it is a style deviation that i would really like to control sometimes. in any case i closed the mouth and changed the eye. even removed some of the shines on it to make it less evident. about the beak i am not completly sure. you see on the webpage it says that none of the skulls found had none, and even when you already mention that it could be that only the male had the beak, it is also posible that none had it. so if the ilustration has no beak it covers the two posibilities (as the ilustration of female without beak or a species without a beak ) so i think it has more posibilities to be acurate.. i mean i dont mind changing the image as often as is necesary but i am not sure if that would be a good idea.[here] you have it. what do you think LadyofHats 10:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Which source says it didn't have a beak? All the images you linked too show one, inlcuding the skeletal. Maybe it meant that parto f the skull was never found? All known ornithischians had beaks, so as far as I know, this one should have too, barring a very bizarre one-time reversal.Dinoguy2 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • my mistake, i confused peak with tusks. :P ...sorry. [here] it is LadyofHats 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC).
    • That is really awesome. I liked the last one but this is even better! Sheep81 06:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So it stays this way? LadyofHats 15:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Abrosaurus

ok, the next one on the list is the Abrosaurus. the sources i have are: [16],[17] and [18] becouse of lack of references i am tempted to only do the head this time. but before starting i wanted to ask if anyone of you would have some other images i could use. i would apreciate the help LadyofHats 13:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

The spines along the back, in the one image, do appear to be correct: [http://personal2.stthomas.edu/jstweet/macronaria.htm this site mentions "split neural spines". I did a google image search, and the three images you have are about it for this dinosaur. Good luck! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just do the head as the body has not been adequately described (neither has the skull, really, but at least we have pictures of it). Sheep81 08:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • have a [look] and tell me what you think.LadyofHats 15:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The nose looks a little big and overall it looks a bit cartoonish. I think the skull should be really boxy with a little step down on the end of the snout. That make sense? Sheep81 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a way to make it look more life-like, and a bit less like Disney's "Dinosaur" movie? The big grin and cute eyes would be perfect for an animated film, but it just doesn't look quite scientific yet, in my opinion. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• ok i took a completly new [aproach] what do you think now? LadyofHats 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

While it still looks a bit... --not really "anthropomorphic", maybe "mammalian"?--, the new one is very good. I think the slightly mammalian look stems from the skin wrinkles around the eye, which sort of imply musculature there (birds and reptiles have tight-skinned, mostly inexpressive faces). Still, a lot of sauropod skulls are pretty weird, so I'm not dead-set against some degree of artistic lisence here.Dinoguy2 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, research by Whitmer and others notes that the nostril position in all tetrapods occurs at the very bottom tip of the bony nasal opening, and there's evidence in sauropods that the soft tissue nasal chamber actually brought the nostril down to the very tip of the snout (contrary to the old "aquatic-sauropod" standby that sauropods had nostrils on top of their head), so yours is probably too high up.Dinoguy2 20:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• When you ask me that of the nose... well... it somehow looks funny :P. [here] it is. you can deside yourself. LadyofHats 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny or not, that latest version is much more scientifically accurate :) The only thing I'd question now is the slight indication of mammal-like flexed cheek musculature at the back corner of the mouth (sauropods, as far as I know, had no cheeks, and certainly not musclular ones).Dinoguy2 01:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• [here] you have.. what about now?
  • Very good! Much more "sauropod-like" now. Dinoguy2 14:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• aded the image into the article, i can still change it if anyone has another comment :P.. i can only say puff puff puff xP.LadyofHats 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velociraptor Scale Diagram

Somebody on Velociraptor requested a scale graph comparing it to a human. I made this using my Velociraptor sketch and the taxobox image from Human. Dinoguy2 17:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really nice, Dinoguy. However, all charts and diagrams should be saved in .png format. The reason is because of pixelation. PNG images of charts and graphs come out cleaner and sharper than JPEGs. There's a lot about this in WP's Image Help section. I hate to ask this... but would it be possible for you to remake this in PNG format, especially as this potential image is going into a Featured Article?--Firsfron of Ronchester 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is always why I save several stages of progress for images ;) I'll re-save the original photoshop file as .png and re-upload.Dinoguy2 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's up. I also modified the skull profile a bit so it's clearly V. mongoliensis and not Norell's velociraptorine, should that turn out to be a new genus.Dinoguy2 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice! And as far as creation and editing of images go: you are exactly right. Saving stages along the way often saves a lot of trouble later. Thanks for the new upload. It really looks great.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edmontonia

still will take some work but i wanted to show it already in case there is a change i can save some time starting to fix it xP. [edmontonia] what do you think?LadyofHats 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

ok here is the final version [edmontonia]LadyofHats 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC).(forgot to sign)

Wow! That's amazingly well done! I'm not sure what everyone else thinks, but I love it (then again, ankylosaurs are among my favorites...)--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ditto; feel free to upload it onto page Cas Liber 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks great! - Ballista 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)