Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive November 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

? 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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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.

Contents 1 Saltasaurus 2 Amargasaurus, Polacanthus and Acrocanthosaurus 3 Pentaceratops, Erlikosaurus, Diplodocus, Corythosaurus 4 More Corythos and Tuojiangosaurus 5 More Dippys and Suchomimus 6 Acrocanthosaurus 7 Sauroposeidon 8 Diplodocus again and Mononykus 9 Shunosaurus, Dilophosaurus, Macrauchenia 10 Agilisaurus, Toxodon, Scutellosaurus, Camelops

[edit] Saltasaurus

Saltasaurus is the next without an image, yet on the net there are only iullustrations and no real skeleton, not even a skull.. do you have any image on a book or so?-LadyofHats 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a page with skeletal reconstructions of several titanosaurs. Unfortunately, Saltasaurus is not among them. I'll look thru my books and see if I can find an actual skeletal reconstruction. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

well my main question is about the legs. since in many from the ilustrations it apears with specially short legs and a low body. is this right?-LadyofHats 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

well, there really wasnt much variety in basic body shape among titanosaurs. I think you use this image [1] very well. These pictures [2] are some of the best illustrations of Saltasaurus on the web. Luis Rey is a famous illustrator, thus you can trust his images. Hope this helps...--Dudo2 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

well i have said it before.. you are the experts :). here is the sketch.. any comments?-LadyofHats 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good image :) the only possible correction I can think of is to make the thigh look a little bit longer more muscular in comparison to the upper arm (like shown on this picture of Rapetosaurus [3]). --Dudo2 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the delay. real life is becoming complicated and i well.. just try to keep up :P

[here] is the image hope you like it... i know it has some quality issues but as i said i am soo short in time latetly.-LadyofHats 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

great image! and thanx for still finding some time for wikipedia, though you're short on time  :) best wishes --Dudo2 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amargasaurus, Polacanthus and Acrocanthosaurus

I've posted 3 images I've drawn on the Amargasaurus, Polacanthus and Acrocanthosaurus pages. Please feel free to remove them if you have any objections concerning the reconstitution (would be nice if you leave me a note though). Personnaly, I don't like the Polacanthus one. Might end up redoing it or wait for a better artist to show up. ArthurWeasley 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the armor on Polacanthus, and you got the spikes, back plate, and tail pretty accurate, as far as I can tell. However, the feet just aren't quite right. They look basically like cylinders: round little stubs, instead of the feet you'd expect to see on a living animal. I googled some sample images, and, while many are highly innaccurate, none show the type of feet you have in your picture. I think you could either rework the feet, or draw some ferns and such to cover them. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and I agree totally. I am removing the polacanthus. I've just made Ouranosaurus. ArthurWeasley 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Looks good to me! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Amargasaurus is nice. I'm glad someone's done Amargasaurus as it is actually known from a reasonably complete skeleton. I reckon it is a good candidate for an FA one day.Cas Liber 06:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentaceratops, Erlikosaurus, Diplodocus, Corythosaurus

Some new images:

Pentaceratops

Erlikosaurus

Diplodocus

Corythosaurus

ArthurWeasley 08:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arthur!

Thanks for your hard work. Here's what I think: The Erlikosaurus you drew is really nice. I would definitely like to see that one on Wikipedia. Pentaceratops looks good. However, the rear end looks a bit strange, too angular. Otherwise, it looks good, and would make a nice addition to the page. Diplodocus needs some work. The back should look arched, while in your drawing, it is almost entirely flat. Also, and there is no delicate way to say this, the head looks positively phallic. Corythosaurus is another good effort, but the body shape just looks off. When compared to [4], you can see the body shape on your drawing is very round or lozenge-shaped, while in this other picture, the body shape roughly resembles a rhombus. Sorry if these comments are/seem overly critical. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work and agree with Firsfron's comments, but would like to add that Erlikosaurus, as member of Maniraptora, was very likely feathered and thus looked more like this [5] than a prosauropod-like animal. --Dudo2 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. They are very useful. Just to explain how I got there: Diplodocus is based on an actual image of a mounted skeleton (not sure from which museum) which actually shows a flat back. The reason I think is because it was mounted with bent back legs. In the drawing I have purposedly straighten them but did not overly arched the back to compensate (my mistake). I wasn't much happy with this one anyway so I'll be happy to redraw it. The other three dinosaurs are directly based from skeletal drawings by Gregory Paul, in which Pentaceratops has this very angular rear end. Erlikosaurus is only known by a skull and some postcranial elements. At the time the skeletal reconstruction was made (2002), Erli was considered to be some kind of "segnosaur" so the general body plan is the one from segnosaurus as it was (uncorrectly) reconstructed at that time. Now these two are believed to belong to the "therizinosaurs" so I think I'll make another one with feathers and big claws. For corythosaurus I am not sure, the picture on dinoruss is a perspective view while I made a side view. ArthurWeasley 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just remade a therizinosaur version with feathers of Erlikosaurus. Will do the rest some other day, it's getting late over here.

New Erlikosaurus

ArthurWeasley 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, excellent! --Dudo2 12:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Erlik looks good! (Is it based on Oyvind Padron's skeletal?) Minor nitpick with a comment above--Erlikosaurus is only known by a skull and some postcranial elements. At the time the skeletal reconstruction was made (2002), Erli was considered to be some kind of "segnosaur" so the general body plan is the one from segnosaurus as it was (uncorrectly) reconstructed at that time. Now these two are believed to belong to the "therizinosaurs" so I think I'll make another one with feathers and big claws. Around the mid-90s it became prettyl clear that segnosaurs and therizinosaurs were the same thing. Beipiaosaurus proved that therizinosaurs/segnosaurs were theropods, not ornithischian-prosauropod intermediates as some had previously thought.

Yes, I used Padron's skeletal as a template. Thanks for the info. The books I have are all a little outdated, guess they were all written before Beipiaosaurus was discovered (was it in 1999?). ArthurWeasley 02:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool -we need a Diplodocus pic for the article so have a play with it and keep us posted. Looks good so far....Cas Liber 09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Corythos and Tuojiangosaurus

I've remade sketches of Corythosaurus. They are based on a different skeletal reconstruction than the previous attempt. See [6] (you have quite a while before finding it). Body shape view from the side is again losange-shape, as on the reconstruction here [7]. The perspective view enhances the angular shape of the back giving a more rhombus shape to the body (my second sketch). I also include Tuojiangosaurus.

Corythosaurus side view

Corythosaurus perspective view

Tuojiangosaurus

Will do diplo again later. Plan to do Baryonyx or Suchomimus, and Tsintaosaurus next. ArthurWeasley 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I like all of those, Arthur. They're really well done. They look good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you like them. Looks like the spot for Pentaceratops and Corythosaurus are already occupied, but I could put Tuojiangosaurus and Erlikosaurus on their respective article, if there is no objection. ArthurWeasley 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

These look really good (not that I'm an ornithischian expert or anything ;)). I support adding Tuojiangosaurus and Erlikosaurus to their respective articles, for what it's worth.Dinoguy2 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Dippys and Suchomimus

I've remade Diplodocus and also had some fun with it. Bob Bakker had this idea that dippy might have had a proboscis so I added a trunk to see how it would look like. Not sure if this could be useful but wanted to show it to you. I've also opted to put some neural spines on the back. Made a fishing Suchomimus as well. ArthurWeasley 06:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Diplodocus	Diplodocus skull	Classic rendering of diplodocus head	diplodocus with proboscis
Suchomimus

While the neck on the full body view is probably way too flexible/snake-like, I really like the head profiles. The trunk thing has been debunked in one or two recent papers IIRC, but might be interesting in an article section discussing this historical curiosity. Oh, and the nostril should be much closer to the tip of the snout. The whole "nostril on top of the head" thing was disproved by Whitmer and I think most modern researchers agree with him. Most likely the fleshy nostril was connected to the bony naris by some sort of canal or resonating chamber, as evidenced by scarring on the bone.Dinoguy2 05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the full body one, Dinoguy's right, the trunk is now unlikely. Would be good to find ref for spines...........Cas Liber 05:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Did you want to colorise it? If so, I guess most large thingies are grey/brown if mammals are anything to go by..Cas Liber 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. Dinoguy, could you be more precise on where the nostril should be. Right at the tip or halfway through? Cas, I like it BW. Gives more room to imagination. ArthurWeasley 06:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My rendering of diplodocus head with nostril close to snout tip. ArthurWeasley 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

new "diplodocus" head

Looks good! That's about where Witmer placed the nostrils in the illustrations in his first paper on the subject. I don't think their exact placement is known, though (just that they were well below the eyes on the face).

Cas--the cite for spines in Diplodocus is

• Czerkas, S. A. (1993). "Discovery of dermal spines reveals a new look for sauropod dinosaurs." Geology, 20: 1068-1070.

Dinoguy2 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acrocanthosaurus

Good evening to everyone, in order to lend a hand with the alphabetical list I've tried to draw Acrocanthosaurus based on [8]. To avoid perspective distortions, it is a lateral view. I made the chest as small as the bones let me and made the legs quite heavy: Image:Sketch acrocanthosaurus.jpg I wonder why these bipedal theropods never tipped over...

Looks awesome. Nice, balanced image (you took Dinoguy's advice and used a lateral view)! Nice attention to detail: clearly this fellow had some rather small feet, based on the skeletal remains.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Only error is, as usual with theropods, the hand position. Even the skeletal has the wrists dislocated. The hands should be oriented with palms facing each other, not towards the ground. Other than that, it's very well done.Dinoguy2 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will rework the hands when I have some more time. Tbc2 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not forgotten you. I will rework the image in the future, but have been busy with other things. Tbc2 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sauroposeidon

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

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)

[edit] Diplodocus again and Mononykus

I've redrawn diplodocus with a stiff neck. ArthurWeasley 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Diplodocus

Diplodocus colorized

Mononykus

Cool. I like the brown one but understand the idea behind B/W too.Cas Liber 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like the Diplodocus (both of them). I am not all too familiar with feathered dinosaurs. Did Mononykus really have a beak? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to make a beak-like snout to show the close relationship with birds.ArthurWeasley 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with the pointy head. The skull of Mononykus is known only from a very badly crushed and distorted inclomplete specimen, and the skull of Shuvuuia is almost kinda pointy itself. The discovery (in press I think, shh) of a new basal alvarezsaurid will probably prove that they are more closely related to ornithomimids than to birds, so I would have stuck with a more blunted beak here, but again, the room for artistic lisence here is fairly wide open at the moment. I like the way you handled the feathers, very flightless-bird-ish. The only glaring innacuracy is the proportions in the legs. You've drawn the metatarsals as longer than the lower leg, when they should only be 2/3 as long as it. The lower leg was about little less than twice the length of the skull, so that's pretty close, tohugh it could be a tad longer. The toes are actually too short, and the part of the foot contacting the ground should be as long as the arms. The arms look ok, but the way you've drawn that creasing around the shoulder area looks misleading. The arms would have only exited the body a little higher than where to elbow is--overall, the visible arms should be about half the length of the skull, considering the feathers. There's a photo of the skeleton here [9] so you can see what I mean. Despite all this, artistically it is very, very good!Dinoguy2 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dinoguy, many many thanks for all these comments. I'll redraw mononykus according to your recommendations. ArthurWeasley 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shunosaurus, Dilophosaurus, Macrauchenia

New images. I know, Macrauchenia is not a dinosaur, but I am contemplating drawing other prehistoric animals as well. ArthurWeasley 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shunosaurus

Dilophosaurus

Macrauchenia

I cannot comment on Macrauchenia (except to say that it looks nice to me), but these other two are very well done. They get my approval. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agilisaurus, Toxodon, Scutellosaurus, Camelops

Four new drawings. ArthurWeasley 08:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agilisaurus

Toxodon

Scutellosaurus

Camelops

I see here you have illustrated Agilisaurus with scutes. Have scutes been found in association with Agilisaurus? Scutellosaurus looks terrific, and should go up immediately, in my opinion. The mammals also look quite nice (but I cannot judge the accuracy, obviously). Firsfron of Ronchester 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, no scutes have been found with Agilisaurus. I just wanted to put some granulosity on the skin and these look terribly like scutes now that you mention it, especially when compared to the Scutellosaurus I made after. Bad work... ArthurWeasley 21:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the mammals, there is no image review page. I could probably directly load them on their respective pages and if somebody object, he/she could simply remove them. ArthurWeasley 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; they just looked like scutes to me. I wouldn't call it "bad work", it just confused me. As for the mammals, they are truly beautiful, but I feel weird even commenting on something about which I know so little. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)