From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

? Dinosaur Image Review Archives June 2006 - October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February & March 2007 April & May 2007 June 2007 July & August 2007 September - December 2007 Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image Signup ? Guidelines borrowed from WikiProject Dinosaurs's frontpage for lack of a better thing Criterion sufficient for using an image: 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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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 sufficient to remove 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. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Othnielia rex, 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: Jurassic Park screenshots or photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models or computer generated graphics. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images.

Contents 1 Images in review 1.1 Herrerasaurus and Spinosaurus hands 1.2 Homalocephale head 1.3 Appalachiosaurus head 1.4 Ceratopsian poster II 1.5 Segnosaurus sketch 1.6 Velafrons 1.7 Melanrosaurus readi 1.8 Jobaria 1.9 No...this is Mantellisaurus 1.10 Plateosaurus scale and old Deinonychus drawing 1.11 Eocarcharia 1.12 Irritator scale 1.13 Kryptops 1.14 Saurornithoides 1.15 Homalocephale body 1.16 Coelurus body 1.17 Drawings by Frederik Spindler 1.18 Nothronychus 1.19 Coelurus 1.20 Carnotaurus by DiBgd 1.21 Polacanthus 1.22 Tyrannosaurus in SVG 1.23 Bambiraptor

[edit] Images in review

[edit] Herrerasaurus and Spinosaurus hands

Hi, I've been fixing existing images made by the Russian user DiBgd, he tends to draw too pronated hands and dangly tails, but otherwise his drawings are really good. He has no account either here or on Commons, so I haven't tried to contact him about it. Here is an image he made which I added to the Herrerasaurus page a while ago, but it seems to me now that the left hand might be too pronated. Any thoughts? It can easily be fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The left hand does look fully pronated, yes. The foreground hand might be fixed simply by (lets see if I can actually explain this in writing...) overlapping the upper outline of the radius with the forward outline of the humerus, rather than vice versa. With the bicep intersecting the lower arm the way it does, the radius and ulna look clearly crossed, and while the hand itself doesn't look too pronated, it's this inability to cross that prevents pronation altogether in most tetrapods. Pronation happens at the elbow, not the wrist (try it! Bet you can't rotate your wrist independently of you forearm ;) ) Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing these images by the way! Sheep81 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I've done some hand sketches, here's the right hand of Herrera[1] and right hand of Spino[2]. Is that about right? I'm thinking of drawing dinosaur illustrations from scratch for Wikipedia, I don't have proper skeletal references for them though, but I was told it could be provided here? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The best site for seletals is http://www.paleograveyard.com/. However, it seems to be down at the moment. I (and a few other people here) have many of them saved, let me know if you need anything specific and I'll upload it if I've got it! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Awright, and thanks for the link. I'll certainly need some of those skeletals, because I have no books with skeletons of any of the dinosaurs in need of illustrations here... And yeah, Dinoguy, seems like I'll need to draw the entire arm of both the dinosaurs, due to the apparent radius/ulna cross. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Both the pictures have been changed now by the way, are they accurate? And could someone provide images of the hands of Staurikosaurus, so I can fix the picture on the right?Funkynusayri (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job not only of drawing the hands but making them blend seamlessly into the original artwork. Thanks a lot. As far as Stauriko, I'll check when I get home tomorrow but the hands are unknown as far as I know. Making them look like Herrera is probably not a bad idea. Sheep81 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, would the Herrera-like hands also include the two lumpy fingers? And is the tail on the Stauriko image too flexible? Funkynusayri (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work on the hands! I think it's a safe bet to include the two vestigial fingers on Staurik, yes. I don't think the tail is a problem. It was only rod-stiff in dromaeosaurs, and even there there's good evidence they could flex significantly on the lateral plane. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's the image of Syntarsus/Megapnosaurus he made, and I'm not sure whether the hands are wrong or not. Are they? Sorry to flood you guys with questions, but I know you're leagues ahead of me when it comes to up to date dino-knowledge. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, thanks for all the hard correction work Funkynusayri, and your pics also look great! The hands probably do need correcting on syntarsus. If you ever do any theropod drawings just play it safe and keep the hands un-pronatated. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Off the top of my head, I think cerapods (or maybe just ceratopsians) and sauropodomorphs (at least those more advanced than the massospondylids) are the only archosaur group (let alone dinosaur group) capable of achieving pronated hands without sprawling, by crossing the radius/ulna (or... whatever the heck sauropods were doing). Not sure about thyreophorans. For some reason I have this meme in the back of my mind that ornithomimids could do it too, but I can't remember where I heard that or if it's accurate. Plms should otherwise always face medially. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, on Syntarsus, I was unsure whether the hands there could pass off as being, I'm not sure how to say it, turned down in a bird-like manner, in the same way as on this skeleton reconstruction of Velociraptor on the right, by maybe drawing an extra finger and making the lower arm appear thicker. How many theropod families were able to do that? And how much could the hand itself be moved, without crossing the radius and ulna? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its mainly restricted to Coelurosauria. More specifcally, Maniraptora. Ken Carpenter did a paper on hand movement. here [3] (check out figure 7, A and B. It shows the hand movment of Coelophysis, a close relative of Syntarsus. But I don't think it says how much pronation it can do? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's exactly the kind of stuff I've been thinking about for a while, hand movements and such. So it does seem like the hands on Syntarsus are wrong. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If we assume that syntasus hands were the same as Coelophysis....To me, it seems the amount that the wrist is 'fexing' (using Carpenters termanology), is with in limits (judging by fig.7B)..So to me the 'hand movments' are fine is, it's just the old pronation of the lower arm bones that is the problem in the pic. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was thinking more about the fingers in relation to the arm. I've changed the Staurikosaurus and Syntarsus images now, are they proper? On the Staurikosaurus, I just used the hands from Arthur Weasley's Herrarasaurus, they're in the same posture. He's credited in the description of course. If anyone knows of other pictures that need fixing, please show them to me and I'll see if I can do it. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Both look great! (Though digit 3 looks a bit long in Staurik? Probably just a perspective thing). Thanks again! Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe, the hand was taken from here[4], I assume AW based it on a skeleton. Should it be shortened? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Are the tails on the following images too flexible, or are they within what's possible?[5][6] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're within known constraints. But the lambeosaur has other anatomical problems. The skull looks wrong based on the skeletals I have, and the hip is on a weird angle and way too high on the body (in fact it seems to lack a ridge of neural spines beyond the torso).Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, because I chopped some of the tail of Dilopho off because the image was removed from the article due to floppiness. As for Lambeosaurus, I think the image should just be removed then, the technique used on it makes it too difficult to change it for me at least. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some people may have the wrong idea about tail stiffness in dinosaurs. They weren't like spaghetti strands, but they would still have been fairly flexible, as far as I know, especially at the tip (though some of those curly sauropod tails as in WWD probably over do it). Some species had physical tail stiffening features, especially dromies, which I bet is where the confusion comes from, but even there, they had a pretty good degree of lateral flexibility, they just couldn't flex vertically. Hadrosaur tails were stiffened by ossified tendons, but only the proximal end. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homalocephale head

I saw an illustration of Homalocephale was needed, so I made a sketch of the head[7] based on the drawing of a skull[8] which was previously on the page. I'll finish it if the direction is approved. I didn't have an image of a lower jaw, so I just based it, and the neck, of other drawings. Thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Slightly reworked: [9] Funkynusayri (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the accuracy, Funky, (because I can't) but I really like your artistic style. Yeah, sorry, I can't offer anything else. Your head does really resemble what that skull might look like when covered with flesh, but I can't say whether or not that skull is accurate. Have you looked at The Graveyard? Their site is offline right now, but it's in the Internet Archive. They have many recent skeletals. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to archive Paleo Graveyard here. Link to their Homalocephale calathocercos reconstruction here. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the links, and wow, that's one thin neck on that reconstruction! Is there any anatomical rule of thumb when it comes to neck thickness? And I see the head is slightly longer in the "unknown" part of the skull, is their guess as good as ours, or should I draw the head longer too? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When parts are unknown like the neck or the snout in this animal, you can really reconstruct it however you want I think, within limits obviously. The best way might be to compare it to other species where those parts are known. I think your neck and snout are fine, maybe the neck could be a bit thinner. Sheep81 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Awright, and many thanks for the info. Here's the Homa with a thinner neck, based on the one on Paleograveyard. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• After looking at some reconstructions of other Pachycephalosaurs, it appears that the neck of this Homalo might be too long? Or is it within the reasonable? Otherwise it's finished. Is it ready for the article? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appalachiosaurus head

Drawing dinosaurs is fun, heh. I'm drawing Appalachiosaurus based on this[10], and I'm just assuming that the different scaly crest formations are pure speculation, and pretty much up to the guy drawing the dinosaur? Would it have had feathers? This is the drawing so far, any mistakes?:[11] Funkynusayri (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get you the skull reconstruction from the actual paper tomorrow. Sheep81 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Is it significantly different from the one on Paleograveyard? Funkynusayri (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't memorized all the details but it might be easier to draw from. Sheep81 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go easy on the feathers, if you use them. Dilong was (probably) a basal tyrannosaur that had them, but tyrannosaurids apparnetly had scales. Maybe you could go the naked, scale-less skin rout and hedge your bets? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. And the eye crests can't be based on anything but the bone they cover, right? Is there even any basis for drawing those on reconstructions, apart from where they are obvious? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Greg Paul wrote a paper, or at least discussed this in a book, at some point. Apparently there's good reason to think that the rugose nature of some areas on the skull supported keratinous crests or ridges in some species. Not sure if that's actually the case here or if it's artistic license, but it does match the pattern I usually see for tyrannosaurs. For what it's worth, I also remember him making this argument for dromaeosaurs, though all the feathered dromies I know of show feathers covering most of the head including the area these ridges would be found. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the finished head, should anything be changed? By the way, is there any info available about the position of dinosaur eyes within the sockets? Funkynusayri (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Love the style. One accuracy thing, the muscles that wrap around the back of the skull are missing. In the past I made the exact same mistake. Check out this older page of image review[12], scroll down until you see the spinosaurus skull. I made the exact same mistake. Look at the image here as well [13]. Would that be difficult to fix. As for the eye....I think what you have now is fine. I still have that same problem. In some images you’ll notice an orbital ring present. The eye goes in there...somehow....Does anyone know exactly how it functions? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and ah, yeah, I see what you mean with the muscle, I actually wondered about that "cavity" when I drew it, seemed odd. I'll fix it. Also, do we know where the ears would be placed? Funkynusayri (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this more like it?[14] Funkynusayri (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep that’s better. The ear placement seems about right also. thanks! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! To answer the question about the sclerotic ring, the eyeball goes inside (a commo. mistake is to make the eyeball the same size as the ring--it should only be as large as the inner hole). The eye should go in the upper part of the orbital opening (think the top half of the 'keyhole' in dinos that have keyhole shaped orbits). Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks! What do I do now, just put them into the articles, or wait for more opinions? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that clarifys things. Thanks Dinoguy. (Ack, now I have to check all my pics) As for your pics, I'm happy. I don't see why you can't put them in. Thanks for all your hard work.:) Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, they're in, after the Photoshop revelation I'll maybe colour them at some point. By the way, are body shots preferred in favour of head shots? And how does the "to do list" work? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take any pictures we can get. For example in Species of Psittacosaurus Arthur just did head shots. For others he has done full-body shots. For Majungasaurus Arthur drew a head shot AND a full-body shot. As far as the to-do list goes, article editors will put up requests on that page, and the artists can take those requests at their leisure. Sheep81 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ok, is there any reason why specific artists are assigned to specific requests, or are the undone requests there up for grabs? And by the way, got any skeletals of the requested dinosaurs left? I can't find any on Paleograveyard. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, sorry. The requests are first put in the top two sections. Whichever artist wants to take the request can just cut and paste the request into their own section so everyone knows they're working on it and we don't get duplicated work. Sheep81 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ceratopsian poster II

Here are the Centrosaurinae + Avaceratops drawn to scale. The ceratopinae are next. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nice, what do you use for colouring? Funkynusayri (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloring is all digital. I used Paint Shop Pro but Photoshop will do as well. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's beautiful, I especially like all the different poses. Sheep81 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, fantasitc work. I love the variety of colour schemes, especally the crest of Einiosaurus. I'd still love to see one of these posters up for a featured picture. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but I am not sure how to get it featured... ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll nominate it for you AW. de Bivort 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes de bivort, please do that!! :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will - but it needs to illustrate an article first - this is the major pre-req for FP candidacy. de Bivort 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Was there another poster too? If so, couldn't both be put in Ceratopsia? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about in Centrosaurinae ? ArthurWeasley (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Both posters could go in Ceratopsia as well. I've just added the first poster there. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the wider use the better, if it's going to be featured. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wide use isn't needed, they just need to be appropriate illustrations for their home articles - which they are! The FPC crowd doesn't respond well to nomination spam, so let's nom one now and the next in a couple weeks. I'll start with the one that is in Ceratopsia currently. de Bivort 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll go support it! Funkynusayri (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Segnosaurus sketch

[15] Any accuracy stuff? What should the feathers be based on?

Looks good. Check Beipiaosaurus for the feathers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone got a Dryptosaurus skeletal? Funkynusayri (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a skeletal on Paleograveyard but the site is down :/. Anyway,this one is known from rather scrappy remains: fragments of lower jaw, limb elements, a few tail vertebrae and other bits. I would probably base it on what is known of Eotyrannus.ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tips. Here's the Segnosaurus with feathers. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I have a slight problem with the neck. Although as far as I know, there aren’t any studies of Segnosaurus' neck. It seems to me that it may be overly flexed. I don’t know of any skeletal reconstructions show the neck in that position, the most raised I have seen show the neck coming strait of the shoulders like seen here. [16] Here are some other reconstuctions [17]......On a completely different note, Look its wolverine! [18] Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One other minor nitpick is the position of digit 1--in the walking/running skeletals it droops and hangs back a bit as in 'normal' theropods, but I believe segnosaurs were otherwise fully 4-toed, so in a standing position all toes should contact the ground and point forward. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, nitpicking is all I want. The neck thing is what happens when you draw on too small sheets of paper... I think the curve was based on this skeletal[19], but I can see I've exaggerated it quite a bit. I'll try to fix it. And the toe too. How about this neck?[20] And if I ever get down to colouring it, it should be based on this.[21] Funkynusayri (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The new neck looks much better!, thanks. Oh, and those colours you suggest would look good! ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the new version, looks more like a bear now. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks Good!, Another thing, Shoulder blades. Is it possible they could be move them closer together? I'm about to post a message on the image review talk page for more details about what i'm talking about. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, come up with all the corrections you want, it isn't so hard to change. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to Ken Carpenter's site, he wrote a paper redescribing Dryptosaurus in 1998 (I think, or '99). All his papers are freely available on his website. Sheep81 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new chest. Any more accuracy stuff? Is the tail too flexible? I'm learning a lot from these corrections. And thanks, I'll check that site out, Sheep. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats better. The flexibility of the tail seems fine. However (Sorry I keep bringing new things up) looking at the skeletals shown here [22]. One thing therizinosaurs have (but not all) is a sharp upturn at the base of the tail. Also, although the animal is incomplete, check out what is known of segnosaurus' tail, it suggests that it is a little longer than what you have. I think that would be it....Again sorry for not bringing this stuff earlier. It’s looking really good! Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hehe, no problem at all, I'm learning more about graphics manipulation every time I add something. I've rarely used Photoshop and stuff like that in the past, but while making these drawings and changing them afterwards I've realised how useful it is. Thanks you for the guidance. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing--Segnosaurus has a lower jaw with a distinctive, gentle arc to it (not as strongly arced as some therizinosaurs, but it's there). Yours has a sharp 'kink' instead, with the apex too far toward the tip of the snout, from the looks of it. See the Jaime Headden skeletal posted above for what I mean. Great progress so far though! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changed it, is this more like it? I based the jaw on this skeletal[23] and the beak here[24] Funkynusayri (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The tail looks much better. There is another image showing the lower jaw here [25] Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, how much of that jaw is missing? It seems to be even more curved than the jaw of the skeletal I used.. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The missing parts are in white there... the discrepancy may be in the interpretation on the missing part on the bottom of the posterior portion past the teeth. The entire posterior portion of the jaw past that seems to be a broken off separate piece, so it's position is likely uncertain. Anyway, the new version looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I missed the white spots because I focused too much on the tip of the jaw which seemed to be missing. I'll give up on drawing Dryptosaurus, looks way too incomplete from what I could find. I think I'll do Saurornithoides instead, I have found skeletals of junior and mongoliensis, which one would be preferred? Funkynusayri (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Saurornithoides huh? Cool! Would be great to have a comparison image of both... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Awright. There's a thing I should maybe had asked about before I drew Segnosaurus and which might be relevant for Sauror, has it ever been examined whether maniraptorans had skin extending from their wrist to their shoulder, like modern birds have? Like on this image: [26] I don't think I've ever seen a reconstruction with that feature, but it seems about as useful for flightless species as very long primary feathers. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I doubt this is known for very many groups, but here's an article on the propatagium in Archaeopteryx.[27] It also looks like there's a clear impression of a propatagium in Microraptor gui, but I don't think it's actually addressed in the description. Infer from that what you will... Also, note that in the Archie article, they find that the first and second digit are joined together almost to the claw. I think GSP toched on this in DOA, and it would readily expalin why in many maniraptorans/early bird fossils, the third digit crosses the other two (it was probably the only free finger!). Also note this quote: "Heilmann1 postulated a similar structure probably because the deep follicles that anchor long primary feathers require this morphology." In other words, quill knobs may be a solid indicator of an avian soft tissue structure for the hand/arms. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, wow, the validity of all reconstructions made until now could be in peril! Wikipedia has renewed my interest in dinosaurs quite a lot, it's pretty hard to find books about dinosaurs that are up to date here in Scandinavia, so I'm very happy that I've pulled myself together and asked about all sorts of stuff on the dino project, I've learned a lot the last few weeks. What's the best place for dinosaur related news on the Internet? Funkynusayri (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the DML is by far the best source of info. New papers get reported on regularly.[28] The theropod Database also has a lot of great info, especially regarding known specimens of each genus, references, etc.[29] Can't go wrong with DinoData either,[30] and of course Thescelosaurus! is great ;)[31] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that! By the way, know any reconstructions of any maniraptoran hand with joined fingers? Funkynusayri (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Velafrons

The newly discovered hadrosaur, based on the JVP paper. That would be a juvenile. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Matches the skull restorations I've seen at least. One thing I'd double check, as I've been reading a lot about forelimb motion in theropods lately, is whether or not the wrists could hyperflex as you have it in ornithopods. It's not very hyperflexed here, so my guess is it's within range, but something to double check sometime (though I'd kind of expect the wrists to be more vertical and columnar in a neutral standing pose). Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've "unflexed" the wrist a bit. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I can’t find anything on this animal...I don’t have access to JVP. :( Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melanrosaurus readi

Based on a skeletal reconstruction by Hartman, shown here [32]. On wrist orientation, Hartman told me that they were held roughly at 45 degrees and would allow for quadrupedal walking. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing job! Looks fine accuracy wise, beautifull atmosphere as well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - very beautiful - please tell us more about how you made it. de Bivort 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, its mostly painted in Photoshop, with a bit of photo manipulation blended into the foreground. (The foreground was originally entirely painted but I thought it looked a bit rubbish.) Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Love it! ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• That looks pretty damn good! I was impressed by the "realness" of the Mantellisaurus colouring, but this looks like a photo! Did it start with a scanned pencil sketch or did you do it all in Photoshop? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I scetched it first in photoshop then built it up from there. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite simply amazing. In fact I'm almost reluctant to use it in our article because I think you could sell it! Too late though, it's ours now! Mwahahahaha... :) Sheep81 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.......humm...if I sell it, I get money..if I don't I live on the street...tough call. ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jobaria

Drawing and photoshop colouring........based proportionally of Hartmans skeletal here, [33]

• Again, great colours! All I can say is maybe the right front foot should be wider, and maybe the base of the neck too? I've tried to draw it in here[34] Funkynusayri (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've drawn the front feet like with this image [35], look at the foot prints, they have a banana shape to them and they are rotated outwards slightly. From what I know, most sauropods have feet are like this. From the view I’ve drawn it at, one foot would seem slightly wider than the other. One thing I’ve noticed is the toes should be more pronounced in jobaria. I'm not sure about what your saying about the neck, if I add to that side I’d have to add some to the other side….. and I‘m not sure what I’d be adding. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yah, well, I'm not basing it on anything I know, just from looking at the skeletal and seeing that the foot ends wider than it is at the "wrist", or what you could call it, so what you did now looks good. As for the neck thing, maybe it's rather that the front legs look like they're too close to each other, like if you look at the front view of the skeleton you linked to here, it seems to me at least, that the legs are farther apart[36]. I don't know any this for sure of course, just throwing out some impressions, could very well just be the angle... Funkynusayri (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the shoulder width might come up. Compare these camarasaurus images [37] [38], It was hacked up by the guy who made the skeletal reconstrction I used. He said that shoulder blades are often reconstructed too far apart and that they nearly touch. This is jobaria hacked up so they nearly touch [39], and the mine is drawn more side on. This is a very rough internal view of whats going on in the image [40]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• No worries then! Funkynusayri (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No...this is Mantellisaurus

OK, my reconstruction of mantellisaurus...well it’s not what its claiming to be.....I drew the image using Pauls supposed Iguanodon atherfieldensis skeletal in 'the Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs' And when I heard that it had been renamed Mantellisaurus, I assumed that the reconstruction would therefore be M. atherfieldensis. However according to Pauls new paper that specimen is actually a new genus Dollodon and the above image is actually mantellisaurus. See here, [41] C = Mantellisaurus and D = Dollodon. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, that's kind of amusing... Then the images should just be switched around then... Funkynusayri (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, it has been really confusing, my origanal image is what I always thought Iguanodon atherfieldensis looked like...look at this image here, [42], At first I thought it might be a typo.....anyway swaped the image..Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. I have a feeling this Iguanodon taxonomy situation is going to get even more confusing in the future :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plateosaurus scale and old Deinonychus drawing

• I saw Dropzink had made an unused scale diagram back in March, but it wasn't added to the article, apparently because the animal looked like it only had three limbs on the image. I've added a limb, and moved both limbs a bit more forward, is it correct now, or should it be tweaked further? Also, here's a relatively old drawing I made of a Deinonychus head, maybe a bit too Jurassic Parkish, but is there anything inaccurate about it?[43]Funkynusayri (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, I read some previous discussions about the Plateo picture, and seems like the posture is wrong... I'll try to make another one. Also, is anything wrong with this scale of Staurikosaurus Dropzink made? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Staurik looks fine to me, the Plateosaur looks big to me based on mounts I've seen, but those may have been smaller species. The article says 6-10 m, but I wonder if the larger specimens would have had more gracile proportions than he diagram (longer tail, etc. Anybody have the papers to check? The Deinonychus looks ok, but (going by GSP's skull reconstruction in DOA) the shape of the orbit is a bit off (the preorbital bar should be pretty much vertical, it's quite slanted in yours) and it's about half the size it should be, probably implying a bigger eye too. Also the lower margin of the upper jaw looks almost perfectly straight in GSP's, while yours is a big jagged/wavy. Would these issues be fixable? Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I added the Staurik, and yeah, Plateo seems a bit bulky, I'll try to draw a new silhouette. As for Deino, I based it on an angled picture of a skull, which well, seems to have distorted the proportions quite a bit. The skull I based it on seems to be identical to this one, just angled: [44] Is that skull correect? If so, I'll just tweak the drawing so it fits the proportions of that image better, if not, do you have a link to a correct reconstruction? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That photo looks like the old Ostrom-style skull that was heavily based on Allosaurus (ie way too deep). I think most people accept GSP's reconstruction nowadays, as the missing parts are based on other dromaeosaurs. Here's GSP's 2002 reconstruction from DOA (get it while it's hot! Gonna take down soon).[45] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dang, thanks for that, I had no idea! Seems like the old drawing is beyond redemption then! The Deino page has enough pictures already, I just wanted to hear if the image was accurate, hehe... Funkynusayri (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've changed the Deinonychus head quite dramatically in Photoshop to make it fit the skull drawing posted earlier, how does it look now?[46] Funkynusayri (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eocarcharia

The newly discovered carcharodontosaurid from Niger, skull reconstruction based on the holotype and referred specimens and Acrocanthosaurus as its nearest relative. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, do I see a red link?? ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! compares well to the known material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the paper yet but if it's based on Acro I imagine you can't go wrong! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irritator scale

Basically just took the earlier Spinosaurus silhouette based on AW's and SteveOC's spino illustrations, shaved off the sail, and re-painted the jaws to match Irritator/Angaturama. I scaled based on a skull length of 0.84m listed on Theropod Database, so the length came out a bit over the 8m listed in the article. Anything I may have missed? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine, considering it's only known from a skull and spinosaur tails aren’t very complete, it should be ok. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kryptops

Rather speculative reconstruction of this basal abelisaurid as the remains are rather fragmentary but short and broad snout, tall dorsal spines seem to characterize it. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both look great! One thing about the skeletal, you have it rearing up slightly (which isn't the problem) but it looks as though the femur (which obviously isn’t known or shown in the image) would be oriented too far back. Apparently the femur in most theropods couldn't rotate past about 90 degrees from the hip. I’m struggling to put it in to adequate words. Basically look at a Hartman or Paul skeletal in running pose. The position of the femurs shows the furthest they could rotate back. Check out Hartmans nothronychus (which has a fairly upright posture) [47], notice the femur isn't rotated passed a certain point. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, are you sure about this? What about this one [48] Aucasaurus also from Scott Hartman? ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge how far your femur is rotated with out it drawn in... This is what I'm imagining ...[49] if what I have drawn is what your imagining its not that far off it's just I've heard Hartman talk about his several times....(I'm failing to find an exarmple of were he as said it) anyway time for bed! Steveoc 86 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's an illusion or not but it does look like the femur is extended past vertical relative to the hip. Otherwise it looks good. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the legs slightly to the left in the skeletal so that the left one does not appear to be so stretched... ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks fine to me! Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just another baseless shot that could be considered or not, but on the first image, might the balancing leg not be a bit too thick around the foot joint and the heel? Or maybe the rest of the foot is too narrow? I've drawn in what I mean here:[50] Or[51] Funkynusayri (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Take a look at the anterior view on Todd Marshall's [[52]].

Good catch! I've updated the image. Thanks! ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! Funkynusayri (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saurornithoides

I made a rough sketch of it some time ago, based on a skeletal drawing from Dinosauricon, but didn't finish it because I had other stuff to do, so now I returned to it, but it seems that Dinosauricon is down, so I've just continued while basing it on a regular Troodon skeleton. Anyone got another Saurornithoides skeletal I could use? Here's the sketch so far[53], any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantasitic Scetch!. The skeletal was probably Jamie Headdens, Here[54]. A minor asthetic nickpic, yours seems to have a slight hunch back, (Arguably created by the feathers). Is it possible you could shave it down so the back flows down to the neck smoother like in the skeletal. Maybe check the shape of the head in comparison to the skeletal. In the skeletal it's tallest at the rear of the skull whilst yours is slightly shallower. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, yeah, that's exactly the one, I've changed the back and the skull accordingly, How's it? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks! The only other thing might be having feathers on the thigh and shin....Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• On the shin too? I had an ostrich in mind when I made the legs, and they appear to have feathers on neither, what else could I use as reference for feathered shins? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there is always room for some freedom, a lot of birds I have seen have feathers of some form on the shin. [55], [56] [57]..I think they can be made out on sinornithosaurus.[58]..Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try it out. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I feathered the thighs but kept the shins naked (here[59]), as seriemas have it that way too, and they have the sickle claw! What ya say? Funkynusayri (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job! Personally, and this is just an aesthetic choice, I think it looks better with a featherless shin and thigh. A lot of times, if the feathers are done short on the body and legs as you've done, it almost looks like the dinosaur is wearing feathery pants, when no modern birds or forms known from impressions look like that. If the legs are feathered they also should not visible as such distinct shapes. I think you can get away with less feathering as this is a larger species than the only troodont impressions we have ([60]). If you go with more feathering, i.e. on the legs, I think there would be more impetus to model the entire thing after Jinfengopteryx, which is more "buried" in feathers ala modern birds especially on the front end, with the neck less distinct and transitioning more smoothly into the breast feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'll just let the legs be naked for now, I can always change it some other time if it isn't essential. Is there other stuff which should be fixed? I found this video of a naked parrot[61] and noticed how far up on the back the arms/wings are folded, and most maniraptorans don't seem to be reconstructed that way, though they seem to be folded that way on some fossils too, like here: [62] How did the arms fold? In the text to fig. 14 in the PDF about theropod forelimb movement posted earlier here, it was stated that "avian folding of the forelimbs is not possible as shown by maximum folding possible in lateral (C) and anterior (D) views." What exactly does that mean? What is "avian folding"? Funkynusayri (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Avian folding means what you referred to about the parrot: tightly folded arms directly against the body. This was suggested for Unenlagia back in the day but it may have been rejected by now, and was not possible to that extent in most deinonychosaurs as far as I can tell. I think the degree to which you have the wings folded in your sketch is close to the maximum possible. The forelimb in that fossil image looks displaced--the arms didn't start "migrating" up to the top side of the toro until well into bird evolution (beyond enatiornithes I think). In deinonychosaurs the forelimbs were still low-slung. Again, see the position in Jinfengopteryx for an example. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! One thing I'd question is the choice of color--purple isn't a pigment you see very often among birds, at least on naked non-feathered skin (the only one I can think of off hand that has purplish skin on parts of the body is the King Vulture). The exception here is that the pigment is used in display, in which case it probably would be limited to a few showy patches and not uniform over the entire body. I also don't think any birds have slit-shaped pupils, and I remember reading something to the effect that dinosaurs wouldn't have for some reason or other, but I can't find the source :P Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok, just thought I'd "pimp" it up a bit. I'll see if I can make it more bluish... As for eyeslits, crocodiles have them, and I read that when it is found, it is found in nocturnal animals, and the Saurornithoides article said it might have had good night vision. But yeah, after looking at a lot of images, birds seem to have rather uniform pupils, so I'll try to change it. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I checked it out, and it seems that some birds do actually have slit shaped pupils, take a look at this:[63] "In addition to the animal groups examined in this study, there are birds with slit pupils, namely the Rhynchops genus of partially nocturnal, fishing birds (skimmers). Since birds are of the same descent as reptiles and most species have colour vision (Pichaud et al., 1999), the skimmers may also have multifocal lenses. We would very much welcome a study of these animals to which we could not get access. Skimmers have most likely descended from birds that had circular pupils and monofocal optical systems. It would therefore be highly interesting to know whether or not they have multifocal optical systems." Couldn't find any good photos of their eyes though, but you think it could be rationale enough to keep the slit pupils that some birds have it too? As for colour, does this look plausible?[64] I made it more blue, don't know if it's enough, I'm slightly colour blind, so I might not be the best judge... Funkynusayri (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ah, found this, there's a drawing of the slit pupil of the skimmers:[65] Funkynusayri (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think the slits are a huge deal, especially since I still can't find the source I was thinking of. I thought it was in TetZoo but I'm coming up with nothing. As for the color, the blue looks better (more like it's nighttime?), but if it's meant to be well-lit (as the white background usually indicates), blue is still an odd choice for a skin color. Purple and blue are fine for feathers, it's just that naked skin tends to be more plain melanin colored (shades of pink, brown, black), or patterned for display, and almost never the same color as the feathers if the feathers are colorful (for example, Blue Jays don't have blue beaks and feet). Again, this is all aesthetic, but my personal philosophy is that colors should be conservative i not deviating too much from common modern examples. Environment also needs to be taken into account. Saurornitholestes lived in an arid, semi-desert, partly forested environment, and the slits indicate yours is primarily nocturnal. Being bright blue or purple would therefore not be a useful trait for display as it is in diurnal animals, and might be a liability, in that diurnal predators could easily spot the animal when it's trying to lay low during the day. An extreme of coloration philosophy is Brad McFeeter's "Wolverine" X-men colored therizinosaur--sure, it's possible they were bright blue and yellow like the comic character, but there are lots of reasons to think that's not likely.

This is all off-topic though--within the parameters of this page it's way accurate enough to get posted ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's really useful information which I'll keep in mind in the future, so thanks! I was thinking that since Sauronithoides could had been nocturnal, purple or blue might had helped it blend in when the surroundings were dark, but I can't think of any present day analogy... But some Boobies (the bird of course) do have blue skin on their neck and feet [66][67], so I'm not sure, but it's very easy to change colours in Photoshop. And by the way, I'd be happy to read the article about dinosaur pupils if you find it again... Funkynusayri (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing about nocturnal animals is that they don't need color camouflage, aside from maybe some patterning. They tend to be drab colors, browns, blacks, and grays, even among birds, in which diurnal species are often more colorful. Owls don't need to be blue or purple-colored to blend in, they just need to be dark and quiet. Boobies are diurnal sea birds with few predators (so the bright colors aren't a liability), and use their coloration for display. Don't know much about the mating displays of nocturnal birds though...

The only ground birds I can think of with bright colors usually restrict these to the head and neck (cassowary, lots of galliforms), and also live in tropical or woodland environments. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• What about black/grey?[68] Not so fancy, but I think it looks kind of cool. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That does look cool! and much more plausible IMHO. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a slightly different version, I thought the head looked a bit too reptilian, so I tried to hint at a beak with some orange on the jaws, and I gave it a bit of blue on the wing and tail feathers... Just in case it could be used for display or something like that, and to break up the black a bit. What do you think?[69] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homalocephale body

I did the head previously, so I thought I could just as well do the entire body, so here's the drawing so far[70], any thoughts? The tail will be changed, there just wasn't room for it on the paper. It's based on this [71], but with some modifications in places that haven't been found anyway. And is it just me, or does the middle toe on one foot of the skeletal look longer than the other? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good!, Paul has done a skeletal, here [72]. Is this the skeletal you used [73]? (The graveyard is down) Look how wide Paul has done the ribs! I don't know what Paul used to fill in the missing peaces from... If thats what other relatives have then it would be nice to convay that with shading. Just remember that the tail is stiffened with rods so its not going to be flopping around much.  :) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the Paul one before, I used the other one you linked to, but I'll use it from now. And yeah, I'll get to the tail. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a little worried as the skull on the Paul skeletal is half the size of the Headden one?? I'd say stick closer to the Headden skeletal becasue it's more honest in showing what's actually known. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What do you say about the left middle toe on the Headden skeletal, doesn't it appear quite a bit longer than the right one, or is there some sort of reason for that? Funkynusayri (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the toe thing is a product of perspective, which is hard to show in an outline. The foot is on the ground so the toes are splaying out under the weight of the animal. The outer toes are splaying laterally, so they're foreshortened.

I agree you need to do some work to convey how crazy barrel-chested they were, as in Paul's dorsal view (something that could also be said of many therizinosaur drawings I've seen). It's hard to get a good sense of the 3D animal from just a lateral skeletal, and a lot of people miss the variety of body widths in dinosaurs because of this, especially herbivores, which tend to be barrel-chested. Overall though, it looks really good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• How about this? [74] I'll "glue" on the rest of the tail in Photoshop later. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better! Might want to round out that super-wide tail base too, while you're at it. It's bizarre how the tail goes from wide and bulbous to super thin and flat... Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot that, thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Width might be better here:[75] Funkynusayri (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the finished version, or well, if anyone have suggestions to how it could be changed, bring it on. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great with the color added, well done! Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coelurus body

Based on this[76] and J. Spencer's suggestion that a compsognathid skull could be used for reference: [77] Any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great so far. Might want to make the pubis longer though, or the femur shorter. The femur looks slightly shorter than the pubis in the skeletal, so the pubic boot should extend almost past the knee. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, changed some stuff here[78], also, would there be some kind of feathers on it? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Yeah, it tends to group with Dilong and compsognathids, so I'd base the feathers on those if you use them. Though it's equally possible that it lacked them at this point, basal coelurosaur phylogeny is very unstable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here it is nearly finished[79], any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming along nicely, nothing to nitpick that I can see. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, also, I posted this in an older section where it might not have been seen, but I changed the proportions of the Deinonychus head I posted a while ago so it fits the newer skull reconstruction by Gregory Paul better, how does it look?[80] Funkynusayri (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though something about it looks a little... mean? Like in a slightly anthropomorphic way. Maybe it's the shape of the eye, but it almost reminds me of Scar from The Lion King ;) One thing about most birds is the (seemingly to us) "vacant" look in their eye, which is why is always bothers me a little when people give dino drawings slightly too much personality, though of course it's all artistic license. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Haha, I see what you mean, but I think it might be because the eye is "squinty" or what it's called, take a look at the yellow eyed penguin for example, looks pretty mean too! [81][82][83][84] I think many bird species look "evil" when they squint their eyes. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Like I said, not a technical criticism, more of an aesthetic comment ;) The color Coelurus looks great, btw. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Funkynusayri (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drawings by Frederik Spindler

I've gotten permission from Frederik Spindler (via email) to pick two images from his site here[85] to upload freely as long as he is credited. I thought of these, Pedopenna[86], and Dryptosaurus[87], their remains are so few that it would at least scare me from trying to draw them. Are they anatomically correct? There might be an issue with the hand of Dryptosaurus, but I think it might just be the angle the arm is shown from. There are already a few of Spindler's images on commons that can't be used due to anatomical issues, sadly, so I thought it would be better if we determined whether the images could be used or not before they are uploaded. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pedopenna looks ok. The only part that might be off is the hand/wing, but it's hard to tell exactly what's going on there due to the pose. As far as I know the Dryptosaurus is ok, but I don't have any measurements or skeletals handy to check proportions. I agree that it looks like the foreground arm is splayed, not pronated, so that's not a problem. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Awright, I did find a skeletal of Drypto when I considered to draw it, and there was pretty much nothing to base it on. I'll see if I can find it... Here it is on the second page: [88] Funkynusayri (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on that skeletal, it looks fine (thanks for the pdf link by the way!). In fact I wonder if he used that as his reference, the hind limbs are in almost the same pose. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nothronychus

Here's a drawing[89], based on this[90], and hunched over a bit like some of these[91], any thoughts? Funkynusayri (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Funky! The only thing that stands out to me is the feet, which look a little too big/robust. In the skeletal, the mets and pedal digits look much slimmer than the neck, maybe half as thick, but yours look almost as wide. The MTs look about a third the width of the cervical verts, so all fleshed out I wouldn't make the lower legs more than half the width of the neck. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, I'll see if I can shrink them in Photoshop... Funkynusayri (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this?[92] Funkynusayri (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything else that should be fixed? And by the way, damn, those things looked weird... Therizinosaurs might just be my favourite dinsaurs. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here ;) Only other thing I can find to nitpick is that the claws don't look quite long enough in proportion to the fingers, but they are fairly curved and facing away from the viewer, so they would be a bit foreshortened anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, it seems like the page has gotten an image in the mean time, is there another therizinosaur either known from too few remains to look different from this drawing or similar enough that it could simply be used on that page instead? Seems like Nothro is known from so few bones that the reconstruction could represent any generic therizinosaur... Maybe Neimongosaurus, Alxasaurus or Erliansaurus? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Alxasaurus is the safest bet if you want to swap identities, the Nothro skeletal was filled in with parts based on that one. The only thing I'd try to modify: Alxa has higher neural spines just before the hip, not higher on the back. Maybe add some feather to make the back more rounded and cover that up? The lower jaw probably needs a bit more of a downward curve at the end too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility--the newly described Suzhousaurus, apparently clades with Nothronychus. Don't have the paper so don't know if there are any major differences, but I imagine they'd be pretty similar. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds, good, I'll wait and see if the paper on Suzhousaurus comes around... If it isn't similar enough, I'll just change some details, of course. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here are some picures of the bones of Suzhousaurus, don't seem to contradict the Northronychus drawing, do they?[93] Funkynusayri (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sounds like all the diagnostic characters wouldn't be visible in life/under feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add it and update the image with longer claws and colours. I'll get the filename changed on Commons too. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, pink and aqua are interesting color choices, perhaps this was a gigantic Cretaceous lorikeet? ;) (not that there's anything wrong with that, we already have Blue Jay Nanshiungosaurus after all...). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's a result of me fiddling with the opacity, didn't look like that initially, but the pencils and colours blend better that way. I might try to darken it at some point... Funkynusayri (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coelurus

This Coelurus picture never got a review it seems, so I list it here. Is it accurate? Those long feathers are the main one difference from the other Coelurus drawing. Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This one seems to have much longer metatarsals. Is this accurate? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, here's a skeletal: [94]. The MTs should be the same length as the tibia. The tail should be longer too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the long feathers, the exact phylo position of Coelurus is not very well known, so there's some leeway in how advanced the feathers can be. If it's related to Ornitholestes, it's possible it had pennaceous or near-pennaceous feathers like that. If it was more closely related to Dilong and/or some of the compsognathids, the short simpl feathers would be more appropriate. If it's a little more primitive than than, scales would be ok. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carnotaurus by DiBgd

Over at Carnotaurus there is a discussion about this images' legs possibly being too stright. I didn't want this image removed so I have attempted to alter it. I have also lengthend the tail due to comparison with Greg Pauls skeletal [95].Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, but I'm not entirely convinced that the old one was wrong... Funkynusayri (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Scott Hartman over at dinoforum has spoken about theropod, ceratopsian and hadorsaur knees saying that they are exactly like bird knees which can't strighten much. So the image is probably incorrect in that regard. I'm not sure about the lower leg though. Im not shure what, if anything has been published on hind limb posture? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The new version looks great. I reckon the tail was too short based on GSP's skeletal (usually very reliable), and the knees look within range of motion, though towards the max extension. Looks much better with flexed ankles. One other thing though,h the hand looks like it's pronated, and given the stumpy forearms I don't think this could be accounted for by splayed limbs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, hows is it now Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! There's this little spiky thing by the pubis, could that maybe be smoothened out? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polacanthus

I've gotten into a bit of trouble with this one, I started out using a probably outdated skeletal by John Sibbick from the mid 80s, from a book called The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, as I couldn't find newer skeletals. I could find new life reconstructions though, but they all seem to have the spikes and plates arranged differently from each other. Anyone got something which could be used as reference? Similar species? Anything looks wrong as it is? Here's the sketch so far: [96] Funkynusayri (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus in SVG

I've made an SVG drawing of a T-rex. Ratio and position are originally from the BBC documentary "the truth about killer dinosaurs" (which was broadcasted as having been prepared with scientists). The coat color is inspired from the lion, the striation from the tiger. The skeleton (i.e. position and number of bones) is mainly drag from the reconstruction of Sue the T-Rex, exhibited at the Field Museum (based on numerous photos available on Flickr), and from the T-Rex visible at the "Museum d'histoire naturel" of Paris.

I would be happy to correct the drawing. This could be easy, as it is done in SVG. Do not hesitate to download it and play with layers or to suggest new layers. I think it wuld be interesting to have a layer with bones names, but I unfortunately did not manage to find out this information. Nojhan (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment about the veracity of the pose, et al, but in terms of asthetics, I think it might be less busy and more streamlined by removing the stripes, especially when sized down for an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears the head doesn't match the orientation of the skull (rotation along z-axis.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you post the images you used as references, Nojhan? Funkynusayri (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bambiraptor

Here's a sketch[97] based on this skeletal.[98] Any thoughts? Rest of the tail will be added later, the paper I used was too small yet again. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Funky. The wing/arm feathers seem a bit unusual--secondaries normally form an arc with the longest in the middle of the radius, where yours seem to get longer towards the hand without actually stemming from it, almost like pseudo-primaries. If they are meant to be primaries, the should form more of an angle with digit 2 (since they'd be anchored to it rather than to the forearm). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I'll take a look at it. I've tried to find diagrams that show exactly how wing feathers attach to the wing, do you have any? Funkynusayri (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, there's a good diagram of feather attachment here [99] and here[100]. Wing feather attachment is something nobody ever bothers to get right. I'd say 99% of popular paleoart gets it completely wrong. I can't tell you how many reconstrctions of Archie I've seen with three little fingers poking out the front of the wing... or how many drawings of Caudipteryx lack primary feathers stemming from the hands... when the fossils clearly show that the hand is the ONLY place remiges should be! Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)