Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive February & March 2007

Nanyangosaurus, Nanshiungosaurus
[here] is the sketch. i am sorry i didnt post before. i have a cold --LadyofHats 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... are you sure that's not Nanshiungosaurus? ;) Nanyangosaurus is a hadrosaur, you seem to have drawn a (featherless) therizinosaur (which, aside from the lack of feathers, looks very good!). Dinoguy2 15:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * looking confused for a while* i think i got it. this one is a Nanshiungosaurus. it just got the wrong name from the beggining becouse it comes out on the google search for nanyagosaurus. i do not think it is a Therizinosaur. but should this one have feathers too? i actually wanted to draw this one becouse of  this image where they look like pinguins. i also found this otherskeletal reconstruction for the Nanayangosaurus. so i can do him too. should i also do a therizinosaur? the image on the article has copyright.-LadyofHats 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, a skeletal of Nanshiungosaurus comes up when you search for Nanyang--somebody must have mislabelled it. The photo of a skeleton you linked to is Nanyang, the hadrosaur. I like the way the therizinosaur images is coming along, I hope you'll finish that one as well if you decide to do Nanyang the hadrosaur. Dan Bensen painted the 'penguin' ones as very birdlike, which I think is fine--they're close relatives of oviraptorids, which were very birdlike, and one therizinosaur so far (Beipiaosaurus) has preserved feathers. I've always imagined therizinosaurs as similar to gigantic geese with big claws :) And no, Nanyangosaurus didn't have feathers--hadrosaur skin is very well documented, in specimens like "Leonardo"--they had very fine scales and leathery skin, and sometimes squared-off 'fringes' of skin down the back. Which image is copyrighted, by the way? Dinoguy2 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ok from the Nanshiungosaurus. i took me a bit more freedom in coloring than usual. here is [color1]. i actually just started and well couldnt stop myself :P. so i also did a less colorfull version here.-LadyofHats 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like either coloring. Are the differences in black patterning on the heads deliberate? Sexual dimorphism perhaps? Debivort 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that is not such a bad idea. so what do you think? :)-LadyofHats 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * for some reason i can not access the skeleton of the Nanyangosaurus anymore. and i do not find any other good source.-LadyofHats 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The link seems to be working now, the site might have just gone down for a while. I really love the color/patterning on the Nanshiungosaurus, and you did a good job, again, with using color grades so suggest the presence of scales... but, unfortunetly, this is what makes them innacurate. I couldn't support the approval any maniraptor depicted without feathers. There's just too much bracketing and evidence to the contrary. :/ Dinoguy2 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * do not worry i can still give them feathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyofHats (talk • contribs)
 * Looking forward to seeing the feathered versions. Firsfron of Ronchester  16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i uploaded the version with feathers. is this enough or do you need more feathers? :) . for some strange reason i dont seem to get into the website with the skeleton of the Nanyangosaurus. please if someone can get it i would apreciate if they save the image -LadyofHats 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The new version looks great, LoH! Amazing how adding a few subtle suggestions of feathers here and there affects the overall look. I uploaded the Nanyang photo to my server here Dinoguy2 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

here is the sketch for the Nanyangosaurus. let me know any changes. PS. i am not sure about the hands, the image wasnt clear enough on that part-LadyofHats 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One issue is that the description on DinoData described the claws as "hoof-shaped", so I'd expect it to have the typical iguanodont "mitten", where the middle 3 fingers are bound together in a single hoof. The back of the skull has a weird lumpy thing going on, which I can't see a bony correspondant for in the photo--the neck verts are higher than the (admittadly reconstructed) skull, which should lead to a pretty smooth head-neck transition. Other than that it's shaping up nicely! Dinoguy2 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * would a hand like this do?, even when i am not sure why does he has a hoof, with so short arms he would hardly lean on his hands.-LadyofHats 10:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's about how the hands looked. I'm not sure why such little arms would retain hooves, but I suspect the arms may not have been used for much. Their ancestors had hooves, and were partially four-legged, so for whatever reason the arms got so small, there may not have been much pressure to lose the hoof. You'll notice the pinky is free of the hoof--I wonder if this was the part used to grab at branches, etc., to help with feeding, in which case there would not have been pressure to free up the 'main' fingers. Dinoguy2 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Late as usual but here it is. hope you like it-LadyofHats 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the bunny hands a concern, as in AW's iguanodon? Debivort 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, which is too bad because the hands are very cute on these dinosaurs. J. Spencer 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ey wait, explain me what you mean please.. i dont got the irony.. :P what is wrong with the hands?-LadyofHats 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You know how bunnies and various small rodents are depicted with their palms facing backwards? That's bunny hands, which most (?all) dinosaurs could not do because their forearms and wrists would not turn that way.  Thus, dinosaurs were anatomically incapable of such acts as: operating bike handlebars; playing a piano; using a doorknob; or dribbling a basketball.  Instead, their hands were oriented so that in a neutral stance, the palms faced each other.  Think of it as going through life perpetually ready to shake hands. J. Spencer 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree except that a dinosaur would be able to open a doorknob - try turning a doorknow with your hand at it's 3 oclock - no worries! Debivort 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus scale diagram


Hi I'm Dropzink again. Check that scale diagram.
 * hi, i am not so sure your diagram is acurate, for must illustrations i saw from the allosaurus the proportion (between long and high) was between 2to1 (6 meter high) and 3to1 (4 meter high).so your human is a tic too big. i would said the head of the human should end more or less at the knee of the dinosaur. Also the image you chosed is from a dinosaur that is not seen fron the side, meaning even when you make a line below it has not 12 meters but much less. here you can see what i mean. i would sugest you take a side view, like the one found i thisimage-LadyofHats 08:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah! If you're going with a 12 m length, you'd better label that Saurophaganax, not Allosaurus. You'll notice in LoH's link, that's an average sized Allosarus, and a human would come up well past the knee. I'd stick with 30ft, not 40. Dinoguy2 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I had the idea that the human is too big compared to an Allosaurus of 12 meters. But the skull is also important, Allosaurus have a 90 cm skull, the half of the average human size 1,80 m. So I had to compare the human to the head too. Some comparisons like that of Tyrannosaurus have this problem that the head have the same or more length than the human. Although that "Big Al" is not seen from the side, showing it with an incomplete size. I have to fix that problem, tomorrow is ready. Eh... and Dinoguy, the Allosaurus full size is 12 meters, the same of Saurophaganax, or not? Dropzink.
 * Depends. Some people think Saurophaganax is simply a gigantic Allosaurus, but recent studies suggest it really is a different genus. Pretty much all other known Allosaurus were much smaller. The biggest Allosaurus fragilis remains are about 30 ft long, I think. Epantarias is a possible 12 m Allosaurus, but when doing a scale diagram I think it's best to go with definitive remains.Dinoguy2 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And there are definitive remains, "Big Al" was subadult and measured 10 meters long, indicating that a fully grown Allosaurus can reached up to 12 meters. Also several websites says that. Dropzink.
 * I don't think that's correct, as the largest non-Epanterias Allosaurus is listed as 9.7m here . Big Al is the specimen illustrated in LoH's link, and it looks like it's about 7 or 8 m long, not 10. The Black Hills Institute site also says "The adult skeleton was nearly eight feet high at the hips, and 26 feet in length" . In fact, the only source I can find saying Big Al is 10 m is Wikipedia, and my guess is whoever wrote that based it on the WWD show, which might have extropolated an adult Allosaurus size. I'll ask around to get the scoop on this confusing situation... Dinoguy2 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Always I read that "Big Al" was 7 or 8 meters long, but when I read of "Big Al" that was 10 meters long here in Wikipedia I think that this was correct, also because you have contributions in that article, and if that length was incorrect you changed it. But I said "also several websites says that" in reference of Allosaurus total length, not "Big Al" length. And if the largest Allosaurus specimen is 9.7 meters long, first we have to verify is this specimen is an adult, fully grown. Dropzink
 * Allosaurus is one if, if not the, most common predatory dinosaurs in the world, with dozens of good specimens and probably hundreds of fragmentary ones... I'd find it hard to believe if we've never found an adult, and the largest one known was not full grown! It has been suggested that the existance of things like Epanterias means allosaurs never stopped growing, so really big specimens might be really old individuals. However, I think it's important for scale diagrams to reflect average known size, not maximum. Otherwise, shouldn't the human we use for comparison be a 7-ft tall man like Shaquille O'Neal or Robert Pershing Wadlow? Dinoguy2 14:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a difference, Shaquille O'Neal is a basketball player, normally basketball players are tall because practice, jumps, etc. And Robert Pershing Wadlow had a tumor in the pituitary gland, thats why he was giant and indeed the world tallest human. Normally a human reaches 1,8 meters tall, people call it average size because there are taller humans but they are exceptions because sports or diseases, really a normal human is 1,8 meters tall and don't grow more, this is the maximum normal size for humans. Allosaurus never made sports for reached 12 meters, diseases can had but are exceptions. If that specimen is not fully grown, we have to put the maximum length, that is average too, people call average size to his 9 meters because the longest specimen found have this length. For example the longest specimens of Mussaurus are hatchlings and juveniles, we don't compare creatures like this because they aren't adults, like the longest Allosaurus specimen. Dropzink

I also think we should go with the average size of Allosaurus rather than the somewhat dubious fossils which might be other genera. After all, this size diagram is supposed to be representative of the average size of the genus, rather than the largest (or smallest) specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like the sclae diagram on Rhinoceros could be done as a comprimise -- color-coded overlaping profiles of a sub-adult like Big Al, an average sized adult, and an Epanterias sized giant? This would illustrate a range of known fossils size, showing both average size and dubious larger sizes. I do think they sohuld be full lateral profile, not drawn at an angle like the current example, which obscures the true dimensions of the animal and may throw off the scaling. Dinoguy2 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I asked Scott Hartman about the Big Al issue. Relevant parts of his reply:
 * "I got extensive access to the cast prior to publication; it's still one of the most precise reconstructions I've done, even though I first did it almost 10 years ago. Anyways, 8 meters tops, and closer to 7.5-7.6 meters."
 * "First of all, there is no evidence that "Big Al" is not full grown. All of the neural arches are completely fused, and the individual has many pathologies. Of course it may simply have had a difficult life. Until/unless someone sections some long bones, our best indirect indicators suggest it was full grown."
 * "BTW, excluding the classic Madsen casts that we see in museums everywhere, I've seen far more fossil allosaurs in Big Al's size range, so I suspect 10m is actually higher than the average allosaur size."
 * He also mentions that Big Al is getting placed in a seperate species from A. fragilis (A. jimmadseni?). It might be useful, again using the rhinoceros example, to illustrate different species of Allosaurus, which probably reached different sizes. A small Big Al sized, 7.5 m individual, a standard A fragilis at 9 m, and an Epanterias/Saurophaganax (A. maximus) at 12 m. Dinoguy2 00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea Dinoguy! Thanks for explain me the controversies you convinced me. I have ready the scale diagram today. Dropzink
 * Haven't heard back from Scott but I checked the theropod database an A. "jimmadseni" is not Big Al, though Chure is naming both new species. So if you're using a Big Al sized critter in the new diagram, if you're going to label it, use the MOR cat number or A. sp. nov. for now. Dinoguy2 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready the scale diagram of every allosaurid for no controversies! Dropzink
 * Looks very good! The edges look a little pixely or jagged in full view though, is there any way to smooth them out a little? Dinoguy2 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They can be made more smooth in PhotoShop. Let me know if your require assistance. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I fix it. Dropzink 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Othnielosaurus
Was busy doing basal tetrapoda, Synapsida and other critters from the Devonian-Permian period (you can see them here, here, and here, but will pop up from time to time with a dinosaur. Here is Othnielosaurus based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. ArthurWeasley 07:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those Devonian critters look absolutely delicious - I mean well done artistically! Debivort 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Too good your pictures. Dropzink 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Grat work! Can't spot any antotomical problems, but it is one of those boring ornithischian things ;) The devonian critters are amazing. Dinoguy2 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arthur, that is a truly lovely image. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot! Will you do us the honor of adding it to the page, or should I? J. Spencer 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks, guys! The next one won't be "a boring ornithischian", I promise ;)ArthurWeasley 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deinocheirus
I saw the most wanted images, and i decided to draw the Deinocheirus forelimb based on. Check it. Dropzink 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The image looks very accurate to me, at least based on the skeletal you used. Good job. The image itself is very light; is there a way you can darken it? (I can help if you don't know how). Also, I see a few bluish smudges on the picture. These wouldn't be so noticable if the image wasn't so light. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok in a few hours is ready the new version. Dropzink 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready! Dropzink 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dropzink - it's still relatively washed out (foreground vs background) and has the smudges. How about this version? Debivort 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much better, thanks for help;) Dropzink 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus
A perspective on Gorgosaurus... ArthurWeasley 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's gorgeous (pun intended), Arthur. I'll leave it up to these other folks to determine its accuracy, as usual. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anatomically, it looks correct, and I like the different angle (sort of a "pterosaur's-eye view"). J. Spencer 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Too perfect! Dropzink 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree; great angle. Nice pic Cas Liber 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that's a cute theropod. Much better than all those blasted sauropods... Spawn Man 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Uteodon
Uteodon in bipedal stance. ArthurWeasley 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not very good, the skull and the hands look strange to me. Dropzink 21:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but I'd suggest three tweaks: Iggy only had three toes, so no dewclaw; I'd move the thumb spike to the leading end of the left hand, because, like theropods, it couldn't turn its hands so that the palms were backwards; and I'd de-emphasize the line where the jaws meet. Otherwise, I think it'll work fine. J. Spencer 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New version uploaded. How is it now? ArthurWeasley 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The hands now are good but the beak is rare compared to another pictures. Dropzink 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unusual you mean? Could you be more precise and point to the other pictures you are referring to? ArthurWeasley 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice pic. Was it that fat? cheers Cas Liber 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Cas, but I always thought of Iggy as a big bulky herbivore that eats a lot of food and therefore had a big combustion chamber to process it and big muscles in the limbs to sustain the weight ;) Would a slimmer version be better? ArthurWeasley 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a slimmer version is necessary; I. bernissartensis was a big, heavily built ornithopod. J. Spencer 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Iguanodon is heavy and bulky, a slimmer version is unnecessary. And about the beak, I think that the one above covers to the one down, like a ceratopsian. The Iguanodon have the beak closed, and therefore it must have the "two" beaks united like this . Dropzink 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May be or may be not. How do you know? If you look at the skull for instance here: Image:Iguanodon skull.JPG, the upper jaw is slightly longer than the lower jaw...beaks may do the same. Anyway, I've uploaded a new version with a more classical shape for the beak... ArthurWeasley 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that there aren't better images available of the Leonardo beak, which is quite complete. I do know that Edmontosaurus beaks (upper jaw) are pretty long, overhanging the bone end by at least a couple of inches (Senckenberg mummy). J. Spencer 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These pictures of Leonardo are not too bad. Also check out Elvis. The upper beak is clearly larger than the lower one, but of course we can't be certain that it was the same for Iguanodon. ArthurWeasley 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better now. Dropzink 07:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brachylophosaurus

 * Yeah, looks very good. I like your new shading style. ArthurWeasley 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserve some of the credit AW - your branching out to new techniques was my inspiration. Debivort 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vow, now, that's a nice compliment Deb, I do not know what to say. Thanks :D ArthurWeasley 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is excellent, Debivort. I particularly like the texturing; the skin really looks like it has scales. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, the black and white texture is simply paper-grain, and will likely show up invariably if I keep doing shading in this style. The blue vs tan texture comes from photoshop and I put in deliberately for the scaly look. Debivort 01:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent picture! Dropzink 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus
I know that it is not a needed picture but I couldn't resist drawing the most famous meat eater of all times (actually, I was asked by someone outside the wikipedia community to do it...). ArthurWeasley 07:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a lovely image, Arthur. Thank you for including it here. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huaxiagnathus
For your inspection. Debivort 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice pic and excellent dynamic pose. Looks anatomically accurate to me except that the dewclaw seems to be missing from the left foot. ArthurWeasley 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on the far side of the leg. Wouldn't it be concealed by the leg? Or are they less lateral on the legs than I imagine?Debivort 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They should be more on the inner side of the legs (not on the far side) as seen in this skeletal reconstruction of the related Compsognathus(which seems alright except for the pronated position of the hands). Here is an accurate depiction of Compy by Todd Marshall where you can see the dewclaws. ArthurWeasley 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I totally mis-read the skeletal I was using. V2. Debivort 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me :) ArthurWeasley 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tail doesn't look very stiff, but that could just be because it's further away from the front of the picture. Seems ok to me. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a bit foreshortened because the animal is somewhat in line with the viewer. Should I fix?Debivort 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, honestly, I think it's fine. We haven't heard from Dinoguy; until then, I think it's safe to say it's good. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. The flexed tail gave me pause but there are sleeping/nesting specimens which show theropod tails are more flexible than you'd think. I like the very primitive, partial feathering--jibes well with its phylo position, I think. Dinoguy2 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * re:feathering - how you interpreted it DG is exactly how I intended, based on my reading of Compsognathidae. Debivort 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are two scale diagrams, based on the latest two images. Debivort 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think the size listed on Huaxiagnathus is correct. DinoData gives details for two specimens--the holotype, a subadult, at 1.6 m and a referred specimen (not listed as subadult, so probably close to adult size) at 1.8 m. The Wiki length of 2.5 m is probably too big, and there's no cite with it to check. Dinoguy2 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The original version of the drawing had it at about 1.5m. In this new version he is 1.8m. Debivort 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Dinoguy2 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Titanosauria cladogram


I really liked how the cladogram for Iguanodon turned out, so I thought I'd try making a few others. This is Titanosauria, from the most detailed study (Curry-Rogers '05, in her sauropod book). Any thoughts? I named one clade Nemegtosaurinae that she identified as the "Rapetosaurus clade", since that's where a Nemegto-clade would be (and since we use Nemegtosauridae, so I thought there should be something with the Nemegt- on it), and she used Saltasauridae instead of Titanosauridae. Making modifications is remarkably easy, though.

If people like these diagrams, I'll take requests: just suggest a clade and an article or articles, and I'll see about making a simplified version. J. Spencer 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! My only beef is the erection of a new taxa--Nemegtosaurinae has never been published, at least it's not listed in Taxon Search, so even though that clade could realistically be called Nemegtosaurinae (since almost the same clade was the basis for the name Nemegtosauridae in the first place), coining a new name on Wikipedia isn't such a great idea.
 * And yeah, Titanosauridae doesn't look like it's used anywhere in the literature anymore, ICZN be damned. We should probably switch over. I don't have Curry-Roger's book, but it would probably be a good overall basis for titanosaur taxonomy here. Dinoguy2 00:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out Nemegtosaurinae; could have sworn somebody had used it somewhere, but I guess not. It's kind of odd that she didn't use that name, but that's her prerogative. I think some of the Argentine\Brazilian workers are still using Titanosauridae, but it's really hard to say what Titanosaurus indicus is anymore. I think in the future we'll run into the same thing with Ceratops and Ceratopsinae now that we have centrosaurines with long brow horns. J. Spencer 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs there, we can go back to Chasmosaurinae which is used in Dinosauria II..... (Nice cladogram by the way) cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Compsognathus scale diagram
Hey guys, while I had my files open for Archaeopteryx, I took the liberty of whipping up a size chart for Compsognathus based on Headden's skeletals of the holotype and French specimen, and a modified version of my Juravenator profile. Let me know what you think. Dinoguy2 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that the black 1 metre scale bar is a few pixels too low? Also, some gray lines are not straight: they shift a few pixels to the left on the top and to the right at the bottom.  I guess a vector format to png problem due to resizing.  Tbc2 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-did the grid and scale bar just using guides in Photoshop so there shouldn't be any distortion. I also repositioned the human so his heels are 'flat on the ground' and not standing on his toes for a more accurate sense of height. How's it look? Dinoguy2 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Only the middle gray lines have a width of 2px while all the other ones have a width of 1px.  I have the impression that this is not on purpose (brighter colours of the middle lines makes it likely that those 2px are interpolated versions of a more narrow line).  Also why do you place quotation marks round C. corallestris and not round C. longipes?  If you feel like I'm nitpicking ;-) Tbc2 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "C. corallestris" is now pretty much universally accepted as C. longipes, the type species, which is the reason for the quotes. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. The persistant difference in line thickness has me stumped. Must be something with the PNG format or with the way photoshop does it's geometric shapes. If you know of any way to fix it let me know, though personally I struggle to notice the difference even in the largest version (could be my screen as well). And yeah. "C. corallestris" is no longer sonsidered a valid species, but I included it to indicate that the larger specimen was the one assigned to it (Headden also did that in the skeletal I used). Dinoguy2 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is because the width of the image is not a multiple of the width of the lines so photoshop has to do some interpolating when converting the vector based image to a raster image like png. It's perfectly logic that you do not see gray lines near the borders but you do see them in the middle.  If the grid was more fine, you'd see the lines gradually become thicker and grayer as they are more near to the center.  It doesn't bother me that much, but it was something I noticed.  The quotation marks: okay.  Tbc2 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Plateosaurus scale diagram
Here another scale diagram. I did it based on my previous Plateosaurus picture. Check it. Dropzink 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, although 10 m is a little bit on the high side for Plateosaurus. Should be more like 7-9 m which seems incidentally to be the right proportion for your image. ArthurWeasley 07:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, a bit smaller would be better - even 9m was a biggy cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The angle between the neck and the skull is way too much. There is almost no angle: the upper vertebrae are should be connected to the back (upper) side of the skull.   The mandible of Plateosaurus also has a distinctive concavity, which I do not see here.  Tbc2 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, though this should be pretty easy to fix in an outline. You may also want to take into account a brand new study which shows prosauropods like Plateosaurus were just as incapable of hand pronation as theropods, and could not use their front limbs to walk, so not even faculative quadrupedality for these guys anymore. Dinoguy2 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I understood how change the angle between the skull and neck. But how I change the strange position of the hands? P.S.: Why you Dinoguy2 didn't said me this anatomical problems when I published the picture of Plateosaurus which I use in this image as siluete :S Dropzink 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess because the paper just came out now. Incidently, I will have to modify my own prosauropod illustration that I've drawn some time ago (Sellosaurus). Pity, I kind of like it :(. No worries. More fun for me... ArthurWeasley 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes--I literally just heard about the new paper yesterday. It's a brand new study :) Dinoguy2 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But this means that prosauropods can't walk quadrupedal? Dropzink 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is what seems to be implied in this new study. See the abstract there. ArthurWeasley 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though I wonder exactly how/when quadrupedality evolved among sauropods, and what it might have to do with their bizarro, fingerless front feet. Dinoguy2 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ready the new version. Dropzink 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to only have 3 legs. Debivort 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus
A recent request from Firs... ArthurWeasley 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice one, though I am not too familiar with the anatomy so I am not the best one to comment on that. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, though I'm not sure about how 'flexed' the body appears to be. I imagine it's only the tail being flexed extremely to the side, but this might imply an overly long tail in that perspective. Remember, the key with theropods, from carnosaurs to modern birds, is stiff, stiff, more stiff, and practically immobile ;) Dinoguy2 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * yep, the tail is flexed to the side but didn't you say earlier that theropod tails were more flexible than you'd think ;) ? OK, I could shorten the tail a bit (or put it on the other side, whichever you prefer). ArthurWeasley 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, I agree it's anatomically correct. It's a quirk of perspective that makes it appear to be incorrect :) I'd leave it as-is, personally. Dinoguy2 02:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so no anatomical issues. It is a very nice image. Not as fierce-looking as I imagined it. Then again, I suppose blood dripping down its jaw would be a bad idea. It works for me. Thank you, Arthur. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex
The best T-rex skeletal pic I have ever seen, compositionally. I snagged this from Flickr, where it is Creative-Commons licensed. Killdevil 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunately incompatible with Wikipedia's image licensing policies as it uses a noncommercial only license. Mgiganteus1 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * O yeah, I just noticed that too. I'm going to contact the photographer to see if he'll change the license. Killdevil 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is imposing! I'd hate to look at a live one from that angle. It's a very unusual perspective, although I'm not sure it illustrates the animal in an encyclopedic way. JMHO, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Garudimimus
Thoughts? Debivort 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very good but er... what happened to his feathers? ;) Dinoguy2 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's feathered? I didn't see anything about that in Ornithomimosauria or garudimimus, and so left it bare. Debivort 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, nice image. Considering the phylogenical position of the ornithomimosaurs within the theropods, it is very likely that they were indeed feathered. No feather impression of ornithomimosaurs sensu stricto are known, but at least one related genus, Shuvuuia (an alvarezaur) has been preserved with feathery teguments (although the classification of alvarezaurs as possible ornithomimosaurs is still unclear at least to me). ArthurWeasley 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - I can feather it. Debivort 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing is that the shape of the skull is a little off. It's a bit longer and narrower, with more pronounced concavities in the snout and lower jaw (see ) Dinoguy2 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The new version looks good! I don't know that I'd have given it fully developed, pennaceous feathers on the body, especially if it's not fully covered in them, as those are a feature of rather advanced, fully feathered dinos... but we don't have *any* evidence of ornithomime integument so pretty much anything goes for now ;) Dinoguy2 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Compsognathus
Here is the feathered compy. I opted for short feathers making a fur covering the body as in Sinosauropteryx. Used skeletal in Peyer's paper as a guideline. ArthurWeasley 06:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent job, as usual! One question--the skull and legs/feet look a lot more robust than the thin, gracile legs and relatively gracile snout of the skeletals I have. Is this way way it was in the skeletal you used? If so, I'd just chalk it up to different morphs or interpretation of the material. Anyway, really good job on the feathers, and I like the 'rings' on the tail--Sinosauropteryx style :) Dinoguy2 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course you are right Dinoguy. Here, I've uploaded a version with more gracile feet and slender snout. Looks cuter that way... ;) Thanks ArthurWeasley 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)