Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2007

Paralititan, Fukuiraptor
Happy New Year! Starting with the massive Egyptian titanosaur and the Japanese Allosaurid. ArthurWeasley 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me, though the tail on the Fukuiraptor looks kinda short compared to other allosauroids and this skeletal mount. Dinoguy2 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know but the length of the tail from the pubis to the tip in the skeletal mount is about 2.5 times the length of the skull and kind of shorter than the body size. The proportions in the drawing look about the same to me. ArthurWeasley 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here may be the slanted perspective of the photo making the tail look a bit smaller than it is. I think this is why in the drawing, the tail appears to get too gracle too fast. The photo has a longer and more curvaceous 'look' to it, which doesn't quite come across without some extra depth, which would have looked odd without extra length as well. I'd reccomend making the base of the tail a bit deeper and lengthening (just a little bit, to compensate) which should end up looking fine. Dinoguy2 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! ArthurWeasley 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Paralititan looks really nice, Arthur. Wow, that is one really thick neck! (But that's what the musculature diagram shows, so...) Firsfron of Ronchester  20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I made the neck thicker on purpose to give room for all the muscles. It is still quite slim compared to John Conway's reconstitution of Giraffatitan here ... ArthurWeasley 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great!Dinoguy2 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcosuchus and Eurhinosaurus
No dino this time. Sarco mainly based on this and Eurhino based on this and that. ArthurWeasley 07:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Both look great, Arthur. I forgot about Eurhinosaurus... kind of a sawfish mimmic! Dinoguy2 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Archosauromorpha series
Continuing the Archosauromorpha series... Champsosaurus based on. Protorosaurus based on and. Trilophosaurus based on and. Incidentally, there is no article on any of the Trilophosauridae on wikipedia. Could someone write a stub? Two of the images have been colorized (my new experiment!). I also have the BW version if you prefer. ArthurWeasley 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ey i like your Tanystropheus quite a lot.-LadyofHats 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :D ArthurWeasley 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the coloring looks quiten nice - are you doing it on the computer? My one suggestion would be to increase the contrast difference between the dinosaur and its background (see the feet of the Tanystropheus). Debivort 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just using a pencil, a scanner, a printer and a few crayola markers for the coloring. Unfortunately, can't increase the contrast without redoing the coloring from scratch. Also don't have much colors at my disposal. I am not too much of a computer guy but will probably end up trying Photoshop one day (is that the software you guys are using?) ArthurWeasley 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool stuff! I was waiting for someone to do a trilophosaur, they're a great example of the 'ancestral archosaur' form. Nothing screams inaccurate on these, and they look like the skeletals, but I'm not really an expert on the anatomy of these guys :) The color versions are very well done. Dinoguy2 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I love the Tanystropheus - the others I'm not too familiar with though they look niceCas Liber 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One more
A phytosaur, Rutiodon mainly based on the skeletal at. Lotosaurus will be next. Good night for now. ArthurWeasley 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work! At this rate we'll have at least one image for each major sauropsid clade in no time :) Dinoguy2 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! The shading is also really nice, as it's easily seen even in the thumbnail version, a good thing to consider when these go on the page, as not everyone will click on the full-size image. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree -really nice drawing Cas Liber 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lotosaurus
Not a dino but pretty cool. Skeletal here and here. ArthurWeasley 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a lovely image, but the black spots seem too dark, somewhat artificial-looking (because they are so much darker than anything else in the image). I know you were going with the idea that the sail was used as a display, or as a distraction to predators who would be drawn to the spots rather than the head, ala the Dimetrodon in Walking with Prehistoric Beasts; at the same time, the spots just seem too dark; I'm not a predator, and even I'm distracted by the spots! ;) Sorry for nitpicking. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Irritator
from this one i will make only the[head] becouse i dont find anything else from the skeleton. does anyone has an idea how broad was it. i mean like a cocodril or more thin like a caiman?-LadyofHats 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only known from the skull. Here are some other reconstructions. You can see here a front view of Spinosaurus, another spinosaurid dinosaur. This site indicates they could even be the same genus. Hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The front view of the JP3 spinosaur is far too broad--the dal Sasso skull is very narrow, more like a gharial than a crocodile. Here is a front view of a Suchomimus skull, which was similar in shape. Dinoguy2 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

now this one was so much fun :). here i hope you have no corrections.-LadyofHats 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC) oh yeah ignore the image on the bottom, that one will be a second side view of the head. i just pasted the bones for a while to compare propotions :P. so do you have any corrections?-LadyofHats 13:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) me waves with the hands, whistles and jumps... EY guys i am here-LadyofHats 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks to AW for moving this down :) Looks excellent LoH, love that perspective. Dinoguy2 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AW.-LadyofHats 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Really looks neat! :) Great job! Firsfron of Ronchester  00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep! Really nice, this is truly one of your best, Lady! ArthurWeasley 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Riojasaurus and Qantassaurus
I'm back from vacation - here are two for your comments. Debivort 04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The style and technique are very good, but the first thing that jumps out at me is the severe bend at the base of the neck on the Riojasaurus. Arguments about sauropodomorph neck posture aside, such a drastic bend would have been impossible without completely disarticulating those few vertebrae (see a skelton here to see what I mean ). Dinoguy2 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... I thought that might be an issue. Part of why I drew it that way was the lines in the article: "was unable to rear up on its back legs" and "fed on the foliage of tall conifers." How can these both be true without a neck that can bend sharply? I figured as a prosauropod it must be an exception to the neck rule. new version coming soon. Debivort 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK new version of riojasaurus. Debivort 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The body looks great, in my opinion! The head/neck area seems somehow "off" to me. I didn't see your original image (missed it), so I don't know if the original problem was reduced, but it seems to me on your image, the head and spine connect at a rather sharp angle. The spine should connect to the skull at almost no angle. On your image, there is a very obvious angle. The head should be able to bend, but the angle this fellow's head is in worries me from a skeletal point of view. probably outdated skeletal image, but shows the head/neck position I'm used to seeing. Dinoguy may disagree with me, so please do not rework until confirmation from him. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironic how the life restoration below that image flatly contradicts the skeletal... :( But yes, the new neck posture is worlds better than the old one, though the head angle is off as FofR points out. The 'fact' that it fed off conifers should be removed... sounds like a guess made by whoever wrote the article, rather than something based on evidence. Even if remnants of confers were somehow found in association wiht the stomach or in coprilites, the body posture should immediately rule out the idea that they were 'tall'. Dinoguy2 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get that link (403 error) - but here's a new version. Debivort 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Thanks for your patience. Sorry the link didn't work; it was working fine the other day... Firsfron of Ronchester  00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! How about the Qant? Debivort 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems just fine to me. At least, I've found nothing to object to, since I haven't found a skeletal reconstruction. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both look fine to me. I'm not really up on ornithopods, but the Qant looks pretty good compared to reconstructions of hypsilophodonts. Dinoguy2 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like v3 Riojasaurus better than v2 (the neck thing..). I thought Qantassaurus was only known from minimal remains - looks nice though I wonder if it weren't a little slimmer? Cas Liber 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It could have been slimmer, but the Museum Victoria image shows a fellow that was even chubbier. Several sources indicate Qantassaurus is known only from a dentary, but DinRuss claims it's known from a nearly complete skeleton. This deserves looking into. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dinoruss is the only site that lists Qanta as known from a nearly complete skeleton. This seems to be a mistake. Sites such as and  (shows the actual holotype) as well as the old dinosauricon and dinodata says it is known from a dentary and teeth. Does somebody have the following ref: Rich, T.H. & P.Vickers-Rich 1999 The Hypsilophodontidae from Southeastern Australia In Y.Tomada, T.H.Rich and P.Vickers-Rich (Eds) Proceedings of the Second Gondwana Dinosaur Symposium. National Science Museum Monographs, No.15. Tokyo. pp.167-180 ?ArthurWeasley 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Size comparison for Riojasaurus. Let me know what to do with Qantassaurus whenever you can. Debivort 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rioja scale diagram looks about twice as big as it should... At least compared to the size diagram in the link Firs posted (it doesn't work when you first click on it, open it up and then hit enter in the url bar again and it should come up. weird). Anyway, it looks like Rioja is about 2 or 2.5 m tall at the hip. Yours might end up looking a bit 'short' due to the perspective of the drawing (i.e., it won's measure 35ft on the diagram if you actually measure it out), but it should still give a good idea of the size. Dinoguy2 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a new version of the comparison chart. Debivort 08:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The size comparison looks good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lagosuchus
Folks, my first attempt to colorize an image with a software instead of using pencils and markers starts with Lagosuchus. I am still in the learning process but am quite happy with this first try :). Also fade out the spots on the Lotosaurus that Firs found so distracting, using ancient technology (i.e. an eraser) ;). ArthurWeasley 07:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've got the hang of the coloring! The eye is wonderful. I'll leave anatomical comments to the pros... Debivort 09:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lagosuchus looks good, based on the skeletals I have (I'm guessing based primarily on Marasuchus and Lewisuchus). Excellent work on the digital coloring, too. The new Lotosaurus looks great. What a weird looking critter! Dinoguy2 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lagosuchus appears to closely resemble the skeletal here, with the exception of the neck, which is shown much thicker. However, according to Palaeos.com, the lagosuchids did have long s-shaped necks, and the lagosuchid section of the site depicts members of the clade with much thinner necks than the above link. So, no objection from me! :) Also, thanks for fading out the spots on Lotosaurus. They just looked too dark in my opinion. Thanks for the great images. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * John Conway's rendering of Lagosuchus gives an even thinner neck: . As Dinoguy pointed out all the available reconstructions are probably based on Lagosuchus lillioensis which is now known as Marasuchus. I wonder if the image should move to the Marasuchus article instead. ArthurWeasley 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It could even go in both--the original Lagosuchus material is so poor it's not diagnostic, and treated by most as a nomen dubium, which is why Marasuchus was created for the better specimens. Dinoguy2 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wuerhosaurus and Lufengosaurus
Thoughts? Debivort 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like the Wuerhosaurus, that's a cool pose. The prosauropod's hands look off though--a little too theropodan and... hand-like. Prosauropods were primarily quadrupedal, and the fingers were short, overall a bit more 'paw'-like. Or at least not 'curled up', which makes it look like it was capable of grasping, which I'm not sure it could do, based on the skeletal stuff I can find. Dinoguy2 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wuerhosaurus image is colored/shaded very nicely. It shows up very well even in the thumbnail version. I'm a bit worried about the Wuerhosaurus eye. If you look here under "tribe Stegosaurini", you will see the skull of the closely related Stegosaurus. On your image, the eye very nearly lines up with the back of the mandible (lower jaw). Most dinosaurs had four "holes" which went completely through their skull: the naris, the antorbital fenestra (not present in Stegosaurini), the orbit (eye socket), and the infratemporal fenestra, which was behind the orbit. It looks as though the eye of this fellow is close to (or in) the infratemporal fenestra. Would it be possible to move the eye just slightly down and slightly to the left? Sorry for the nitpickery. Firsfron of Ronchester  11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pawier hands on Lufeng, and downleftier eye on Wuerho. Debivort 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for downlefting the eye. Looks great, in my opinion! Firsfron of Ronchester  04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus
Herrerasaurus based on skeletal by Sereno, see, details of the skull at and of the hands and feet at. ArthurWeasley 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks very good, but the back leg seems a little wonky. Both feet are contacting the ground at the same point and in the same pose, but the back knee is not visible, making the back tibia look longer than the front one. Neither foot really looks firmly planted on the ground, either -- they both look like the hind leg in Sereno's skeletal, which is pushing off the ground in a running pose. If both feet are like that he's likely to be toppling forward ;) Theropods, and I assume herrerasuarians as well, whatever they are, had a thicker pad of flesh behind the functional toes that would have become more prominant as weight was put on it, sort of like a pseudo human 'heel', and the full length of the digits would be splayed out on the ground under the animals weight (except the vestigial digits of course, which originated higher up the metatarsals). See this drawing of a T. rex standing on one foor to see what I mean :) Dinoguy2 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ack! Exactly what I thought! Here is a slightly modified version. I can work on it some more to have the back hind leg more firmly on the ground. ArthurWeasley 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me! :) I don't think it's important that the feet are planted completely, squarely on the ground in this case. The pose suggests it may be lunging at small prey or something, so as long as it looks like it's moving forward rather than falling forward, I think it's ok. Dinoguy2 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like this new version a lot. It's much nicer than the old image we had. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rugops and two pelycosaurs
Shifting towards the abelisaurs (somehow, among the theropods, I like those). Inspiration here. Ophiacodon based on this. Sphenacodon from here (reconstruction seems somewhat outdated)ArthurWeasley 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rugops looks cool (especially the carnotaur-like scutes and osteoderms), but the snout looks too long and narrow compared to the link you provided as well as Todd Marshall's graphite studies of the skull. It looks like th tip of the snout and the nostril should be just forward of where the anterior edge of the AOF is now. The most distinctive thing about abelisaurids is their rounded, bulldog-like skulls. Dinoguy2 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, snout was a little long. I've shorten and thicken it a bit and displaced the nostril accordingly. Note that in the link above, the snout in the actual skull on the right seems slightly longer than the reconstruction on the left, although the perspective looks the same. ArthurWeasley 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm guessing some of the skull is reconstructed, since this looks more like the restoration than the skull in that image Also, and this is very nitpicky, but check out the nostril on the life sculpture--it's positioned as low as possible given the shape of the naris, based on Whitmer's studies, and this applies to all amniotes apparently. Dinoguy2 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, moved the nostril down to the base of the naris. ArthurWeasley 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dimetrodon
Everyone's favorite pelycosaur... (or at least the most popular) ArthurWeasley 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, neat! I cannot comment as to its accuracy, but it's a very cool image! Dimetrodon is only everyone's favorite pelycosaur because most people would be hard pressed to name a different one. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right, that's why I added "the most popular" ;) ! Not sure what I am going to do next... ArthurWeasley 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks accurate to me! Very nice work Dinoguy2 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not fully agree. Isn't the skull a little bit too small and - more important - aren't the teeth too "homodont"? de:Benutzer:TomCatX --83.129.9.186 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The head looks about right compared to this photo, at least. Arthur didn't specify which species he was depicting, but the one in that AMNH mount is rather small-skulled compared to the more well-known, big-headed D. grandis. I think the teeth are too small to really nitpick... the different morphologies of Dimetrodon teeth would be too indistinct at this scale, wouldn't they? They're all ong pointy things, just slightly different long pointy things when you look at them in cross section, etc. Dinoguy2 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the problem with the teeth isn't easy to handle. But even in the highest magnification of that picture you can see that all the teeth have the same size and one of the most important apomorphies of the synapsids was their heterodonty. So I think it would be better to show that animal with a closed mouth to avoid misunderstandigs. What do you think? de:Benutzer:TomCatX --83.129.9.186 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the species which served as a model in the drawing is D. limbatus. There is a skeletal here for instance. I believe the skull is about the right size, even if you consider a different species, such as D. grandis. If you check the skeletal (see here), you can notice that the proportion of the skull with respect to the body size is about the same, although the general appearance of the animal might be a little bit more stockier. As for the teeth, they were made heterodont but as Dinoguy2 pointed out, it's hard to notice at this scale (even with the zoom) mostly because it is a low resolution image. I slightly modified the image to make some of the teeth look bigger but once all is reduced to a convenient format, the difference almost faded away (have to look hard but there is a difference!). ArthurWeasley 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I hadn't even considered the teeth. One more reason I'm glad there are several people watching this page. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vector images
Started work on vectorising some of the size comparison images:

My impression is that the black ones are in main use, is that so? /Marmelad 12:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)