Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2011 - December 2011

Tyrannotitan and Shaochilong
Been a while with the dinosaurs, last thing was a Tyrannotitan sketch that got its perspective screwed up when I tried to "warp" a sauropod carcass into a new posture, and added a juvenile just to fill out space. Now I've split the two, tried to make the "juvenile" look like an adult Tyrannotitan, and then I thought I should retool the big one as another yet unillustrated carcharodontosaur, Shaochilong, since well, otherwise drawing them both would had been a waste of time, and I sure ain't getting paid! So would these two make sense as depicting those genera? I think I'll make the carcass the Shaoichilong is eating a Sinornithomimus. FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good FunkMonk. However, what if you give the Tyrannotitan robuster body (and tail)? The legs might could have more muscles, and perhaps the left foot could be somewhat smaller? However, I like the perspective of the head, it's really good! Your Shaochilong are good. However, you might could show some of the maxilla teeth, as they sink down in the flesh? Conty 07:30, 27 January 2011
 * Looking good.! The Tyranno does look a bit thin laterally. Carchs seem to have been slab-sided compared to the barrel-chested tyrannosaurids, but I believe the ribs would stick out more laterally from the spine and broaden the chest. Can't find any non-lateral views to confirm this though :P MMartyniuk (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do what you two have outlined above, the Tyrannotitan is quite lanky because it was initially supposed to be a juvenile (gave it really long legs like a juvenile tyrannosaur), so I'll change the proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the Shaochilong with the Sinornithomimus, will be the one I finish first. Does the size difference look alright? FunkMonk (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Size looks about right to me, though i'm not very familiar with either :X TTD say ~5-6m for Shaochilong and 2.5m for Sinornithomimus. Given those recent rex studies I'd encourage all artists to beef up the tails to the point where there's a visible "hump" of flesh at the base, though... But otherwise, looks awesome! MMartyniuk (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the drawing was made before that study came out... Hmmm, but how exactly would such a bump look? FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be anything drastic, just giving the tail some extra roundness and girth and not having the lines of the drawing flow smoothly from hip to tail. This drawing pre-dates the study too but it's based on a previous one on modelling mass, which drew pretty similar conclusions about the musculature. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do we know how widespread this feature is among theropods? Then I'd go back and fix some older drawings... FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the tail and went on to colouring it (dull babirusa colour), how about now? FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Maybe you could give more muscles to the tail, but otherwise it is very good. Conty 16:45, 7 February 2011
 * What are you thinking of? I intentionally erased the line that would indicate the muscle, as in this image: And thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the idea of more "pork" on the lower part. When looking at your restoration, it is easy to see where the tip of the ischium is (I have done similar restorations). But if you think of, for example, a crocodile, there is no such clear line between the ischium and the base of the tail. First, look at this skeleton, and the compare it to the fleshy rump of this one. Do you understand what I mean? Conty 07:10, 14 February 2011
 * Hmm, I don't think the same would necessarily apply to theropods. If you look at the croc skeleton, the ischium is about the same length as the chevrons of the tail. So naturally, if properly filled out it will cause a continuous outline. But in most theropods the ischium is much longer/lower than the proximal chevrons. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right Martyniuk. But of course, don't think I want to give so much muscles on the tail. But look here, see how much muscle mass there is. The tail probably worked as anchor to large muscles. Conty 12:15, 14 February 2011
 * That and other such images were made before this paper came out: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21290/pdf FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saw Matt had linked to this article: http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2011/02/scott-person-on-recreating-theropods.html So according to that, is the Shaochilong drawing accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. I think the main thing is that tails are usually drawn too skinny laterally. But in a lateral pose, aside from wonky shading issues, or actually drawing in the muscle contours (usually invisible), it shouldn't make a difference. The base of the tail should bulge out wider than the hips: maybe this could be hinted at with shading, but other than that I can't think of anything else that could be done. Take-home message: dinosaurs have crocodile tails, not... whatever it was we've been drawing them with since Bakker and Paul. MMartyniu k (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another pass at the Tyrannotitan, rough and all, but anything needs changing? FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, this seems to be pretty good! But let me point out some things you can think of, if you want (remember, I can have the wrong opinion):


 * Perhaps should the forelimbs be further apart?
 * A little bit more mass on the body? You don't have to make it wider (Giganotosaurus had a thin body, you can see), but you can make it a bit deeper at the point of the pubic bone if you want.
 * A bit more well developed fingers and claws? With that I mean you can let the fingers "sprawl" (like this). Conty 18:00, 6 March 2011.
 * Yeah, good suggestions, I know the arm region was too underdeveloped, I'll give it all a polish. By the way, long time since you've posted a new image here! FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gave it some stuff here and there: http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/7258/minicopycopy.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now with weird colours. Or well, it's weird overall, "busiest" drawing so far... FunkMonk (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And argh, cripes, seems like it was already done in almost the same way without my knowledge: http://carnosauria.blogspot.com/2009/04/tyrannotitan.html Even in the banner! FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I kinda like your version better to be honest... looks fantastic. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I was very unsure whether it was complete crap or not, hahah. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New size estimation for Deinocheirus
I have for some time been interested to determine the size of Deinocheirus. I knew we had size diagrams, but wanted do my own estimate, and came to this result. What do you think? Conty 21:30, 6 March 2011.
 * Hi, well, there are a few problems with making your own estimate, the first one is that it is "original research", and thus prohibited from Wikipedia. Another thing is you say it is "proportionally based on the proportions of other ornithomimosaurs", but you must remember that this animal is many times larger than all of its relatives, so it would have much bulkier proportions. When I drew it, I was told that I had made it too slender, and should make for example the legs more tyrannosaur like. Furthermore, it appears that more material has recently been found, so we might soon have a better idea of how the animal actually looked. That's why I haven't modified the restoration I made since I learned of this, any modification would be in vain. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Troodon
Hi, I am a user from the spanish Wikipedia. Here is a Troodon drawing I have made. Is it OK? I hope it is accurate. -- El fosilmaníaco (Talk)
 * Hm... Not bad. There are some things I think you can improve. 1. Pedal digit I (Hallux) are placed very far down the metatarsal, almost at the same level as the second toe. 2. The pubic bone seems very short for a troodontid (as they, just like their cousins of Dromaeosauridae, had long, backward facing pubic bones). Otherwise, there is not much to say about inaccurates. Welcome to the club of dinosaur art! Conty 20:30, 20 March 2011.
 * I was under the impression that derived troodonts had reverted back to a forward-pointing pubis. Albertonykus (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and the things I notice would be that the wrist is maybe too pointy, the tail a little too short, and maybe the muscles on the thighs and calves should be bigger. As for the hand feathers, looks like they're coming down parallel to the second finger instead of out of it? FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a nice new skeletal you could take a look at: http://shartman.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d3b3mbm FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rugops size estimation
Hello. I have tried to do an estimation of the body size of the abelisaurid Rugops primus, based on the size of the skull (from the original paper, see here). I was surprised how small the resulting abelisaurid became. What do you think? I mean, the skull restoration here looks like it would belong to a much larger animal. Conty 20:40, 17 march 2011
 * How tall is the human supposed to be? FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a perspective illusion in that photo. It's hard to tell how close Sereno is standing to the models. Here, he's touching it and it looks smaller . MMartyniuk (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. The human in my diagram is something like 1.7-1.8 meters tall. But what surprises me is the fact that it have been said to have measured about 9 meters! How could they come to that conclusion? Conty 07:04, 18 march 2011
 * It may have been longer if proportioned more like this: But Majungasaurus is more derived, so I don't know how reasonable that is. For the record, Holtz's encyclopedia estimates it as 6m, which is likely if it were proportioned like Majungasaurus just by eyeballing your chart. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I know that at least Carnotaurus seems to have had a proportionarly small head. But did Majungasaurus had so short legs and small skull? Other restorations show a much shorter body with somewhat larger head (see ArthurWeasly's restoration for example). I also think of the long-legged Carnotaurus, and the long necked Aucasaurus (and Hartman´s skeletal diagram of Aucasaurus. With this variation among genera, and (as it seems) lack of consensus in restorations, I don't know what I should think. But I can't think Rugops was 9 meters long! Conty 19:10, 18 march 2011

Size of Tarchia
Thank you for the commentaries to the Rugops size diagram. Here, I have updated the size diagram to the ankylosaur Tarchia. I was surprised by how small it became (Of course, I assume the proportions are relatively accurate), especially when its reltaive Saichania was much larger, despite that the skulls were about the same size; about 40 cm. in Tarchia, and 45 cm. in Saichania. Do you think you have an explanation? Conty 16:10, 19 march 2011
 * Three possibilities, I guess (don't know ankylosaurs that well): either the proportions are incorrect, or the largest size estimates are way off (Holtz puts this thing at 8m!), or the skull you used as a reference is from a much smaller specimen than the ones used to calculate the maximum size. I'm betting the last one is correct, but again, I don't know about the available material. The proportions do look a bit off in your diagram. Here are some ankylosaur skeletons, all look longer, more slender, and proportionally smaller headed than yours . Based on its phylogeny I would expect it to resemble Euoplocephalus in profile. So that might be a contribution. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martyniuk. I have made the head smaller. But it still seems to be much smaller than 8 meter long... Conty 17:15, 20 march 2011

Dromaeosaurus
Hello everybody. I have uptdated a drawing of a Dromaeosaurus. Colouration is based on roadrunner's. What do you think about?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool colours, the thigh might be too thin, and it seems the primary feathers come out parallel to the fingers? They should come out of the second finger. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have done the primary feathers parallel to the fingers. I will consider this advice in the future. --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If they come parallel to the fingers, they're not primary feathers. Primaries by definition come from the fingers, not the arm. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Eocarcharia
This was posted by a new user on the Eocarcharia article. I'm bringing it here for review. I'm not sure it's wise to have a scale image based on a few fossils, but I know we've done it before, so here it is. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bit strange that the man appears to be levitating? FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Oxalaia"
I have recently produced a life restoration of the newly described spinosaurid Oxalaia and I just want to confirm if its accurate or not. . Taylor Reints (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty dark scan, but from that it looks cool, and it appears you haven't fallen in the same trap as the "official" artist, putting the nostril in the wrong opening: FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. When I first looked at that image I thought it must have taken a lot of science and work to make it... and then they put the external naris in the anorbital fenestrae ;). So other than its dark there's no mistakes or inaccuracies. If there is I'll try to explain the common ones here: I added a small nasal horn to the back of the premaxilla. This part of the skull wasn't recovered, additionally the horn could have been made by keratin before it decayed during fossilization. Using Spinosaurus as a model, I can suggest that Oxalaia sported an "above-the-eye" horn. As you may have noticed, I added some protofeathers to the neck. This individual happens to be a male sub-adult, around thirty feet long ready to mate. The protofeathers are a juvenile character that were lost shortly after a few weeks after hatching that have came back just right before mating season. These protofeathers were colorful, though, and as bright as could be. To help win his desire of a mate, his sinuses that filled up his external naris and anorbital fenestrae are getting larger and more colorful. Taylor Reints (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just tried to retake it on my camera, even if I use standard format for the picture there's a big yellow glare throughout the whole thing. I've tried other styles, too, but Monochrome, the black-and-white version currently on the Wiki, is the best it will get. Taylor Reints (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No scanner? FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaellynasaura
Hello. Now I have depicted a Leaellynasaura, with the hypertail and the "dinofuzz". Is it accurate?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no evidence it had fuzz, but I guess no solid evidence against it either... MMartyniuk (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's standing on the tip of the toes, not sure if it could do that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and both knees are at or beyond the max possible extension. It's kinda posed as if it's jumping as high as it can but it's still on the ground. If standing, the feet should be flat and the knees should be bent a lot more. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Better now?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, eye should be smaller, and thigh thicker as well I think. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Eodromaeus
I decided to draw Eodromaeus, even though it feels a bit unnesecessary (I mean, should Wikipedia have illustrations of every dinosaur in the world?). Anyway, I hope this one is accurate. What do you think? Conty 14:05, 5 April 2011
 * Yes, we should preferably have an image of every dinosaur in the world! Rather that than multiple drawings of the same species. The drawing looks good, but it suffers from bloated eye syndrome. Should probably be twice as small. Also remember that the fleshy nostril does not fill out the entire skull opening. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloated eye syndrome? That was funny. And by the way, I think the fleshy nostril looks big partially because of the thick pencil. But I can fix it, but I think I should wait for more comments... Conty 18:45, 5 April 2011
 * It looks pretty good overall but the skull looks a little too robust. I slapped this together: You can see the lower maxilla should be a bit higher and so should the position of the eye (and it should be a bit smaller to accommodate the sclerotic ring). The nostril is also too big, it looks like it's the size of the entire narial opening of the skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martyniuk. I have fixed the head, eyes and nostrils now. What do you guys think? Conty 08:30, 6 April 2011
 * I still think the eye is slightly too large, and the nostril should be confined to the front edge of the nasal openings, take a look at this restoration: http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2011/01/13/1294961274-eodromaeus.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have made the eyes and nostrils smaller. I also made the jaw slender, to be more accurate. What do you think now? Conty 11:48, 6 April 2011
 * That's cool! I don't know much about this guy, but are you sure it was that barrel-chested? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But you are right, perhaps i could have placed the forelimbs and coracoids closer to each other. If you want to see the skeleton from the front, look HERE. But remember, my restoration is not made 100 % from the front either! Conty 14:45, 6 April 2011
 * I think doing something like this would suffice, just shaving off from one side: And by the way, that Sereno image appears to be a copyright violation, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it? Perhaps we should inform the uploader? Anyway, I have fixed the chest. Conty 07:00, 7 April 2011
 * Yeah, I nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed an image I uploaded of an unnamed dinoaur years ago was eventually named Eodromaeus, and it seems that the feet in the drawing are perhaps to robust in comparison? FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Megalosaur?
Because I'm a lazy bastard/have a strange obsession with reusing things, I was thinking of making this old head I drew for Elaphrosaurus into another animal, and I thought a megalosaur would be the best fit. Anyone know if the Marshosaurus or Duriavenator material matches this drawing? Here's a photo of Marsho and some info on Duria[] FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well FunkMonk, I can say this: As we can see, both of these theropods are based on fragmentary evidence. If you want to make a head restoration of them, try to make a good guess of how the pieces fitted together, to get an idea about what the skull looked like (missing pieces can be based on related dinosaurs). This skull restoration could then be included with the drawing. See for example my old Megalosaurus skull restoration. I think it makes more sense. Conty 12:50, 19 May 2011
 * Oh, it's not going to be a head restoration only, I'll draw a body in posterior view, so the head will look to the side. So no part will be the focal point, apart from the tail tip maybe, heheh. The drawing does seem to match this reconstruction of a Marshosaurus skull more or less, the parts that don't match are unknown anyway, judged on this. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah, and seems like searching for obscure dinosaur species does pay off once in a while, Marshosaurus ilium (nsfw): http://www.collectorsquest.com/collectible/52820/marshosaurus-ilium I'll save that for reference. No, really. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bwaha, reminds me of that one dodgy old site featuring girls posed next to random skeletons of rare dinosaurs in Japan or something. As for the skull it could be either, actually. Might just have to modify the curve of the denture very slightly to match. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, give me a notice if you find it again. How about this for the drawing? Not sure what the hell I'm doing, everything but the head is digital, first time I've done that, is the tail too thin maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tail looks a little short given the perspective and its apparent angle, maybe extend it down towards/past where the leg is? MMartyniuk (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Martyniuk are right. By the way, I think there is some other things we can look at. 1. The rib cage could be wider. Many big theropod dinosaurs have quite robust rib cage (especially tyrannosaurids), and narrow hips (take a look at this Allosaurus skeletal diagram). 2. The head could might be somewhat enlarged. Conty 20:10, 20 May 2011
 * Yup, will take a look at those thing, but the head should be larger? I'm not sure about that, with that perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Made tail longer and chest broader, not sure about making the head larger, looks pretty big as is I think: http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/8894/scan00h7fd4sss3.jpg Also gave it a little tail tassel or what it's called, just for fun. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The new version looks pretty good. Conty 19:40, 21 May 2011
 * Looks fine to me, like the little filament tuft :) MMartyniuk (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but now I'm getting into trouble over how exactly the leg muscles attach to the tail, latest version: I've been looking for pictures of naked chicken and ostriches, but can't find any with the proper perspective, best was this, but no tail obviouly: Anyone know about this? This also has implications for this older drawing, which is wrong in any case. This doesn't solve the problem completely either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the specifics of how this should be depicted, but maybe this would help: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/guest-post-bulking-up-the-back-end-why-tyrannosaurus-tail-mass-matters/ Looks like the tail should be girthy at the base and grade smoothly into the top of the hip/femur articulation. Here's another good diagram with cross sections: http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.com/2011/03/t-rex-baby-got-back.html MMartyniuk (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On another note this and other things has made me think dinosaurs have been depicted way too bony since the Renaissance. I was going to write that you can still draw the contour of the illial blade abode the tail muscle articulation, and probably a thin ridge of neural spines but... why? This kind of anatomy usually isn't apparent in any living reptiles, or birds as you see with that ostrich or those naked chickens. IMO most naked theropods look way too highly emaciated in the service of showing off what should be * internal* anatomy. I think the much derided "outdated" stuff by Burian and Knight were probably closer to the mark all long, in the beefiness of the dinosaurs if not the exact posture. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thaks for the links, and on skinny theropods, one thing that has kind of confused me is that people like Scott Hartmann and Gregory Paul draw very clear outlines of the shoulder blades on manu of their life restorations, yet on their muscle studies, the shoulder blades usually appear to be buried by muscles. What's going on there? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Newer version, with more work on legs and tail: FunkMonk (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking better, but (strike that, was looking at the muscles wrong. looks good to me). MMartyniuk (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Awright, here's colour. I chose Duriavenator, here are the known elements. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great! MMartyniuk (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dryptosaurus
I have some images of Dryptosaurus to debate... Taylor Reints (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Looks like the knee is bending the wrong way? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could see where you're getting at... Taylor Reints (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blue feathers was improbable too. de Bivort 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why again are blue protofeathers improbable? Its not as if Dryptosaurus melanosomes have been preserved suggesting otherwise. If so, that's why I supplied a black-and-white version. Taylor Reints (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think because blue color does not arise from pigment, but from spectral interference from the regular spacing of barbules. But most therapod feathers were just single filaments. de Bivort 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The bright red might also be iffy for a carnivore, given lack of access to carotenoids. Albertonykus (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there is some possible inaccuracies; first, the hands looks pronated (this is not believed to have been possible for theropod dinosaurs). Also, the hindlegs might could be more muscular? Conty 07:50, 28 May 2011.
 * The leg anatomy is a bit confused. The background leg taking the step shows the tibia angling forward, as if the back knee is bending the wrong way. Then it has the metatarsus bending downward as if its bending the wrong way or possible, as if the digits stem directly from the tibia with no metatarsus. The femur and associated leg muscles seem not to reach all the way to the hip which should be positioned at or near the very top of the animal's back. The overall proportions of each segment of the leg don't look right based on this skeletal at least: The hand claws actually look too small and not curved enough. The overall body shape strikes me as too elongated and carcharodontosaur like, I'd imagine it's torso is proportioned more like Eotyrannus . The rainbow coloration is a bit implausible for a predator, especially given that bright red and yellow are only found in herbivorous birds and blue is likely impossible in downy feathers. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Camptosaurus
Since this guy hasn't had a decent restoration ever, I'll try to make one that is at least anatomically accurate. The proportions are based on the multi-view skeletals in the GSP field guide. One can be seen here: Also the first time I start a dinosaur drawing from scratch in Photoshop without any preceding pencil drawing, yay. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far, though as with the megalosaur I'd have the back of the thigh grade a bit more smoothly into the tail musculature. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty wonderful restoration! The body shape looks really good. Yet, I think you can (1) make the tip of the tail somewhat thinner, (2) make the snout a bit more pointed and (3) make the neck a bit more robust. Also, the left hindleg seems a bit straight: or is it just as i looks to me? Conty 22:20, 12 June 2011
 * Thanks, I'll address those issues when I get a little further with the colours, I'll try to make this as a digital painting, so no lines, unlike most of the other stuff I've done here, but I'm a bit insecure when it comes to that technique, so might take a while before it looks like anything. Here's a very rough colour version, the colours are taken form a gnu: I think the leg looks straight due to the perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here's a colour version, it's basically gnu now. Is it alright? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The coloration looks great, very naturalistic. Like the filaments! However, one thing I unfortunately didn't notice in the original is the (apparent, but maybe due to perspective?) extreme extension of the knees. AFAIK the knees of any dinosaur would have been habitually flexed to a large extent, with the GSP-style running pose representing the absolute maximum extension possible. Seems strange for a standing animal to assume such extension for both knees. On the other hand, I'm not sure how graviportal basal iguanodontians are thought to have been. May be within the realm of possibility. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, not so unfortunate, it's pretty easy to fix. How does it look now? And another thing, the skull shape seems to differ quite a bit between the GSP skeletal and the skull we have in the article, is it just because much of it is reconstructed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks great, really good work! But the arms seem a little bit too short to me when compared to the skeletal drawing. --Ornitholestes (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I see what you mean, they could also be a bit more robust. How about now (see same image)? Almost looks like it's making jazz hands now, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus
So, this image appears to show grass. Is that reason to remove it from its article? The evolution section at poaceae suggests there is new evidence grass was around in the very late cretaceous, but the range for daspletosaurus ends 9my before the revised grass date. de Bivort 06:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They look about the same size to me... ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * wrong section? Also, any thoughts on the grassy image? de Bivort 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops yeah. And it does look more grassy and not like ferns or anything. Can we crop it? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus vs Carcharodontosaurus
In this picture is shown that Giganotosaurus is larger than Carcharodontosaurus. But is it true? User: John Troodon
 * Carcharodontosaurus is known from more fragmentary remains than Giganotosaurus and estimates put it at 39-46 ft in length. Since Giganotosaurus is more complete, however, paleontologists assume it was larger. It could be that Carcharodontosaurus was larger than Giganotosaurus but that datum cannot be precisely measured. Taylor Reints (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Howewer, a) Carc. was found in Tunisia ,Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Niger, while Giganoto only in one part of Argentina; b) This picture is from French Wikipedia, I found the same picture in En Wikipedia, but there Carc was larger

User: John Troodon

Dryptosaurus v. 2
Is this one accurate? If so, I will color it black and white. Taylor Reints (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? Taylor Reints (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the hands are pronated? FunkMonk
 * I think that the curvature of the claws may account for that, the fingers and hands seem pretty semihorizontal to me. Taylor Reints (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Byronosaurus
Here's a sketch based on all sorts of stuff, mainly this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a critique of the image - but some friends and I were at the san diego zoo and saw a secretary bird there. They seem to totally be evolving back into raptors. cursorial, kicking predators and all. de Bivort 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not a coincidence that they have kind of the same colour scheme as seriemas as well? FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, any suggestions, anyone? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems very good, as far as we know from the fossil evidence (which is not much more than the skull...). The head is good, but perhaps you should make the snout a little bit more pointed (compare again with the skull)? But perhaps the feathers should be made more like hair? If troodontids were a group of early birds which losed the ability to fly in the Jurassic/Cretaceous (as Gregory S. Paul believe), I think the possible feathers in Byronosaurus should be very simple; if a bird lose the abillity to fly, the feathers quickly becomes less complex, and may only have the function to keep the body warm. If Byronosaurus were a late troodont, it might only had harlike feathers? Compare with the Pyroraptor in Discovery Channels program Dinosaur Planet, see HERE. Conty 20:50 15 August 2011
 * Thanks, you mean on the arms also? Because it seems that stuff like Anchiornis, which was also flightless, had pretty advanced wing feathers, I could be wrong though... FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Velociraptor, which is arguably farther from any glissant ancestor than Byronosaurus is likely to have been. Large quills can still denote some non-vaned or loose-vaned but still pennaceous feathers, and some modern recently flightless birds retain fairly coherent vanes. they probably wouldn't have been hair-like at any rate (like Moa/Kiwi feathers which are very highly derived flightless forms). The Pyroraptor in that film suffers from gorilla suit syndrome IMO--even if we accept the feathers had degenerated to kiwi-level or beyond, why are they so short, like it has a crew cut? What adaptive advantage would such short feathers grant that long ones couldn't? The overall effect is highly mammalian if not ape-like in appearance. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points, both MMartyniuk and FunkMonk! I imagine that Anchiornis had some kind of "parachuting" technique, and had use of well developed feathers. When it comes to Velociraptor, we have to assume that the single bone with quill knobbs described by Turner et.al (2007) really belong to a Velociraptor, and not to some other bird/birdlike creature. I assume the bone belongs to a Velociraptor, but imagine that it (and creatures like Oviraptor also), at best, had contour feathers like an ostrich, i.e. a bit less complex than in flying birds. I also want to discuss the commentary by MMatryniuk:

"[Velociraptor] is arguably farther from any glissant ancestor than Byronosaurus is likely to have been..."

I do not think the phylogenetic status of a maniraptoran decides whether the feathers were complex or not, but whether the loss of possible flight were recent or not (i.e. I can not know if their ancestors could fly). A basal Byronosaurus could probably have simple feathers, if the loss of (possible) flight occured long ago. Bur if I am wrong (and I admit I can be), I think we at best should give Byronosaurus ostrich-like feathers. Conty 02:10, 15 August 2011
 * Just to nitpick/clarify, contour feathers are those covering the head, neck and torso. The well-developed wing feathers as in my old Velociraptor image are remiges. For the record, I intentionally drew the contour feathers as shaggy and hair-like in that image based on the outdated belief that this was the condition in dromaeosaurs and Archaeopteryx. however new studies have showed that the hair-like condition was an artifact of preservation. This doesn't make the image incorrect, but I'd probably do it differently today. The wing bone in question was definitely from Velociraptor or at least some closely related dromaeosaurid, there's no question about that. I've heard that now that people know what to look for they've been found in many other specimens as well.
 * On the other hand, I agree that there is little reason to give these animals closed-vaned feathers, if they are chronologically distant from the loss of flight. This has apparently happened numerous times in ratites, and all their feathers look generally the same, with some more hair-like than others. Ironically, ostriches, which are apparently the oldest flightless lineage alive today, retain pennaceous feathers, while kiwi and moa, closest to the semi-flighted Tinamou, have hair-like feathers. Climate may play a role here. Anyway, closed-vaned feathers are costly to maintain and would be lost at the first opportunity in favor of open vanes. I do think ostrich-like feathers are the safest bet, especially for an animal like Byronosaurus that lived in a similar environment to modern ostriches. Hair-like feathers, however, are still a stretch in my opinion. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and coloured it, and changed the snout. As for feather type, it is mostly left kind of ambiguous, due to low resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done, FunkMonk! Conty 11: 35, 17 August 2011
 * Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Haplocanthosaurus
Not really based on much: FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good FunkMonk, but I am wondering. We do not know very much about this animal. I would think it should be enough to make som skeletal diagrams, as it can be difficult to make restorations of poorly known dinosaurs. But if you want to make restorations of poorly known generea, that is your decision. Your restoration looks good. But what about making the hips a bit wider? Conty 11:50, 17 August 2011
 * I'll check out the hips, and there is actually a pretty good skeletal restoration of this guy in the Gregory Paul field guide, Most of the body seems to be known. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haplocanthosaurus is more complete than it gets credit for! For some odd reason this was one of my favorites as a kid (I think I had a very dramatic painting of one in a thunderstorm on some kind of info/trading card). I agree the torso looks a bit narrow. Here's a view of Diplodocous from a similar perspective, and I'd imagine Haplo would even be a bit more robust . MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I recall I did make it wider, but it didn't show when I opened the file afterwards, oh well, I'll do it again. Any suggestion of what the skull could be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's tricky, seeing as how it tends to bounce around the base of Neosauropoda. I guess you'd be safe with a generalized camarasaur/mamenchisaur type skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what's wrong with the file, but when I save it, it turns narrow Here's a screen capture of how it looks in Photoshop: Anyway is the last one broad enough? Maybe too broad, since I kept broadening it because I didn't understand why it kept being narrow... FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could the problem be a browser cache issue, i.e. the browser is showing you the old data without realizing the file content has changed? I've had that problem in the past. If you purge the browser cache maybe that'll fix it. de Bivort 01:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is happening when I look at it directly from my PC, not on the web. Anyway, seems like I'll just have to use the screenshot as basis. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The relative girth looks good in the undistorted version, anyway! MMartyniuk (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this alright? Gave it some iguana features and colouring. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done, FunkMonk. You have done a good job-the smooth wrinkles in the skin, the body shape, and the colouring is, sort of, wonderful! Perhaps it is one of your best Wikipedia paintings? Conty 14:05, 11 September 2011
 * Thanks, I thought it was a bit pedestrian myself, haven't drawn an accurate sauropod before, so went a bit straight with the pose. I'll maybe make one standing on its hindlegs in a tripod-pose next time, seems that none of the other wiki illustrators have done that yet? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xiaotingia
Hello everybody. Here is a sketch of Xiaotingia, the new chinese archaeopterygid. It is partially based on some Anchiornis depictions and this skeletal. What do you think? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks nice, the second finger seems to be too short in relation to the first one, and the foot claws look too thick. How closely is it based on other restorations? Might be a copyright-problem. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was only looking for some proportions, position of the feathers, form of the crest... I choosed that posture because wings and legs are visible, also the lower part of the body. If I extended the wings, maybe some parts wouldn't be visible (and we know that archaeopterygians couldn´t lift the wings above the back). I hope there isn´t any problem...--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This sketch is pretty nice (like that of Nobu Tamura)! Yet, I think there are some details to consider. 1. The snouth looks a bit too narrow (compare with the drawing from the original paper). Of course, the holotype skull were very smashed, so it is difficult for me to say. 2. Perhaps the body outline shold be more smooth around the neck, back and the tarsus? The body feathers of a bird can make up a significant part of the silhouette. 3. Perhaps the eye looks somewhat small? Otherwise, it looks good. Conty 07:25, 4 september 2011
 * The eye is maybe too far back in the socket, if one compares with skeletals of Archaeopteryx where the sclerotic ring is preset. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have changed the snout, the position of the eye and the shape of the body. Is everything in order? Any ideas for colours? I was thinking in a colour pattern similar to Anchiornis one.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the issues I mentioned in the first comment with the fingers and toes stil seems to be there. As for colours, it's probably possible to test what colours it actually had because feathers are present, so any colouring now would be in vain, unless you're lucky, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the coloured version. As you can see, it is lik a brown Anchiornis. Should I change something?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but it looks a little TOO much like Anchiornis! More like sexual or seasonal variation within that species. I would imagine that different coloration would be especially important for a contemporary, since distinguishing species from each other is a primary role of coloration. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll change some details in colouration. Maybe brown wings aren't so similar to Anchiornis ones.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Erliansaurus or Neimongosaurus
Always wanted to draw a therizinosaur sitting down, and with more extensive Beipiaosaurus-like feathering than the others I've drawn here, since those were drawn before that feathered Beipiaosaurus head was published. Could be either of the two genera mentioned above I think. Perhaps it looks too fat? FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is to 'fat'. Personally, I would not make them with such a thick plumage, but if you think it is the most accurate, it is your choice. Of course, there are some things you can consider: The skull looks a bit long and narrow compared to related dinosaurs (for example, consider my old skull drawing). Also, the left foot looks slend for such a heavy animal. Otherwise, it looks pretty good.Conty 08:15, 1 October 2011


 * Yeah, I'll fix the head, it doesn't match any of its relatives. As for the feathers, I wanted to hide the outline of the body, which mostly isn't done in dinosaur restorations (Ugh!), check out this stuffed owl I took a picture of. And feet, none of these genera are particularly big, Falcarius and Beipiaosaurus seem to have very slender legs also. But I have made the foot a bit more robust, and shaven the feathers a bit in this version (and of course a shorter snout): FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks great! Definitely not too "fat" - in fact most feathered dinosaur restorations suffer from being far, far too 'thin' based on what we know from fossil evidence. "Gorilla suit" syndrome of people wanting to keep dinosaurs looking like they did in the '90s. I think the degree of feathering is spot on and matches what we know of Beipiaosaurus. A little more slenderness could have been present due to larger size but there's no real reason to think that would be the case 100%. The new version of the skull looks appropriate. I'd recommend this as Erliansaurus due to its small size and basal position relatively close to Beipiaosaurus. Can you check the limb proportions against Erlianosaurus measurements? Checking TTD, the humerus appears to have been slightly shorter than the ulna, and the hand should be about half the ulnar length. Given the length of the feathers and folded posture I don't think the upper arm should be visible at all. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I matched it up a bit more with Erliansaurus and coloured it. The colours are from an emu. By the way, its article states "For a therizinosauroid, its neck was rather short", without any citation, and it seems only two neck vertebrae were found. All restorations I've seen of it give it a really long neck. What's up? FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like somebody probably wrote that having seen a fairly short-necked restoration. No support that I know of. The color version looks great! MMartyniuk (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of wonderful. The body shape and posture seems very soft and natural, which is really good. Conty 20:40, 2 october 2011
 * Thanks, it's a really relaxed therizinosaur it seems. By the way, have you stopped making restorations? Haven't seen any of yours posted here for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have lost the thread for a while, I guess. It remains to see if I will make some new drawings in the future. Conty 07:55, 3 october 2011
 * Aw, I think you should continue, your restorations are getting better and better! FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New Eoraptor restoration
For some time, I have been wondering about the Eoraptor restoration by "Smeira", which currently is used by Wikipedia. I wonder if its body proportions is accurate, compared to the fossil skeleton. Therefore, I have tried to make an alternative drawing, showing the animal more from the front. Except for the somewhat large and heavily built head and the large eyes (which of course can be fixed...), are there any other things to consider? Conty 21:20, 14 October 2011
 * I'm not sure who Smeira is, but that was one of the first illustrations I did. de Bivort 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but they both have the same problem, too large eyes, and almost no fleshy pads under the toes. Maybe the eye in yours looks so bulbous because the pupil is so far from the front edge. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to make my Eoraptor so that the eyes would point to the sides (as I assume Eoraptor did not have binocular vision). The toes and eyes can be corrected. Conty 18:10, 15 October 2011
 * It has the effect of making it look a bit like the eye is protruding. But I think it's fine apart from those small details. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Anyway, I have made the head smaller, as well as the eyes. The snout is more accurate in shape, and the toes have more skin. Conty 20:40, 15 October 2011
 * Nice! Was the head that wide? FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wide? I did not try to make it wide. I guess you are reacting on the fleshy part of the left browridge, which is visible from this angle. It might became more prominent when I fixed the snout. Do you think I shall reduce it? Conty 17:20, 16 October 2011
 * I think that might be it, if you compare with this image: Maybe it should be reduced? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the browridge. And I want to apologize to Debivort: The file info said the uploader of the pictures ( and ) were "Smeria" and "TomCatX". They might reuploaded your original restoration? Conty 17:37, 16 October 2011
 * I think it's ready! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sinornithomimus
Got a weird idea of basing a restoration on an old Keulemans painting of the extinct King Island emu I've been reading about... So here it is. It was done pretty quickly, so it's a bit rough around the edges. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks great! My only complaint is the coloration... I think it's infinitely useful to base plumage of Mesozoic dinos on modern birds, but "base" is the key word... having one with identical color patterns is so unlikely it could be considered an error. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's the fun part, the Kuelemans drawing is also just a restoration, based on the combination of a mangled old specimen and old sailor accounts. A new paper even hints that it probably wasn't that colour. Other restorations based on that same specimen look wildly different in both plumage and colour. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! But when I first saw it, my impression wasn't "Kuelemans island emu" but just "emu" in general. The neck also appears a bit long unless the dorsal feathers are extremely short... the emu-like plumage seems to imply the neck 'droops' at the base which would make the cervical series need to be even longer. My 'instinct' looking at it based on feather length is that the cervical run through the center of the apparent neck, in which case it's a bit too long. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Awright, I'll shorten the neck, and what mostly makes it emu-like, the plumage or colour? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the coloration of the plumage on the head and neck is what screams 'emu' - the blue streak and the little crown/tuft over the eyes. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick comment - the coloration is so dark, one doesn't see much detail in the thumbnail size. de Bivort 15:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Modern emus, though monospecific, seem to have enormous variation in how their head-gear is arranged, so could be a "concidence", heheh... I've shortened the neck, as for the dark colour, it was to mimic the old painting, but I've given it a bit more light sprinkles on the new version. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the sprinkles look nice, but don't really address my point (which is admittedly minor), that the dynamic shading range is very low, the animal seems to go from black to dark brown. This causes it to look like a flat silhouette, esp in the thumbnail. de Bivort 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was made as a kind of homage to this, so if I changed it, that would be in vain... Or is there something I'm overlooking in the emu picture maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Turanoceratops
Not much is known of this guy, but here it is in a sort of resting pose. Ceratopsians are rarely shown this way for some reason. Anything wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on accuracy, but I like the composition de Bivort 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good! But are you going to give it feathers on the tail? Conty 09:00, 29 October 2011
 * Looks good! Love the pose, but is the head a bit small for the body? In particular the forelimb looks about the same length as the beak-eye distance, where in the skeletal it's less than half that length. I think if you made the entire head larger it would look fine. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the head was even smaller at first, so I'm sure it can be bigger. And Conty, I was thinking of giving it some scattered bristles here and there. Thinking of it, it looks kind of like the pose of the sick Triceratops in Jurassic Park, but that was unintentional, believe it or not. The pose is based on that of a resting rhino. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this head-size? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Much improved! MMartyniuk (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did a bit of clean up, trying a kind of Mucha look, anything off at this point? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see. I like the line-art style. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uploaded, colours are based on a Sumatran rhino, but I'll tweak them further some time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad. The perspective of the head seems very natural and well made. Conty 10:55, 9 November 2011
 * Thanks! That was my first "accurate" ceratopsian ever. I'm a bit unsure about the horns in hindsight, might they be too thick and short? And here's the rhino the pose was based on by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Elmisaurus
Based the head on that unnamed elmisaur(?), pose on a cassowary, but not the plumage, anything wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Though I'd probably make the body plumage much denser to convey its smaller size relative to the large Triebold ovi. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, only feathers yet are the ones on the arms and feathers, heh, the ones on the body were initially based off a cassowary as well, but I realised that wass a pretty damn unoriginal idea. I'm still a bit unsure of what kind of body covering was possible in different maniraptorans? Until now, I've assumed it could only be ratite-like feathers, but perhaps not? And maybe the crest is a bit too similar to the Triebold specimen... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with inferring body covering in oviraptorosaurs is that we only have a handfull of poorly described caudipterid fossils to go by. Published descriptions suggest these had rather filamentous or downy contour (body) feathers, but of course the new studies showing that that could be a taphonomic artifact call that into question. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had modern-style pennaceous contour feathers but we need better specimens and better studies of the ones we've got to be sure. I wouldn't shy away from making the body feathers of medium-sized maniraptors ratite-like. "Ratites" as traditionally conceived are paraphyletic, so "ratite-like" feathers evolved independently from tinamou-like contour feathers in ostriches, emu, cassowary, kiwi etc. It may be 'standard' for the degeneration of contour feathers to become ratite-like and there's no reason to think this would not apply to oviraptorosaurs (or terror birds, or mihirungs, etc.). MMartyniuk (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad at all, reminds of the Oviraptor in the film Dinosaurs alive". But why make a restoration of the hole creature (as Elmisaurus are only known from forelimb elements)? It looks good, but why not let it represent another kind of oviraptorosaur? Anyway, the angle is wonderful, instead of just showing it in profile. Just give it a coat of feathers on the body, and it will become 'irresistible'. Conty 14:20, 29 November 2011
 * Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I was thinking of hiding the head, Conty, or in some way make it more obscure, since it isn't really known. And I'm not sure what other genus it should represent... FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Caenagnathids/elmisaurines whatever are tricky. Pretty diverse but the only good remains are the Hell Creek species and Avimimus, which are radically different. Basing the head on the Hell Creek species is pretty much all you can do, but be prepared to be proven wrong as soon as some good specimens are found. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I ditched the casque, made it a little more like a swamphen, is that ok? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is good. Conty 07:20, 15 December 2011
 * Thanks! And merry christmas, no Tyrannosanta this year? FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want to! Conty 20:15, 23 December 2011.
 * Hahah, nice, so here's the original image of the Haplocanthosaurus skeleton used in the article, guess which part I edited out: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/df/20081108072916!Haplocanthosaurus_delfsi.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want a Tickle-Me-Elmisaurus. de Bivort 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)