Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

= Images in review =

Teraterpeton illustration review, plus, what prehistoric animal could be in need of an ilustration?, i'm a paleoartist with free time


LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The level of sprawling on the limbs looks pretty extreme. Compare . Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i could argue that, based on the trilophosaurus skeletal, the illustration you showed has actually kind of short arms, and that my depiction is within a natural range of motion for the creature, between the usually depicted limb that's far away back and the other far away forward . So like a mid-step position LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oof the skeletal reconstruction you proposed is by David Peters (paleoartist) who is not a reliable and modifies skeletal reconstruction with his own interpretation. Better to use this|lang_en&id=SNYoCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Trilophosaurus&ots=i6DJs7vrbX&sig=OnohCdsA1p5f1iXuY343AyyShRE even if you think it is not so different. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah its not that different LiterallyMiguel (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the point is to ignore Peters' work entirely (found on his blogs "Reptile Evolution" and "The Pterosaur Heresies") since he usually introduces many misinterpretations due to his unorthodox methods. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i mean; ok, but that's not really the point, judging by other skeletals (like the one from its own paper) the arm lenght is fine in my opinion, and its in a natural middle-ground between the usually depicted far-away-back and far-away-forward foot pose, unless there's evidence of teraterpeton's legs being shorter which i haven't found yet LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Other illustrations by
Seems new arts are uploaded and added to page. Are there any issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Request: Ptychodus reconstruction+size comparison
Now new study have shown complete remain of Ptychodus. Although paper is not freely licensed, supplementary information of the paper is CC BY 4.0 which we can use some of fossil images. Either way, I think we probably need new Ptychodus reconstruction based on Mexican specimen. or would be interested in that? Supplementary material also includes size estimation of multiple specimens based on newly found specimen. I wonder if would be good at making new size chart? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Size comparison done. I depicted four species of each tooth morphology following Vullo et al. 2024, as well as the new body shape indicated by the new fossils. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PaleoNeolitic Oh I missed that, it looks nice, but seems lacking second dorsal and pelvic, anal fins? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know how I missed that. All fins added now, should be ready to go. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Various unreviewed arts from Commons
For Makarkinia, as I see there are no morphological issue but any opinions? This blogpost estimated flying posture of Kalligrammatids and shows some videos which shows slow-motion of flight of neuropterans, comparing that this would be fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Odd choice to show a close up head with closed eyes in that Itemirus. Not ideal for our purposes. The Alanqa seems pretty wonky. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Judging by the 2023 redescription, the Luskhan looks okay. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added an unreviewed Tropeognathus size comparison by . FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Found two Paleozoic arts, Bothriolepis looks fine to me, especially since it is based on latest interpretation. While Pterygotus, is outdated. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this Erieopterus ? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am retired from this topic area. I'd like not to be pinged anymore for these. Thanks, Super   Ψ   Dro  09:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I will keep it in my mind. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Erieopterus seems to be taken from this 3D model (Link). It has some anatomical problem:
 * Operculum underneath tergite 7 (opisthosomal segment 8), which didn't exist in eurypterid, the segment is limbless across crown-group euchelicerates.
 * The ventral region around the chelicerae was over-simplified (in this resolution the bilobed doublure and mouth opening should be visible IMO).
 * Junnn11 (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That Diprotodon is just a photo of a museum sign, so I'll nominate it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Vasuki indicus


Hi! Wanted to put this Vasuki life reconstruction up for review... since it's only known from a few vertebrae I didn't have much to go off with, but I've tried to keep it in line with Madtsoiidae in general, taking inferences from Madtsoia and Gigantophis Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the basis for the very large scales on the head? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those weren't supposed to be scales, just a pattern, though I see now that they look more like scales... I'll make some changes to make it look more obvious Edit: I have made some changes to fix the issue, please check now Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have also made this


 * It is a size comparison, originally by Steveoc 86 and Oryctolagus XL reuploaded with the addition of Vasuki, I have used the mean of the lower and upper ranges provided in Datta & Bajpai 2024 (10.9-12.2 m has been averaged to 11.5 m and 14.5 to 15.2 m has been averaged to 14.8 m)
 * Would both of these be good to be put up on the Vasuki page? Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What we said in previous review is that body shape of Palaeophis is still fairly speculative? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the others, I took the size comparison from the Titanoboa page so figured it might be right... If it is problematic though here's one specifically for Vasuki Vasuki indicus.jpg Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I started an update to my version a while ago with the intention of adding Palaeophis but I don't know when I'll finish it. I should probably add Vasuki now. The current iteration can be seen here . The extinct snake silhouettes in the diagram mainly use the size of known vertebrae to roughly estimate torso height, then draw the snake to the estimated length. Doing this resulted in my version of Palaeophis being slightly leaner but otherwise similar. I gave it a more rounded head shape, which some living sea snakes have, but I'm unaware of decent skull material for the group. The paddle is slight less prominent in my version as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks better to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, then I think it'll be best to wait for the updated version for a size comparison. Adding only the life restoration for now to the Vasuki page then. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bright yellow isn't the best color for visibility, a more subdued shade would be ideal. Maybe Steveoc 86 can share his font and text size details so the labels for Vasuki can be standardized even further. But otherwise the diagram looks good! NGPezz (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to a potential update that adds Vasuki . The skulls of both Vasuki' and Giganotophis are inspired by a diagram of Wonambi'' by Scanlon & Lee (2000).
 * Re Palaeophis; There's Archaeophis that is well preserved and doesn't seem to show evidence of a paddle. It also seems that the lateral compression of the body varies within Palaeophis and P. colossaeus 'might' not be as compressed as other species. So, I dialled back the paddle somewhat, but still speculative.
 * Re the anaconda; Living snake sizes seem fairly contentious. 5.21 m is usually mentioned as reliable and is leaned towards in the wiki article but just recently one was found dead that is larger. There's video of it being measured by rope that estimated it at around 6.45 m. Reportedly, it was later measured properly by a biologist at 6.32 m. However, most the information comes from Instagram and YouTube videos. So it might not make sense to include it here unless we can find a better source? Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Tanis (fossil site)
Made this artwork to be included in the Tanis (fossil site) page. It was a bit challenging to guess where I should ask for advice in this piece, given there isn't much going on, but I decided to add it here for review. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to see what's going on given the relative lack of contrast, but the Thescelosaurus seems a lot less detailed than the avialan? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems extremely unlikely that a turtle could ever get spiked through the entire carapace by a branch like that... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought too, but apparently, that's DePalma's interpretation of some turtle remains that were found at Tanis. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An impaled turtle was found at the Tanis sight, but this illustration was clearly not informed by the preserved material. As can be seen in the fossil, the branch enters near the head and leaves near the leg, thus not penetrating the carapace as shown here. Also strange that the image specifically depicts a nanhsiungchelyid rather than a baenid, since the specimen was suggested to have affinities with the latter clade. I agree with previous comments regarding overall clarity and detail. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In my defense, this was a piece inspired by the finds in the Tanis, not necessarily a depiction of the actual fossils we find there. I wasn't, indeed, aware of what kind of turtle was the one impaled in the tree, just that it was a turtle. Considering the setting, a baenid seems just as likely as a nanhsiungchelyid, though the latter was ultimately the one chosen. Lacking much awareness of how exactly the turtle was impaled, naturally the result of this art was merely a product of imagination rather than one taken from a direct reference of the fossil, though I assumed the overall strength of a blast could, hypothetically, allowed a turtle shell to break after colliding against a strong tree branch, though perhaps that's still unrealistic (ultimately I suppose the lack of available pictures of the fossils reported from Tanis was a contributor to the poorly informed conclusions here, but maybe I just didn't look in the right places).
 * Regardless, thank you for the replies. I was a bit reticent about this artwork of mine, not going to lie, but I still thought it was worth giving it a try. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, could probably be impaled~in other ways, but the scenario shown here looks unlikely. But I don't know the details of the fossil, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Dichodon
Hey folks, our next Eocene European mammal, Dichodon.

Triloboii (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Paratethys Megalake
Seems that this image is added to page without review, and uploader seems to be author of the research Dan Valentin Palcu. Seems that this image origins at late 2023. Maybe it would be fine that is created by paper author himself, but there is some concerns, that first image includes multiple logos, and size chart seems to directly taken from Prehistoric Wildlife (which is already dead website, here is archive link). How should we deal that and other than that are there any issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's errors in the chart. The paragraph refers to that small whale as Cetiotherium, but the size chart refers to it as Ceratotherium. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be very cautious about that size chart, as Prehistoric Wildlife is (or was) not the most accurate site. Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ianthodon
I am very rusty in my knowledge of Synapsids and even more so in their anatomy, and this image is from 2017, but I gave it a little background and improvements to make it look better. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the position of the feet is right for a semi-sprawling stance, they look too adducted. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it, at the time of giving color to the background, it is very clear that it does indeed need correction in the posture of the legs, I will be reading more about this point in some papers and I will correct that detail. Thank you. Levi bernardo (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Daidal acanthocercus
@Olmagon I have fixed Daidal, do you think it is okay now? Qohelet12 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's now a much closer match to D. acanthocercus, though the grooves on the raptorial appendages, tail fan and final abdominal segment still seem to be missing (I annotated a figure from Schram (2007) to show what I mean: here). Olmagon (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will correct it. Qohelet12 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok what do you think now? Qohelet12 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that looks good now! Olmagon (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Afrocascudo size
Put this together for the page on this Kem Kem catfish, using the paper's reconstruction as a guide. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Meganeura
Ok I tried to draw Meganeura as accurately as possible. Qohelet12 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way I apologize in advance as I am not very familiar with the insect body plan. Qohelet12 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be nice to me, probably good to hear 's opinion (I know that there is odonatan specialist Dr. Günter Bechly but seems to be retired). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The abdomen apparently lacking 1 short basal segment (see fig. 12). Other than that it looks nice to me as well.
 * Thoracic region around the wing base might be more complex like a dragonfly, but the previous reconstruction of this region are best considered doubtful (the author is known for faking insect fossil anatomy). Without further information, I think it's better to keep it rather simple like this artwork for now. Junnn11 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already added another segment. And thanks for the information!, I will leave the wing base unchanged if that is better. Qohelet12 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks for the edits! Junnn11 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Cryptovenator
I made basic improvements to an old Cryptovenator illustration, as I said before I'm rusty with synapsids. I added lips, put gingiva, gave more shadow to necessary areas, put a more natural and neutral color to certain areas and modified the neural spines. Any comment? Levi bernardo (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe some more soft tissue in the occipital region? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly to this area? I also suspected that, ok I'll do it. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Considering its position close to Sphenacodon, would the short neural spines really have looked like a sail? FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had originally drawn it somewhat similar to Sphenacodon and with certain similarities also to Ctenospondylus. In the redraw I did almost a decade ago I did that combination again.  But I think it will be time to rethink it and perhaps be more attached to Sphenacodon, but I wouldn't like to completely abandon the high vertebrae either.  One option would be to delete everything beyond the atlas, but aesthetically I like seeing the neck in this one. Now, regarding the appearance of the vertebrae, I think that the most convenient thing would be to blur the area where they emerge to give a more natural transition and with more tissue, but as for the tips, it is a good question to know if they will really have been similar to what is known about Dimetrodon Levi bernardo (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The soft tissue augmentation is ready, and also the modification of the sail Levi bernardo (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Manipulator
I drew this reconstruction of Manipulator but I'm not sure if the head is well reconstructed. Any suggestions? Qohelet12 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As I see it is ok overall, although it is hard to see interpretation from papers, what do you think (as well as Erieopterus reviewed above)? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply!
 * Overall looks ok for me as well, only the leg with following issues:
 * Absence of trochanter (a small, narrow, triangular segment located between coxa and femur, a general feature of insect legs). In the original decription the segment is even visible via the specimen photo, but ommited in the drawing for whatever reason.
 * Detail of tarsus. According to Li & Huang 2022 Manipulatoridae should have 5 tarsomeres instead of 4 unless it was regenerated (see fig. 8B, although it's a different genus but still from the same family). Also an arolium (median sucking pad) is evident between the tarsal claw as well (see fig. 5C).
 * Junnn11 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok how about now? Qohelet12 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done! Thank you for the updates! (Sorry fot the late reply again) Junnn11 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thalattosuchian
Those images are added to pages without review, by. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The hindlimb range of motion on Maledictosuchus and Rhacheosaurus seems a little suspect? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The art style looks unusually similar to ’s art., are you the same person? 2001:4453:551:4100:55A6:B045:B00B:86C4 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Tealliocaris etheridgii
At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request I made this reconstruction of Tealliocaris. How is it? Qohelet12 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Clark (2013) is the most recent publication to have described T. etheridgii so the comments I'm about to make are based on that:
 * By my count, this drawing shows 8 spines on the lateral margin of the carapace, whereas the study states there should be at least 10 (see figures 14 and 17a).
 * The antennal scale seems to have too many spines, which are also too small (see figure 16b).
 * Olmagon (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok how about now? Qohelet12 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah this looks good to me now. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Venkatasuchus
New work by, added without review. Any comments? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why it has a spatulate premaxilla (an apparent exaggeration of the condition in Stagonolepis) when the skull of Paratypothorax shows no such feature: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well a spatulated premax is present in paratypothorax, just not to the extent I've shown here. I'll update it. thnx for the critique! DNB XD (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, and also it's a thing in the skeletal from the paper DNB XD (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The skeletal is not a rigorous reconstruction of Venkatasuchus. It is almost certainly copied from this reconstruction of Typothorax: And I will note the following passage from the paper I linked: "The tip itself appears to have been unexpanded as in Aetosaurus and Stenomyti, and is rather different from the shovel shaped premaxilla in most other aetosaurs." Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * how about now? DNB XD (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems better. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kilianicaris
New reconstruction, based on Laville et al. Qohelet12 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As I see there are no issues compared to Fig. 23. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Koleken
Hello. It's been a while, but can I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to reconstruct Koleken mostly based on the skeletal reconstruction from the official paper (?) in this page... https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/05/koleken.html For the scale with human, I am basing it on the femur length that is described from the paper which is 50 or so cm if I remember correctly? So that is for the reference. Is my reconstruction good enough to be put in the Koleken page? If the human scale is jarring or say "unartistic" and inaccurate, I can just omit it from the image... Thank you very much as always and sorry for my bad english! DD (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given its status as a carnotaurine, I'd revise the scalation to be more similar to this. The right foot looks a bit strange to me, as if it's on tip-toes. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The foot claws look overly curved, and like they're reaching below the line of the feet themselves, which would be impossible. Dinosaur palaeoart should be posted to WP:Dinoart, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I guess you are right. I just realized it is too curvy..
 * Oh I didn't aware that there is a page dedicated to dinosaur paleoart review.. Thank you for both of you guys input! I will not upload it then if there are some major issues.. DD (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aw how could I forget about that paper.. For the right foot, yes I made it to looks like its just about to lift from the ground DD (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the "official" skeletal diagram was for whatever reason not created with a scale bar(‽) (and wasn't actually published in the paper) and no size estimate seems to be given in the paper, the human scale seems to fall under original research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

two pterosaur holotypes
Just quick illustrations of the type specimens, not much that I expect to be controversial but putting up for review in case anyone has comments. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could a colour key be added in the description for Caviramus? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Macrauchenia patachonica
Hey folks, here's a reconstruction of Macrauchenia with saiga-esque facial tissue.

Triloboii (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * may have comments? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Opabinia
I finally updated my ecological reconstruction of Opabinia. Qohelet12 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I could only comment on arthropods, the Opabinia looks good, while the first 3 leg pairs of Burgessia could be a little bit longer, representing the specialized exopods (see 1).
 * Anyway, that's an excellent piece of artwork! Junnn11 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Burgessia ok now? and thank you! Qohelet12 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks ok now. Thanks for the update! Junnn11 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The body segments of Opabinia are not arthrodized or sclerotized, what you see in the fossils are raised ridges of the soft cuticle. They make a gentle slope back into the next segment, with zero overlap. These ridges also increase in height and definition towards the middle posterior, starting very faint behind the head. It is important that they are not depicted as sclerotized, arthropod-like segments, and they should fade into smooth cuticle before they reach the flaps.
 * In terms of proportions, I really liked your previous verion - Opabinia is very tall for a lobopodian. Lastly, Opabinia had a long-ish distinct neck region (see Budd and Daley [2012] figs 3a, 3e, and 8a). The head should be faintly annulated, continuing from the proboscis, with the annulations fading away around the neck region. There is probably no external 'segmentation' between the head and neck. I won't make any suggestions regarding legs, as although I believe they had them, this is still not agreed upon. Also, given that this is an ecological reconstruction before anything, I won't complain if you choose to keep it as is. As always it is a very nice drawing. PaleoEquii (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Working on it, and thank you! Qohelet12 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The new version is excellent. Thank you again for all your work. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ornithoprion reconstructions


Several skeletal reconstructions and diagrams done of Ornithoprion based on the figures provided in Zangerl's 1966 description. I 've talked about this over in the Discord and these should be distinct enough to be Creative Commons, but let me know if they need to be differentiated further (and of course if there are any anatomical issues). No photos of the fossils are available on commons (Or anywhere but the description, for that matter) and even then they are quite severely crushed, so I'm not sure what can be done besides closely copying the figures in the paper to accurately represent them. I' m working on finishing up an extensive rewrite of the currently very barebones page for this guy, so I thought it could use some images besides the frankly horribly inaccurate life restoration I did a couple of years ago. Gasmasque (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about Chondrichthyans to comment on anatomy, but the institutional abbreviation should be FMNH not CNHM. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Will correct, good catch! The paper is from before the name change, so it must have just slipped my mind to adjust that while doing this. Gasmasque (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but is there a reason for the gap between the rostrum and the Meckel's cartilage? Were they disconnected? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

A Bunch of Restorations that I forgot to have reviewed
SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaiasia
Made a drawing of the new giant tetrapodomorph in a swimming pose, leaving it here for review. Olmagon (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Entothyreos
I made a model of Entothyreos synnaustrus, a new collinsovermid from the Burgess Shale. Of course, there is no Entothyreos page for it to accompany yet, but its here when such a page exists. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Kermitops


This is my attempt at creating an illustration of Kermitops. The body is based on that of a salamander, while the eye is based on the eye of Hyalinobatrachium dianae (chosen because it resembles the eye of Kermit the frog). Does the illustration seems suitable to use? If there are any glaring issues, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)'


 * I don't think proportion of body matches with other amphibamiformes. See Doleserpeton or Eoscopus for reference. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I've updated the file and I think the proportions should be more accurate now. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I have updated the proportions and have not received any other comments, I will assume that the image is good to go. If not, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It hasn't even been a day since the review started. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm not entirely familiar with this process so I wasn't sure how long it's supposed to take. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?
Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.