Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List

Hello experts Can you point me to skeletals or accurate paleo art of Probactrosaurus and Klamelisaurus? Generally as many pointers as you can provide are great (since I, for one, and not a dinosaurologist, and the more guidance I get initially the fewer major re-draws are needed). Thanks! Debivort 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this of Probactrosaurus can help you. Dropzink 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

govt images
From Firs: Incredibly, works of the U.S. government are in the public domain. I've uploaded the image here Firsfron of Ronchester  20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From my experience in the WP:FPC community, I should warn that some gov made labs image are not PD, for example those from Oak Ridge and possibly Sandia, as these organizations are private corporations that are exclusively employed by the Govt as I understand it. Debivort 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhabdodon Image review
The Rhabdodon restoration on the Rhabdodon and Rhabdodontidae pages needs replacement in my opinion. It has pronated hands; has a quadrupedal posture; which is unlikely based on phylogenetic bracketing; has a shrink-wrapped back (Neutral spines.); and has bird like foot scales .142.176.114.76 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Guideline for tongue posture
This recent paper on tongue mobility in archosaurs seems like it could be used to define some guidelines for how to restore dinosaur tongues. I am not sure how to interpret much of what the paper says, though, but some related press reports indicate that for example tyrannosaurs would have had immobile tongues (like crocodiles), though this is not explicitly stated in the paper. So does anyone have an idea of how we could word some guidelines based on this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a quote from the paper, ' In Archosauria, the evolution of novel respiratory mechanisms apparently drove a simplification of the tongue [18] that was retained in most taxa. Only with the evolution of flight (birds and pterosaurs) and in select quadrupedal herbivores was tongue structure elaborated.' One thing the paper is arguing that taxa that loose the forelimbs to locomotion, and therefore reducing the forelimbs ability to manipulate food, show evidence of modifying the tongue. It specifically mentions Ankylosaurids, Hadrosauroids and flying animals such as pterosaurs and birds as showing development of tongue. Maybe something in the main dinosaur section like, Most dinosaurs probably retained a simplified tongue found in most archosaurs with possible exceptions being birds and derived quadrupedal herbivorous dinosaurs like Hadrosauroids and Ankylosaurids. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be simplified and mostly immobile? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's what the paper implies; it's linking hyoid development with increased mobility. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I mostly took your wording above, should be sufficient I think... FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I just read was, 'The elongation of hyobranchial elements (ceratobranchials and/or epibranchials), which are associated with elongation of branchiomandibular muscles, rostrocaudal movement (protrusion) and tongue mobility [1, 8, 9, 18] are exclusively seen in volant taxa'.... ' What I think this is saying is that only flying dinosaurs show an increased ability to stick the tongue out. That would imply, by exclusion, that even Hadrosariods and Ankylosaurs wouldn't be able to stick the tongue out to the same degree that birds can. So any increase in mobility is mostly within the mouth? Unless I'm misinterpreting it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a study a few years ago that implied that some ankylosaurs had prehensile tongues, so I'm not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Pukyongosaurus restoration
Since Pukyongosaurus is a nomen dubium, should we create a reconstruction for it? or leave it alone for now? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The list of "most wanted restorations" seems a bit arbitrary anyway. I'm not sure if we should completely avoid illustrating dubious genera, as long as they match whatever they are most likely to be (I did Siamosaurus, for example). But I certainly wouldn't put them high on my priority list either... FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)