Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 3

Pteranodon

I've updated my pteranodontid profiles to hopefully be easier to 'read' at small size, basically by making known parts predominantly black to contrast with gray unknowns. I also uploaded a full body in-flight restoration. What do you think? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, one thing I'm wondering about is if the arms could be lifted to such a steep angle? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. While I *think* I remember reading that a bird-like range of motion in the shoulder is necessary for takeoff from the ground, it probably wouldn't be the 'normal' mode of flight for this species. I'll try to whip up a 'soaring' pose soon. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool with the new soaring pose. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tapejarines

Here's a new Tapejara comparison I whipped up to replace the somewhat outdated one by AW. The new, big paper on T. imperator discusses why the crest was most likely rounded, etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I like how the naris isn't a huge indentation (is that the right word?) on the side of the beak, but is covered, unlike pretty much all other pterosaur restorations I've seen (and drawn!). FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belemnotheutis

Here are two versions of the same 3d model I made for Belemnotheutis as it doesn't have any. I am not an expert in any way whatsoever in paleontology, but at least these are all my own work and won't need a FUR. Sources are the following:

As well as extant squid species and whatnot. Hoping it's accurate enough.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a scene render, composited over a background. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really great to me! Not an expert on invertebrates or anything, but looks correct compared to the references. But maybe someone with more knowledge in that field will have something specific to say. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very cool. Looks spot on to me, although admittedly I'm more familiar with extant cephalopods. The first one's my favourite - looks almost photorealistic. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thank you. Hoping to make more in the future for articles lacking them. :) Honestly because they are far easier to make in 3d than vertebrates, shape-wise LOL. I also had an Endoceras 3d model I did once... and an ongoing project with Eurypterus, I'll post them here in the future as well. :) --Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to more of your stuff! What programme do you use? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly ZBrush for the sculpting, and GIMP for adjustments to texture/colors and compositing. Not the easiest of workflows hence why I'd like to stick to simpler shapes, heh. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final version. Replaced pic with corrected fins from more modern descriptions (namely from New Data on Middle Jurassic - Lower Cretaceous Belemnotheutidae From Russia. What Can Shell Tell About the Animal and its Mode of Life by Rogov and Vizikov, supplemented with Donovan's text descriptions. I was previously basing the illustration from descriptions by Gideon Mantell... more than a hundred years old out of date. heh--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patagopteryx

Wikipedia isn't exactly teeming with experts on fossil mammal anatomy to help with image review, so there's not much to do than draw birds and reptiles, heh. Here's a quick sketch I did of Patagopteryx[1], based on the skeleton in the article and the body contours of a tinamou. Couldn't think of a living bird with shin bones as long yet metatarsals as short as Patagopteryx, can anyone help me out? FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... what about chickens? About the same size too. EDIT: Also I think the skeleton in the article is arranged rather awkwardly.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comes pretty close, but the metatarsals seem to be twice as long... But well, it's probably good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good overall but there's no reason to give it such an extensive toothless beak. Patagopteryx seems to be bracketed by fully-toothed taxa (hongshanornithids, songlingornithids) and taxa with beaks at the jaw tip and teeth posteriorly (ichthyornithids, hesperornithids, etc.). I'd make it toothed with a very anteriorly restricted beak, if any. (And yeah that skeleton is awful, check out the painfully hyperextended knee). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, I actually had your blog post in mind when I drew it, but you seemed to just say it was unknown, but I'll give it teeth and a smaller beak. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's unknown and it's not like independently-evolved toothlessness is rare among avialae, but most parsimonoisuly it would be similar to etiher songlingornithids or ichthyornithids. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this[2] (everything is very arbitrary)?

Looks more like a non-neornithine now :) MMartyniuk (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, did I overdo it? Or is it alright? FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, looks fine to me. That's about what I would expect for its grade. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's with colour, looks like some kind of zombie bird now, is it alright? FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, though I'm really not sure about the zombie coloration LOL. Aren't black and red more common among scavengers?--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, like which? When I think of scavenging animals, I think grey and brown. FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumastus

3d restoration of the trilobite Bumastus, an article I'm currently working on. Just showing it. I probably won't have the time to redo this, heh. But looks close enough anyway. I deliberately avoided ventral views as the legs will have been way too much work. :P --Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scene

cropped version for taxobox

Forgot. Here are some of the reference pictures used:

--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Very realistic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) This has honestly been a learning experience for me too (I'm not a scene render guy, I usually just model and texture assets for games). I'll use what I learned here for my eventual plan of improving Eurypterid articles.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, nice, I have a similar approach, I was really crappy with colour and Photoshop before making drawings for Wiki, but now I can use some of the experience I've gotten here for concept art at my animation school. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diictodon

Hello everybody. I have depicted a Diictodon, the small permian dicynodont. What do you think?.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, but I think the forearms should be bulkier, and the hands wider, judging on fossils. The cheek bones look a little too pronounced, since large jaw muscles probably would have filled in some space in life. Also, the external ear should be visible as a small hole behind the skull near the jaw joint, but it's missing in your drawing. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Is the ear in the correct place?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks better. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinopterus

Hello everybody. Now I have depicted a pair of Darwinopterus. Before colouring them, I'd want to know if everithing is accurate. What do you think?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Darwinopterus already seems to have a restoration. It might be better if you pick an article with no illustrations yet.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with having two restorations. Plus, this one shows sexual variation, so it has some encyclopedic value that the other one doesn't. The arms of the male in this one seem a little off; they don't quite line up with the perspective of the drawing. I don't know much about pterosaur anatomy though, I'll leave that up to someone else. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my bad, didn't know they had sexual dimorphism. And sorry, don't know pterosaurs that well too. :( Art-wise, aside from perspective, element balance/composition is off, imo, the ginkgoes make the picture too symmetrical. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well a few things do look weird with proportion and perspective. The extreme forward orientation of the wings in the flying individual... may actually be correct, based on certain abstracts last year. Center of gravity o something likely required pterosaur wings to angle forward. But the legs look a little too stout and sausage-y, with toes that seem to come right from the ankle rather than a long foot. The tails are also too fat, and they differ i their fatness with the female's being more tapered at the end, not supported by fossils to my knowledge. No evidence for the little juvenile Rhamphorhynchus style vane (adults were triangular anyway in that genus). If you want to give it a vane I'd make it more like the one in the closely related Pterorhynchus. The delineation between the bony crest and the keratin/soft tissue would not be visible in life. The front teeth should be longer and more recurved than those in the back. The wing membrane should almost certainly connect to the ankle, probably to the elongated digit 5. As you have it now the wing attachment isn't even the same between both individuals--the flying one connects to the anterior edge of the knee while the climbing one seems to connect to the lateral part of the thigh. Given the presence of inflated air sacs and complex soft tissue the outlines of the arms and pteroids probably wouldn't be so obvious in the wing, rather blended in: I'd indicate them by shading if anything. Sorry if some of this seems nit picky, but it's these tiny details that differentiate a thing Darwinopterus rather than some other wukongoperid, all of which are very similar looking except in the details. I don't know if you've seen this skeletal but it should be helpful for things like relative limb proportions. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have updated a new file. What do you think now?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeochiropteryx

3d reconstruction of Palaeochiropteryx. Based on the following files (none of them very clear, best I could do was follow the bone structure):

http://www.thefossilforum.com/uploads/1276308091/med_gallery_2081_658_221356.jpg < head structure (pancaked)
http://www.megantereonstore.com/WebRoot/StoreES3/Shops/eb8137/4CE2/CE9D/13AD/3662/AF3E/D94C/9B1E/A87C/F2.3-Paleochiropteryx_m.jpg < skeleton structure, the main reference for the work
http://www.messelmuseum.de/pix/galerie/fossil/pic_fossil_04.jpg < Actual fossil with 'skin shadow'
File:Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon.JPG < Actual fossil with 'skin shadow'

Will be using it on the article, which I'm still trying to expand, heh.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I think maybe the fifth digit should bend more inwards instead of outwards? Seems to be like that on living bats. I think the joints of each finger segment would be more prominent too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can easily be photoshopped. ^-^ Those details are too tiny to do in 3d. Will see what I can do tomorrow. As for the curvature of the fifth digits, you mean on the wings? It looked that way from the ref, see here. Can't it be explained as bending from flight? ;D hehe-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean the "pinky". Don't know much about bat biomechanics, but it does curve inwards on photos of living bats, and it also seems like it would make more sense aerodynamically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how's this?

I tried to make the joints more distinct but I think I made it worse, heh. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better, actually, the more irregular the shapes are, the more natural it looks. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, off to render another scene then. :) Thanks.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some cool wing poses here, by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZxLUNHEmPw FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved all pics to a gallery, last one on right is the final render. Thanks for the vid, very helpful. The bat base mesh I have now might be useful later for related fossil bats. Just a few proportion tweaking and different textures. If anyone wants to expand a fossil bat article and wants a restoration just ask. :) -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, new poses look much more life-like! FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that vid helped a lot, and in context too. Since their fossils, after all, were probably from them drowning in a volcanic lake as they tried to take a drink.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing Icaronycteris at one point, but I think a modified version of your model would do the trick. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morganucodon

Here's a very rough sketch.[3] Any comments at this stage? A skeletal drawing: http://science.jrank.org/article_images/science.jrank.org/mammals.2.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ears were probably more lateral? ~~http://www.reptileevolution.com/megazostrodon2.htm~~ Probably more shrewlike than ratlike maybe. I like this restoration: http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/Tri_Animals/appearance_of_mammals.html -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably not arboreal from what I can read. So the tail was probably naked?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, the tail is based on a numbat's, and they're mostly terrestrial at least. And do you know where that jaw image is originally from? That's David Peter's site I believe, and he doesn't appear to be appreciated much by other palaeontologists, to say the least... FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Fascinating. Just read about him. Anyway, jaw and ear bones: Phayngula, National Geographic, Carnegie Museum.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, and as for reptileevolution.com: http://dml.cmnh.org/2011Mar/msg00595.html FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what I was commenting on. Fascinating. Didn't know about him really, I just looked at the credits at the bottom of the page and assumed it was done by a collaboration of numerous paleontologists... which now is pretty clear is not the case. Heh.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know he was also a very good artist though, almost redeems him in my eyes, heheh. But what the heck?[4] What's the point of making these so birdlike, patagium, fused fingers and all, without also giving them feathers?! FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<shrugs> Wouldn't know XD Haven't really followed paleoart at all. But yeah... he does seem to have developed a weird obsession with pterosaurs (not that I blame him, they're fascinating) and it's probably that which spilled into Deinonychus turning them vaguely pterosaurian, lol. Credit where credit is due though, he is an amazing artist-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoguy/Matt made a little tribute to him the same day:[5] As for the creature here, I've changed some of it, including the ears[6], but I think I'll keep the fluffy tail, because the naked tail/arboreal dichotomy isn't entirely consistent; apart from numbats you also have chinchillas, polecats and many other small terrestrial creatures with fluffy tails, whereas you have small arboreal animals like opossums and cuscus with naked tails... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. It's unfortunate that he got embroiled in that pterosaur thingie really. As for me, the book (and artist) that made me fall in love with paleontology was much much older - Charles Robert Knight's illustrations in a very old book I found in my grandparents' stuff. The cover was torn off as were the first and last few pages. I eventually lost it some time in my teens (which I seriously regret now). I'm pretty sure it was this though: The Earth Before Man by Raymond Janssen, published in 1941. I recognize that Dimetrodon drawing. They're hopelessly outdated now of course, heh.

Anyway as for Morganucodon, yep agree on the fluffy tails I guess. It's more attractive that way anyway, heh. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worked a little bit more on the thing: [7] As for paleoartists, I just had a lot of books with the work of many different artists in them, didn't know the names of any of them until many years later, heheh. I was mostly exposed to stuff by John Sibbick, Charles Knight and Zdenek Burian (or rip-offs of them) in outdated books, hardly knew anything about for example Gregory S. Paul until fairly recently. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured the thing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Not too sure about the naked skin areas, but oh well, in the absence of any way of knowing for sure, it falls within acceptable artistic license heh. XD -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caught my eye too when I uploaded it, wasn't supposed to be naked skin actually (on the head at least), I'll change the colour to be more brown when I get back to my own PC. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurypterus

Finally got around to starting expansion of the Eurypterus article. The model I have of this is quite old (i.e. I didn't make this in one day, heh, took quite a while). Here is a render sheet of it: http://i.imgur.com/GroOg.jpg

Note that that is the base model. It can still be changed quite easily, so please be brutal if necessary LOL. Details (median eyes, pustules and scales on tergites, ornamentation on epimera, clearer delineation between carapace and compound eyes, etc.) will be done after the basic body shape is approved. Everything is mostly followed to a T. It has 12 ophisthosomal segments, the size and shape of podomeres are followed explicitly, etc. Aiming for Eurypterus remipes, difference between species are usually in the ornamentation, so shouldn't matter on this yet. I probably won't render a close-up of the ventral structures (if at all). Planned scene will be of a Eurypterus in the foreground with a couple or so other individuals swimming or hunting in the background (they existed in large groups in fossil beds, probably mass moulting/mating).

Wondering what coloration to use as well, bright like some spiders or drab like xiphosurans/scorpions?

References used:

http://www.eurypterids.co.uk/Images/eurypterid_structure.gif < probably the most accurate of the whole lot and shows Eurypterus remipes (four scales on posterior end of carapace, imbricate scale pattern on edges of epimera on pretelson)
http://www.g-3d.com/images/Eurypterid_No_G2.jpg
http://edu.glogster.com/media/5/33/44/32/33443249.jpg
http://www.eurypterids.co.uk/Images/haekel.gif

-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice! Can't say much beyond that for most of your images though, since I'm mostly a vertebrate guy... FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, going ahead and texturing this then. I've made the head more rectangular and the telson less pointed. I'm going to use coloration similar to blue swimming crabs.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some people who don't have this page on their watch-list know better? Maybe you could ask the persons who commented in your eurypterid classification thread? FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. :P -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, I can't imagine much could be wrong anyway, the good thing about these creatures is that their exoskeletons look pretty much the same now as they did when they were alive, so there shouldn't be much room for mistakes, unlike vertebrates for example. If someone sees a mistake in the image while it's in the article, they'll probably mention it on the talk page anyway, that happens once in a while. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No muscles over the skeletons = easier. XD hehe. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That anatomical diagram you made can be used on the main eurypterid page as well, can't it? Isn't the anatomy pretty consistent across genera? And by the way, for restorations of genera with multiple species, it is very useful to specify what species that's been drawn. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will be using it actually. Might make more restorations for other genera, depending on how easy they are. The current restoration I have will most probably still be revised. The paddle shape is wrong and its diagnostic for the genus. Same with some minor details. But I'll deal with that later. Finishing the text first might uncover more details on them not illustrated in other works (I just found out that their 'scales' for example, are exactly that - scales, as in similar to the one on fishes). I'm actually going to be going through all the eurypterid articles one by one, after Eurypterus, updating classification and whatnot. As for species, nyeah, not very confident that I made a specific enough restoration for it be identifiable LOL. The descriptions are still very vague. It seems to also be a mix between E. tetragonophthalmus and E. remipes. I'll see if I can make it reflect one species more. I'll probably aim for E. tetragonophthalmus this time.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, because I don't think chimeras are so popular around here, I remember such a restoration being removed on the mere suspicion that it had elements of different species in another article (I had to demonstrate that the chimeric parts were unknown for it, thus acceptable in a restoration). And there is a point in that after all, such creatures would never have existed, and a danger could also be that if one of the species was reclassified as a distinct genus for example, you'd be left with a very unlikely creature, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit hard to actually create a chimera with Eurypterus though, lol. The differences between species seem to have been mostly based on the region/time range they were discovered in and in the ornamentation. They are, quite frankly, invisible unless you're examining the actual fossils firsthand with a magnifying glass. That or minor difference in the placement of the compound eyes (which also shifted anyway during ontogeny). In some species, they may have been misinterpreted by the typical pancaking of fossils or their rarity. Haekel, for example, drew E. tetragonophtalmus with six scales on the carapace (instead of four, in both of the species he was aiming for). The Smithsonian model seem to arbitrarily use ornamentations as well. In both cases, they do not really matter, as the details are too tiny (it would be like quibbling over the exact number of outgrowths on a Pachycephalosaurus skull). In all other major aspects they are indistinguishable except for the epimera (lateral projections on the 'tail') in some species. As it is, the restoration I have currently does pass for E. tetragonophthalmus comfortably, and can be E. remipes as well if I shorten the epimera just a tiny bit and make it a bit more pointed. That said, there are several serious errors on the ventral side of my restoration due to misinterpretation of 2d drawings though. They need to be redone (in addition to the paddle shape), but yeah, both details are generic instead of specific. :P -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, cool, by the way, both specimens in the size comparison image are R. remipes, riht? Might be good to note that, I was a bit confused at least. For example, of whether this is the general size variation across species or not, you'd maybe have to feature more than one species in the image? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your swim diagrams, shiiiat, that's pretty nice! Can you animate? Almost tempting to make a video file or something for the article. But of course, that would need rigging... FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, will do that on the scale chart. There is no info as to the average sizes of the other species though, and I kinda get the impression that 20cm is the average for all species varying by a few centimeters more or less. As for the diagrams, nooo. LOL. That was 'fake rigging' within Zbrush (transpose), same way I did the poses of Palaeochiropteryx. It's fake because it doesn't need to be rigged lol, just actual stretching of the mesh this way and that.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confuciusornis

Figured since we don't have any usable restorations of this important species I'd donate this bit... the coloration is based on descriptions of the known melanosome types (don't have any inside info, just made it vaguely Zebra Finch like). Since nobody seems to doubt that it could at least glide I figured this was a safe pose. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I was thinking the eye might be a little too big, but I'm not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfect to me, but I dunno anything about birds. :D -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right Funk, though I don't have that paper on sclerotic ring size... anyway, how's this version look? MMartyniuk (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one! FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gastornis

Hi everybody. Here is a restoration of Gastornis. Is anything innacurate? It is based on this eskeletal and this skull. Any suggestions for colours? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the chest should be deeper at least. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the body appears way too small compared to the head as well, and I would expect it to have a much thicker covering of feathers. The forelimb probably would not be visible externally and the outline of the torso and legs would probably be totally hidden by long shaggy feathers as in modern large flightless birds. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new version, with a thicker covering of feathers. Does it look better now?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The darkening is definitely an improvement, but it still doesn't seem natural. For instance, you shouldn't be able to see the lines demarcating the edges of the legs through the feathers. The way you have it now makes the feathers seem oddly transparent. I recommend looking at photos of giant flightless birds in life, like this moa: [8] and compare them with the skeleton: [9] you can see that in life, the birds body looks much rounder, with fewer curves and angles, and is basically a formless mass of feathers with a head and legs sticking out. Notice that the skeleton of the moa is not very different from Gastornis except in the details, so you could basically just draw a moa body with smaller feet and a Gastornis head and neck. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the photos and the information. Here is the third version, witha moa-like body. Are the proportions accurate? Do you have any ideas for colouring?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the skeletal, it seems that the legs and toes are too short. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the final coloured version. How does it look?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, but it's like it's tipping over or something? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebecus

I'm thinking of doing a restoration of Sebecus (if Smokey isn't working on one already), I've found some references for the skull, but I'm not sure what to ue for the body. Anyone have ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this reconstruction of Baurusuchus, closely related enough and similar in habits. Terrestrial and probably an active hunter (rather than the ambush predation of modern crocodilians) so... gait probably similar to Komodo dragons?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not doing one :) The reconstruction Obsidian Soul found is great, showing how Sebecus would probably behave in life. Not much in the way of sebecid postcranial material, though, so you could probably base it off Baurusuchus (which is probably a notosuchian, and so only similar because of convergence). Therefore, it would have long legs and an erect stance. It probably wouldn't have the sprawling gait of Komodo dragons and crocodiles, and there's probably no modern analogues other than large mammal carnivores like lions. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! I was hoping I could start drawing last weekend, but got sick, and now it'll be delayed due to vacation. Anyway, here's the only skeletal I could find of Baurusuchus, is it alright?[10] What's up with the whiskers? FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That skeletal was probably made before most of the skeleton of Baurusuchus was known. I have a restoration of B. albertoi in the works that's based on the relatively complete skeleton described last year (see here, unfortunately no skeletal). Comparing the skeletal you found to the figures in the paper, the hands and feet look a little too big and the limbs a little too stout. Of course, the proportions in Sebecus would be different but I expect that it would still have somewhat longer legs. Baurusuchus and Sebecus were probably cursorial, so I'd also expect them to be digitigrade. The entire hind foot is placed flat on the ground in the skeletal, which doesn't seem right for something that runs. Not sure why it has whiskers either, maybe whoever made it got Baurusuchus confused with a therapsid or something like that. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sketch[11], I drew it in a resting pose, to leave the stance bit ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, although there should probably be a few more rows of scutes on the back. The keels of the scutes look big in comparison to those of other sebecians, but of course there's no evidence against that. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the body could be a bit longer as well? Thereby there would also be room for more rows of scutes. As for the shape of them and the posture, I also wanted to make it like a kind of "dragon-dog"... FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, that might work. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?[12] FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. This is a bit nitpicky but I think the hind foot should be narrower where the ankle and metatarsals are, as would be expected with a digitigrade animal. The toes would spread out from where they connect to the rest of the foot. The foot of Todd Marshall's Araripesuchus restoration here shows what I'm talking about. The foot right now seems like it's too splayed out, like a crocodile's. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you have any more nitpicks, just bring them on, however small. That's the fun part about these reviews I think. How about this foot?[13] FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. I've exhausted all my nitpicks for now, but make sure to have all the teeth in the upper jaw visible. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this alright? What do you think about colour, should it be kept in a conservative croc style, or something more suitable for a terrestrial predator? FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! The colors look perfect, I don't think you need to change them. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cranioceras

This drawing is kind of odd, I've basically just reworked an old drawing I did of a goat: [14] I couldn't find a picture of the skull in that perspective, so it might not be completely accurate, but I guess the horns were variable. There are still a lot of things I have to change, adding clearer muscles, and making it more deer like, but how is it so far, what could be fixed? The skull is based on the few images around on the web, and the leg-bone proportions are based on a restoration by Mauricio Anton in a book I have. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome demon-Bambi-unicorn. :D Hehe, anyway, horns maybe should have a blunter tip, from very superficial research, they seem to be covered in actual skin, similar to giraffes. Can't find a front view of the skull either, but if you have access to BioOne, try getting this: click. I found a tantalizing small view image of a front view of the skull which may be in it, heh: click. This is from Procranioceras,* and is also not quite front view, but near enough: click, and yep, the central skull protrusion is quite narrow and more abruptly curved upwards. More like a third horn than a crest.

As for it's 'goatiness', maybe the skull is a bit too large proportionally? Too front-heavy maybe, making the neck seem far narrower in comparison, or maybe it's the nose, heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Our Procranioceras article introduces it as a genus. It's apparently become a subgenus or a synonym of Cranioceras?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the comments, can't access Bioone, but that image of a cast you found looks really helpful! I've based too much on the skull image in the article, which I took myself, but it's one of the few that can be found through Google image search. I'll post a new version of the image soon. And don't know about the synonymy, but could be checked out. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a bigger version of the BioOne picture. I found out a while back that the string of numbers at the end of these pages' URL is the doi of the article, so if you can't find a full-resolution image of a figure, just modify the URL of a figure you can find with the doi of an article that has the figures you want. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty trick, heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tip! And here's another version[15], and you're right, the narrower snout makes it much more deer-like. And for fun, here's the goat it was adapted from[16]FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the synonymy, the skull cast in Berlin shown in the article was labelled Craniceras skinneri, and if you look at the picture you provided it looks like it's a cast of the exact same specimen as the one in Berlin. The Paleodatabase mentions it has been reranked as a full genus[17]. So I'm not sure what's going on. So I've been drawing the specimen referred to as Procranioceras in any case, now the question is if it's valid or not... FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temporary file - Paleoart.jpg

Went ahead and coloured it. Since what it's based on seems to be Procranioceras now, I've put it there instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL@smiling goat. Anyway looks great! :) Hope the synonymy and whatnot gets clarified though. Article might be a good target for expansion later on. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, one thing though, any chance of speckles or stripes or whatnot? From what I understand, palaeomerycids lived in forests.

Also found a ref. And yeah, seems like Procranioceras is a distinct genus.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on colour, they're ripped off from a stuffed white-tailed deer I found a pic of, and those live at least partially in forests... But I'll give it some spots anyway I think, just to make it less obvious what species I took the colours from... FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about these spots? FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly doesn't seem that realistic heh. Remember the spots are imitating sunlight streaming through leaves and hitting the forest floor (hence why the pattern is called 'dappled'), so it is usually light on dark, not dark on light.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll go ahead and do that, it isn't exactly hard work. But the pattern itself is alright, apart from the tone? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's faintly spotted, like a sika[18], which also live in forests, is that alright? FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... should break the body outline more, imo (not evenly scattered). i.e. Also a more distinct arrangement as rows (and even a merging of some as stripes). Something in between fallow deer (1, 2) and chevrotains (3, 4)? Not too obvious a patterning ripoff though. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yeah, like that, except that the spots on that one still reaches too far into the ventral belly area, heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Is a bit more irregular. Anything else, by the way? Anything, it's fun to tweak. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if you're sure. Seems like I've been asking way too many revisions. But yes, there is one more thing: there should be no spots on the legs (especially the forelegs), white 'socks' like in the underbelly might be better or stripes a la okapi or antelopes. It looks unnatural atm, I can't actually recall any ruminants with spotted forelegs. :/ Hm... well.. cows and giraffes... but. ;P

Also gradients on the dark brown dorsal areas? Darker in the middle or the sides or something, just to pick them out. They blend in too much atm. The point really is to break the body outline, such that a predator won't actually be able to make out the shape of the deer by whites and darks alone-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, I'm sure, it forces me to fool around with Photoshop tools I'm unfamiliar, as well as gives me nice info, so it's all good. I'll fix it a little later... And you can never have too many revisions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not sure if this is exactly what you described, but what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. *squinches eyes* I did a mockup. Posted below your pic. Also I feel extremely strange advising you on this, lol. You're far more skilled and it's not like I've done anything like this. XD That patterning though, is what feels 'natural' to me.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, thanks for the guidelines, I'm not exactly a mammal-guy (though I am becoming increasingly), and am obtuse due to lack of sleep, so it's nice! This is like the first "serious" artiodactyl I've ever drawn. I'll fix it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, me neither. Also I may have overdone the density/contrast of spots a bit. ;d It's all fluff really. Just go with what feels natural to you. Animal coloration generally follow a pattern somehow especially along body contours/muscle lines, etc. Something to do with germ layers of the embryo or something, they too follow a path in cell division. And some patterns just feels instinctively wrong at some point. Given your experience on other animals probably, I'm sure you know what I mean :P-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's pretty much stolen from your version (because I like it!), so gave you some credit on the description page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Och, didn't notice this til now, heh. Looks perfect! ^-^ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you! FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphatodraco

Wanted to draw a pterosaur on the ground, how's this?[19] Could really be any fragmentary azhdarchid, but chose this one rather arbitrarily. FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, generic azhdarcid #1? :P Looks good anyway.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the neck should be longer? From what I can find, the neck of Phosphatodraco is similar to those of Quetzalcoatlus and Azhdarcho, which are pretty long and slender. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The body also looks very large compared to the head, more like an ornithocheirid. Azhdarchid torsos generally would be only a bit bigger than the naof! This is a good schematic for general proportions: [20] MMartyniuk (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, appears that it is a bad idea to use skeletals of ornithocheirids from the 80s as basis for modern restorations of azhdarcids! Here's another version: [21] FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The torso proportions look better, but it still strikes me as very non-azhdarchid looking for some reason (or rather, like an 80s/Dinotopia version of an azhdarchid). First off the wing proportions jump out at me--azhdarchids generally have very long inner wings (arm/metacarpus) but very short wing fingers. Here's a skeletal of Zhejiangopterus [22] notice the wing finger is about equal in length or shorter than the rest of the wing. In your sketch it looks half again as long as the rest of the wing. The tip of the wing finger should barely protrude above the back when fully folded (this is also why azhdarchids have traditionally had way overestimated wingspans--they were first thought to be a subfamily of pteranodonts with pteranodont-like wings). It's hard to tell due to perspective, but the other 'classic' azhdarchid character--the ridonkulously long neck--isn't really apparent here. The neck should be well longer than the (proportionally enormous) skull. It also looks like it's bent the wrong way--the neck would be pretty much locked into a convex arc. The skull also reminds me of an old-school Quetzalcoatlus--long and narrow. The skull should appear taller, especially at the back, with the eye close to the corner of the mouth and plenty of skull above the orbit. The little back-pointing crest is another one of those pterosaur memes that refuses to die... no azhdarchoid had a crest like that. The limited evidence for azhdarchid crests we have suggests they were more tupuxuarid-like (though possibly restricted to the back of the skull, but who knows with all this soft tissue stuff being found. Basically, the skull should look like a more elongate-jawed, small-crested or crestless tupuxuarid in profile. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, there must be some kind of nostalgia-thing subconsciously holding me back, and the longest text I've ever read about pterosaurs was the Wellnhofer encyclopaedia from the 80s... I'll fix it! FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got Internet on my own PC, so here's another version: [23] The skull is now based more on the Quetzalcoatlus sp. one seen here:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an azhdarchid! The eye still looks too high--it should be maybe an eyeball's width above the very corner of the mouth (I always thought they looked whale-like for this reason), and the hands should point backward (or at least more sideways-oriented with digit 2 mediolateral, digit 1 anterolateral, and digit 3 posterior) in line with footprint evidence. Other than that it looks great. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really weird now with the new hands and eye, I like that![25] The crest is pretty much the old Dino-Riders one, if you remember that, as for colours, what would be possible with that kind of fuzz? And lastly, is there some other less fragmentary genus it might better represent? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, pterosaurs are freaks (actually the hands should be even more posterior oriented than that; here's a trackway diagram, note the position of the three ground-contacting digits.[26] Digit 3 points directly backward toward the foot). As far as I know pycnofibres are monofiaments, so any colors found in mammalian hair or downy feathers would apply. As for less-fragmentary azhdarchids (isn't that an oxymoron?), Montanazhdarcho or Azhdarcho maybe? Both have a bit of skull material known, maybe enough to tell general proportions, and most of the wings/appendicular elements. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?[27] And after reading the strange story of Arambourgiania, I'm tempted to put it there... FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Arambourgiania would be ok, but I'd recommend basing it more on the long, spear-headed Hatzegopteryx or Q. northropi rather than the small, proportionately taller-headed things (basically use any of Mark Witton's illustrations of giant azhdarchs as reference). MMartyniuk (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the head is bigger the smaller the animal is? I kind of like the big head. How big was Azhdarcho, and does the drawing fit that genus? Can't find much about it... FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a relatively new, apparently free paper on it... though it's taking forever to load for me. It was in the Q. sp size range so your resto should fit, with maybe a few proportional tweaks. I have a soft spot of old Az as it was previously the 'mascot' for my site and I've been meaning to do a new reconstruction of it for forever :D [28]

Awww, I wouldn't want to usurp it then! I went ahead and coloured it, based on the red bat, and it kind of looks like it's burning, so I'll just stick to Phosphatodraco, since the name is fitting... I could download the PDF by the way, but I always have trouble opening PDFs in browsers, so I just download them to my PC. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love that coloration! On a purely stylistic note, the final product looks a little 'fuzzy' to me. Not apparent at thumbnail size, and not sure what's causing it... maybe the fact that the darker outline is a bit gradated like the interior coloration? If you go for a distinct outline I'd probably take an eraser brush along the edges to make it more 'crisp' and maybe darken up some of the interior highlights with a deeper black (eye, skin folds, cracks in the beak) to distinguish "physical" features from the outline (or alternately, paint over the outline using a darker version of the adjacent 'real' coloration rather than black or gray). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm in a phase where I actually like that kind of look (did it with the Byronosaurus as well), but I'll probably revisit it soon and make it clearer anywyay, I rework the images all the time... It's caused by the original drawing being made with a brush on low opacity, which is then painted over, gives it a kind of ethereal (euphemism for vague) look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laccognathus embryi

Okay, very recent discovery. Based on picture of actual fossil: [29], and a quick reconstruction by someone else: [30]. Specimen is supposedly 5 to 6 feet long (I can't access the journal.)

This is a very rough base model. Primarily concerned with body, head, plate, and fin shapes, most everything else will be added in later on during sculpting. Since the fossil was only of a head (?), this will be rendered in such a way that the rest of the body is covered by murky water and possibly underwater Lepidodendrales trunks or whatever, but I want to give the impression that it has a body, heh. Texture and plates and stuff will be based loosely on coelecanths, lungfishes. Any thoughts/suggestions etc. before I go ahead and start sculpting? Am I missing something important, are the fins the wrong shape, is the body too short, too fat, too flat, anything?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there are multiple species in the genus, isn't more known of the other ones? If so, you could just base the body on them (if you haven't already). Speaking of that, I think the articles about the different species should probably be merged with the genus article... FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just got the pdfs from resource request with much better pictures of L. embryi and L. grossi, and far more complete reconstructions. Also will be basing fin structures on Holoptychius instead, which is closely related, as the fossils of the former do not include bodies, just the head plates. Will post a revised base model in a bit. Also will be expanding those articles. There are only three species AFAIK, dunno if they should be merged. Depends on how much info we can add to each species page I guess.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking forward to the new version! And that resource exchange page sounds interesting, I'll take a look... FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, been using it for a while. Very useful for getting sources.

Anyway, new base mesh uploaded. I can not find any pictures of the entire body however. :( The closest I can get are textual descriptions. Body to head length ratio is 5:1, head length-to-width ratio is 2:1. The dorsal and anal fins are supposed to be near the caudal fin, and the caudal fin itself heterocercal, with the upper lobe narrow, the lower lobe rounded and "three times as wide as the upper blade" whatever that means. The pectoral and abdominal fins are short and wide (body to fin width ratio, at most 10:1), the fleshy lobes are narrow with long rays. There are pretty good reconstructions and pictures of the skull however, so it's pretty accurate.

I'm worried about the dimensions of the body... it seems too fat and the fins too small. Granted it's benthic, and there's descriptions that the body itself is also dorsoventrally flattened. But should the body taper more sharply? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I enlarged the caudal fin a bit and lengthened the body, basing on the general body shape of catfishes. It looks alright in the fake pose (second thumbnail), I guess?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but then again, can't say much about anatomical accuracy here, really odd that there are no images of complete specimens floating around... The web seems completely devoid of anything, except for that one skull and line drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you the papers I used for reference. They both have illustrations of the fossils as well as descriptions. But again, they don't have any pictures of the body morphology. :/ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nvm, there's still a valid link to the paper by Vorobyeva. She has numerous pictures of the cranial structure and stuff, and a partial fossil with scales. It's basically the same thing you get from the other paper anyway, except for minor specific diagnostic characters in L. embryi (marginal teeth among coronoids and stuff). Oh and there are line drawings in the first render I used for comparison in 3dsmax itself. Those are from the paper (too simple to be copyrighted? :P heh, thumb will be deleted soon anyway).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. \o/ Very happy with the results. :D FunkMonk, can you please delete the WIP files above? TIA. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! If there aren't exact tracings involved, it isn't a copyvio, animals aren't designs after all (or are they!? No. Or? Nah)... I'll go ahead and delete the temporary files. By the way, if you use stuff like Imageshack instead of Commons for temporary files, you can delete them yourself, if you have an account. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do in the future. Though both imageshack and photobucket nowadays are so riddled with advertisements they're both useless for direct linking. heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just post the URL of the JPG itself, not the URL Imageshack gives you, or have you gotten pop ups and stuff from the links I've posted in the past? FunkMonk (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, they redirected to a sort of gallery page with ads and which take forever to load on slow connections. I wouldn't know if they changed that though, as I wouldn't normally notice in a direct link. I'll try other easier sites like imgur I guess, though the lack of control on being able to delete it at will is also a problem. Anyway will figure something out next time. ;P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, by the way, haven't read the actual paper, but seems like Laccognathus grossi has been sunk in it?[31] FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not into L. embryi but into the earlier species, Laccognathus panderi. L. embryi has unique features that separate it from the other two (or one) species. And it's also not really a formal declaration of synonymy, merely questioning of the diagnostic characters used by Vorobyeva in light of the large number of new specimens from Ellesmere which indicates that shapes and sizes can vary considerably within the same species. I can email you the paper on L. embryi if you want, heh, just email me and I'll send it as an attachment. ^-^ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by "in it", I meant the paper, not the species, heheh. I've sent you a mail! FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish sent. LOL. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This also gave me an idea, LOL. Given that the three species vary very little when you think of it, maybe I should make renders for the other two as well. No sense in letting a perfectly serviceable and detailed model to waste. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, same could be said about all your earlier models as well! FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, the other models requires far more tweakings before they can become anything else :P Anyway, second render done for Laccognathus panderi. Tweaked proportions of cranial plates and eyes and whatnot, but it's basically the same as L. embryi. Will probably do L. grossi from very minor tweakings of this latest model (probably just coloration), seeing that they're probably the same species.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YAa! Any reason why you obscured the body of this one and not the other? FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular, LOL. Merely an attempt to make it blend into the photo it's overlaid on. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest crocodyliforms diagram

Here's a diagram of really big crocodyliforms (10+ meters) based on recent size estimates, and a saltwater crocodile and human for scale. Most of the silhouettes are only based on the skulls of these crocs, so the proportions of the rest of the bodies are mostly estimates. Anything inaccurate or in need of improvement?

Purussaurus brasiliensis: length from here, skull from here

Gryposuchus croizati: length and skull from here

Euthecodon brumpti: length from here, skull from here

Mourasuchus atopus: Size from here. I have a picture of the skull in lateral view but I forgot where it came from (it doesn't appear to be on the web anymore). Here's a photo of the skull in dorsal view.

Deinosuchus rugosus: Length and skull from here

Sarcosuchus imperator: Length and skull from here

Crocodylus porosus: based on the recently found crocodile in the Philippenes that measured 6.4 meters (see here).

Smokeybjb (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool to me, Dinoguy made a similar diagram by the way (on the right), could maybe be used for cross-referencing or something. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe the man could be moved to the empty space on the far right in your chart? Seems a little odd that he would overlap two animals, when there is so much free space. FunkMonk (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems like one of the tail osteoderms on the Sarcosuchus has been cut clean off... FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? The osteoderm cut is strange... I can't seem to fix it, so I just made it less noticable. Must be another of those unexplainable svg glitches. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of anything else, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! The issue I ran into when doing mine was that in many restos I found online, the skull was way too robust dorsoventrally compared to the actual material (aquatic crocs tend to have very flat skulls). I can't access some of your sources at the moment to see if this is the case but they look reasonable at first glance. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded it. Most of these crocs' heads are based on photos of well-preserved skulls, with the exception of Mourasuchus (as far as I know, no complete skull is known). The skull of Gryposuchus I used as reference was dorsoventrally flattened, so I based the restoration partly on what the skulls of false gharials look like in lateral view. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Rhamphosuchus not be appropriate in the diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but it's only known from very scrappy material and there's a wide range of size estimates. The only pictures I can find are of pieces of the snout, which isn't much to go on. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess Shale fossils

Did a few quick ones for some minor Burgess Shale taxa. Nothing complex (or disputed), so shouldn't be any problems with them. Scream murder if something's blatantly wrong though, heh. All restorations based on previous restorations in Briggs, Erwin, and Collier's The Fossils of the Burgess Shale (1994).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, how where they made? FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the others. :P 3dsmax, Zbrush, and GIMP. Except that I didn't bother with the backgrounds this time, heh. They're all little more than geometric shapes really. I figure I'd do the rest of the Burgess Shale stuff of simple organisms with no illustrations. They're easier as most of them already have existing restorations I can base things on.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! By the way, I really think Ancalagon should be rescued from being a simple redirect to an obscure list. Certainly has priority I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Och didn't notice that. Yes I'd think a fossil genus has priority over a dragon character. Even if it's Tolkien's, heh. I went ahead and redirected it.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waptia

Part of carapace assumed to have been chipped away

Work in progress. Looking for input before I finalize. Restoration based on:

fossil 1
fossil 2
fossil 3
Old restoration
Old restoration
2d restoration
A commercial 3d restoration (very nicely done)
Another 3d restoration
Restoration by Koenemann and Jenner (2005) (copyrighted link removed – czar 09:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Restoration of possibly related Waptia ovata from China

AFAIK, there is no formal diagnosis of the species yet. All descriptions aren't quite in-depth but sufficient for most of it. A "crustaceanomorph". Possibly related to Canadaspis, Odaraia, Isoxys, Perspicaris and other waptiids. Bivalved carapace covering the segments with appendages. A head with two eyes and long antennae, possible antennules, four segments with walking legs (with pincers?), six segments with "gill legs" also used for swimming, five abdominal segments, bifurcating with into two swimming flaps at the end, and a telson.

A problem I need opinion with: the "gill legs". I don't know how large the segments should be. Should they be a series of relatively short segments, or medium sized segments, or outright 'comb' segments?

Fossils with clearer legs: [32] [33].

Comments on anything else I should change also welcome.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also higher resolution fossils available from commons: File:Waptia.jpg, File:WaptiaFieldensis NaturhistorischesMuseum Nov14-10.jpg, File:Waptia.png. Last one seems to confirm presence of pincers at the end of the walking legs.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, can't say much other than I like it, I see you've sculpted parts that are obscured by the carapace, is this because you want to make it translucent? FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If I can figure out how to. LOL. Transparency/translucency is easy with max, but in zbrush, it's a bit more arcane. I'll go ahead and change the gill leg segments to four setae per segment, instead of the current two by merging adjacent ones, I guess.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm looking forward to see if you pull it off! FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, a few months late, heh. Got... er... distracted. :P Previously got frustrated with it because the gill legs don't render correctly (turns out some of the faces were inverted, resulting in them being rendered wierdly). Finally got off my ass and examined it more closely. The solution was relatively easy once the problem was identified *facepalm*. Anyway, here's the finished version of Waptia fieldensis (Overwrote the WIP file). I'm currently finishing expanding the article as well.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Very happy with the way this turned out. :)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this until now, looks really nice, photorealistic even, but I can say absolutely nothing about the accuracy... FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, given that I'm also expanding the article, I'm relying mostly on textual descriptions and actual fossils than that of older restorations. Some descriptions contradicted each other (the early ones particularly) but I favored the newer stuff on it. Number of legs, segments, etc. are accurate and I carefully angled the view so those that are as of yet more or less conjectural are hidden, heh (cephalic appendages, mouthparts, etc.)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psilopterus

Here's a restoration of P. lemoinei based on a skeletal in Dinosaurs of the Air and the pose and plumage of a seriema, as always. It struck me that my restoration output hasn't been so diverse, and I've not been very prolific even after being here for quite a numbe rof years, so I'll see if that can change that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made the wings too large, but does arm size necessarily determine feather length? I've made them about 25% shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suck at vertebrates, but it looks good. :) Only thing missing is the Velociraptor-ish claw, I think. It's mentioned in the lead of the Psilopterus and apparently very similar to that of Cariama cristata. I can't find photos of it though. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be visible form that angle, in seriemas it really isn't raised that much, see: [34] And it isn't even raised in the skeletal I sued for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you sued a skeleton? ;P LOL. Anyway, yeah I guess. I can see it's turned away now and even if it was raised, it really wouldn't be visible. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawl, goddammit, almost brings this to mind:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why he was miffed but copyrighting poses really is overkill, heh.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fayella and Varanodon

Here's a sketch of Fayella chickashaensis chasing Varanodon agilis (probably for territory, not to eat it:)). Fayella is based on the specimen described in this paper. The specimen was only tentatively assigned to the genus because it's pretty weird for a temnospondyl but I haven't seen any newer studies that question this assignment. The sketch is based on the skeletal in the paper, but unfortunately it's not open access. As for Varanodon, there's a lateral view of the skull here and the body is modeled on a generalized varanopid. I couldn't find an anterior view of the skull, so the shape may be a little off. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ the 'expression' on Varanodon. Anyway I found this and it seems to say that the osteoderms of Fayella articulate with each other front and back but do not overlap, i.e. they're touching and form a continuous row similar to other dissorophids like Aspidosaurus and Cacops. They probably should be wider, the same widths as the neural spines. But dunno though, as I can't see the skeletal and I don't know how externalized they would be. I really like the poses though. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too, nice poses on the digits, really gives that "wobbly" impression, contrary to what is usually drawn by mammalocentric artists. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that paper, I'm looking back at the one I used (Olson, 1972) and there's a good description of the osteoderms as being similar to Cacops. They just look much smaller in the skeletal. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the finished image, looks excellent! FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Smokeybjb (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ursus maritimus tyrannus

It is usually described as having the proportions of a brown bear, so this has that, though with polar bear fur (drawing is a modification of an old croquis I did of a polar bear), and intermediate colouration based on a polar bear/brown bear hybrid in a Zoo. http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/38/urscopyw.jpg I don't have a skeletal, so it might be a bit risky. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find on the net, its only known remains is an oversized ulna found in Kew Bridge? I think you can pretty much get away with just a scaled up version of a brown bear on this. I think the way the forearms angle is a bit wonky though (is it straight out?), or maybe it's just too short or too close together, dunno. Also a pink bear would be quite conspicuous. :P Something like this would probably be more likely.

Also this discovery of an even older fossil with polar bear dentition claims it has been reassigned as closer to Ursus arctos. Though the delineation between the two isn't really that much anyway.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, it's pink? As I think I've mentioned before, my colour vision is defective, so I don't doubt it... How about this?[36] Also changed the outline of the arms a bit, might have misinterpreted the old sketch. Looks less wonky? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think it was caused by the ambiguity at where the elbows were supposed to be. And no, it was more orangey, heh. I meant in hybrids the white and brown are in patches (it's described in the text and shown in the pictures) rather than an evenly-distributed in-between pale brown color. That's probably just your base layer though. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll return and tweak this damn thing, but now it's up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it looks fine.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poposaurus

Here's Poposaurus gracilis in bipedal pose based on the recently described skeleton here. I don't have access to the full paper, so I don't know much about all the fine details of its locomotion. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but maybe the neck is a bit too long? Seems like it would be the same length as the head in the skeletal, but seems longer in your drawing. On the other hand, since those parts don't even seem to be known, I guess it doesn't matter... FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shorten it down a bit just in case. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagornis

Hello everybody. Here is a sketch of Pelagornis chilensis, the species of Pelagornis that was discovered last year. It is based in some skeletals, such as this and this. How does it look? --El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good, maybe the skull is a bit too small? And I don't see the dewclaw in the skeletals? FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is a new version witha bigger head and without dewclaw. How should I colour it? Should I take colours from an albatross (white body, black wings), or from a closer relative, like a frigatebird or a gannet?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think there's some discussion of it in the pelagornithid article, perhaps there are some good suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrias scheuchzeri

Here's a sketch based mostly on photos of living Andrias specimen, but I attempted to match proportions of fossil images.[37] FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good as far as I can tell, except maybe the lower jaw could be thicker. Also, the head looks a little too bulbous toward the front, since in living Andrias the snout is very flat. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout this?[38] FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Smokeybjb (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's colour, my first finished amphibian, woohoo! FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, I like the colouration! Smokeybjb (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I should perhaps had read the article more carefully, do you know if there is any news on whether it is believed to be synonymous with an existing Andrias species? Because if it is, that's kind of a bummer... And I'd see if I could change it into something related, but certainly extinct... FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem. Look here. Apparently the synonymy has fallen out of favor. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-ching! If it ain't extinct, it's no good. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therocephalians

Here's a bunch of therocephalians based on skull drawings in this paper[39] (not open access). I'm not sure about the ears, though. There's a figure in the paper with restorations of some therocephalians, and they all look very mammal-like with external ears, whiskers, and thick fur. All the other restorations I've seen (like Dmitry Bogdanov's) just have holes for ears.

Chthonosaurus velocidens eating Karpinskiosaurus ultimus [40]
Karenites ornamentatus [41]
Nothogomphodon danilovi [42]
Perplexisaurus foveatus [43]
Purlovia maxima [44]
Scalopodontes kotelnichi [45]
Silphedosuchus orenburgensis [46]

Smokeybjb (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice, though I'm a bit confused by the temporal fenestrae of Chthonosaurus, it appears they match strangely with the rest of the skull in perspective? FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Smokeybjb (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even more, like this?[47] That's at least how I undrstand it, in relation to the perspective of the canines, which I have indicated in a weird way, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, hopefully... Is this good? I want to keep the postorbital region relatively long, like it is in most therocephals. It's hard to get this right when I only have dorsal and lateral views to look at! Smokeybjb (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! And trying to get perspective out of that kind of diagram is a real bitch, that's why I stuck to profile restorations for a long time, since you kind of have to invent stuff out of thin air otherwise... But that's boring, so thumbs up! FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The finished ones look really nice! FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wish I could churn them out faster, though. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]