Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive June 2007

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[7], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

science teacher(aka Tarbosaurus)

Tarbosaurus

This is a bit iffy there aren't many tarbosaurus skeletal drawings. Tarbosaurus aka science teacher is a fat and self absorbed based of Mortimers measurements for the holotype (the largest one known?) A ~1.35m skull and a ~1.2m femur. The wiki article says 10m, Mortimers site says 12.4m [[8]], both of which i find hard to make if these measurements are correct. There are some mounts on the internet, although many seem to differ proportionally (compare this [[9]] to this [[10]]. the latter seems to have a smaller head proportionally. Sadly I don’t think GSP will come to the rescue. (Oh and the human won’t be on some personal vendetta in the final version). Steveoc 86 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think it's quite difficult to compare the image in your fist link with the one on the second because of the perspective. This skeletal seems fine except for the pronated hands. There are some nice cast pictures here as well (it gives a length of 9.5 m though). Arthur Weasley 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i've seen that skeletal drawing before i wasn't sure how trustworthy it is. I had also seen the over link before but i didn't see the assembly page, there's some good stuff there. Interestingly there's a skull shown witch is the holotypes skull. Its says 1.30m. Steveoc 86 10:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how much it will help the drawing much since it's a profile shot but I can email you a paper describing the skull. Sheep81 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

hay, thanks for your help, but the skull i don't think is a problem its the rest of the bodies proportions. I based the skull of photos of the holotype skull and a paper comparing tyranno's skull to tarbo's. Does this paper show any postcranial skeleton? This is the latest version but i feel the body is too large in relation to the skull..[11]

Mmm... no, sorry, no postcrania in the paper. I think this looks good although I'm not certain of the skull proportions relative to the body. According to this, the skull of a ~10m adult would have been ~1.35m. Sheep81 06:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, is the Tarbosaurus asleep or did you just catch him blinking? :) Sheep81

Thanks, recently when ever i try an connect to Mortimers site it says is expired. Also is that page an old version of his site, Last i checked it said 12.4m for the holotype with a 1.35m skull? I draw his eye more open wake him up. Do you think the pose is boring, everyone draws dinosaurs running, (which looks better i agree). I posted this on dinoforum weeks ago to see if anyone there could help, I got one reply, he didn't even mention the drawing.:)Steveoc 86 08:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh i just jot the asleep comment, the eye is actually open, its just lost due to the low resulution, theres also a wrinkle under the eye making it look closed. :) Steveoc 86 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i want to try and get this image done soon, I tryed scaling the rest of the body to to be 10m (the earlier version is about 11m) and this is what i got [12], i think it looks wrong, to me, the 1.35m skull looks to large for a 10m animal, but i dont want to contradict the artical. Steveoc 86 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks okay, these guys did have crazy large heads after all. But I don't actually know to be honest. Mortimer's site certainly isn't primary literature, it could be wrong. Sheep81 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Telmatosaurus

v1

v2

• Next. Debivort 07:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Neat image! The shading, stripes, and yellowish underbelly are really well-done. Kudos. My favorite part is the rib detail, where you can actually see a few ribs showing thru the skin. That is so cool. Bear in mind that I'm not looking at the skeletal reconstruction at the moment, but the front legs seem a bit off to me. The slender shoulders do not look like they would support or bear the weight of an oft-quadrupedal animal. And the right front leg looks a little odd, too, though I can't explain why. As always, let's get a second opinion on this before you alter the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem may be the height at which the forelimbs diverge from the body. In all dinosaurs, they come almost directly off the belly, with no "armpit". Here they seem placed a bit too high up. They should be lower and back a bit more... this will actually make them functionally longer--as it is, the grounded forefoot doesn't appear to be on the same "level" as the grounded hind foot, making the perspective look a bit wonky. Excellent job otherwise! Dinoguy2 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, heres an imcomplete skeletal [[13]] The only thing maybe check the shape of the lower jaw [[14]]. Great work! Steveoc 86 09:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

v2. Debivort 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much improved, good job! Dinoguy2 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, Debivort! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Spinosaurus scale diagram

This is a Spinosaurus scale I made myself. Im not 100% sure if the size is correct but I gave it my best guess. Jejoego 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats... that's Bruhathkayosaurus-as-a-theropod big. A good way to scale Spino is by the height of the sail, which was a little taller than a human. The sail here looks like it's about 5 m tall when it should be 2. Dinoguy2 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture you have used for reference has given the animal a short tail. I think the estimates in the artical go on the assumption that the tail is aproximatly half or more the total body length. So you've scaled this animal to be 17m when this drawing would would be shorter. if that makes sence? Steveoc 86 10:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

interesting you said that dinooguy, although not bruhathkayosaurus, this is a sketch[[15]] that i did a few months back comparing spino to paralititan. I reckon spino could do quite abit of damage ;) Steveoc 86 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow that image helps me alot thanks. I based the size of this Spinosaurus off of the 20 m long Spino. I now know that those where off and I'll scale it down to about 17 m in length. Jejoego 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heres a better one. This one is based off of your drawing (I hope you dont mind, It was the best one I could find). Jejoego 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks better. Would it be possible to smooth the edges ot though? Looks a bit jagged. A labelled scale bar would also add to the image. Dinoguy2 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks, its fine if you use the image, [[16]] this is a slightly altered version. it has smaller forearms, and 2 scale bars both representing 2m. Also i have changed the sails shape slightly at the front. Steveoc 86 10:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to smooth the edges, I also added the scale bars to the image. Jejoego 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the image was a little higher res. Do you have access to a graphics tablet? it might help with the edges. Im not keen on the font and font size, its too bold. Look at some of the images above the writing is much more sutble. thanks Steveoc 86 10:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I smoothed the edges a bit more, and changed the font. Jejoego 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think any of the most recent three are fine. I think this page works best when it reviews technical accuracy, rather than aesthetics, and for a simple diagram like this one, we have achieved that standard. Debivort 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

that looks better, im happy with the quality of edges, but one last thing, it looks as though the image has been stretched vertically by about 7% ( compare it my origanl sketch ), I consider this to be an accuracy thing if i scale the image to the 2m bar the aniaml comes out at 16m, not 17m. If you can sort that out, im happy. thanks Steveoc 86 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in the newest version the sail has become too tall and the snout too broad--a little shaving down in photoshop should fix it up. Dinoguy2 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be 17m this time. Jejoego 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. But I think that the siluete is a bit grany and it seems that the font you copied from one of my comparison diagrams. What about this new version? Dropzink 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So what if Jejoego used the same font? Why did you make a new version of this? I don't think we should be reduplicating each other's efforts. Debivort 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you see in the diagram, the letters below spino are copied one to one. It wasn't written with that font. Also note that the siluete is grany. I was only helping, there's no problem in that. Dropzink 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not shure wether you should use Hartmans image, he's an excellent skeletal drawer so it would make sence but i think he has made the holotypes skull too large and this inturn has made the larger specimin too small. If you scale your drawing to the 1.8m scale bar the animal comes out at around 14m. When ever i drectly scale drawings of the del Sasso skull reconstruction to match the size of the lower jaw fragment that stromer found, i get around 1.30m - 1.40m. Hartmans reconstructed holotype skull is 1.68m. I think he's scaled the lower jaw fragment to be 95cm based of the photo which has a figure written down that looks like 95, when its really 75cm. All the measurments that stromer drescribes work for a 75 cm fragment. Also he has placed a the largest known dorsal as a sacral. thanks Steveoc 86 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If anybody would like to make a more improved Spinosaurus scale please be my guest:) Just thought I would give it a try. Jejoego 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your image had already attained a consensus, and should be in an article as far as I am concerned. Debivort 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with other users putting forward their own versions. No one owns exclusive rights to an image. Consensus can decide which one is used in the article. Mgiganteus1 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why then do we have a sign up!? To prevent people from wasting each other's time! Debivort 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus yet. Like Steve said, The spino in my diagram is about 14 m when the scale bar says 17. Dropzink 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys - it's a matter of courtesy. Jejoego's was well on its way to being ready to include in an article. If the only difference was scaling it from 17 to 14 meters, then this could easily have been accomplished by Jejoego. If we end up including yours Dropzink, then all of Jejoego's time will have been wasted. This is why we have a sign up! Debivort 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as wasting time but rather working together and building upon each other's contributions. Mgiganteus1 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was only helping¬¬ Dropzink 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

hay guys, im a bit on the fence about this, but i gess we should get in to a habbit of using the sign up sheet (i never knew it existed), it should help avoid situations like this. Just to clarify things i think the aniaml should be around 17m, for the larger specimin. Maybe it would be good it the image compared the 'more' complete holotype (approx 14m) to the larger spcimins (16-18m). like dinoguys tyrannosaurus comparison below. thanks Steveoc 86 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but I think that is uneccesary. All of the specimens belong to S. aegyptiacus, and only one to A. marocannus. It will be almost a comparison between adults and juveniles, something useless. Dropzink 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But still, the spino in the last pic seems more like 14 - 15 m. long, not 17 m. long... --Dudo2 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurid scale diagram

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Working on these individually, I thought it might be cool to do a comparison of the more well known members. Let me know how the color/positioning works, and if I actually got the scale right! (I used Hartman's skeletals for all of these since I don't have any tyrannosaurid drawings of my own. I modified the albertosaurines from T. rex, since the only albert skel I could find was a subadult Gorgosaurus, and the proportions don't work out for an adult). Dinoguy2 09:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Pic, love stuff like this, But your 10m is only 9m. GSP has done a daspletosaurus. Theres one in his Scientific american book of Dinosaurs.[17] An image like this would be a cool addtion. thanksSteveoc 86 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It would be cool if we had a nice outline for all of them but that's super nitpicky and really it's hard to tell them apart anyway just from an outline. There's an Albertosaurus here: [18]. The head looks kinda... off but Currie does say they have shorter faces so maybe that's it. Here's Paul's Gorgosaurus actually: [19] Sheep81 10:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

9m... ack! Will fix in next version, and see if I can get outlines that look ok. I used Will's skulls as a guide when modifying Hartman's tyrannosaurines, tried to shorten the snout and make the lacrimal horn more pronounced (also made them a bit more gracile), but I prefer to use a standard body/pose for comparison things like this, just for aesthetic reasons. Dinoguy2 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are 3 different verisons of tyrannosauridae--white border[20], black border[21], and white border using Sue instead of the average-sized AMNH specimen[22]. Also the comparison of Sue, Stan, and AMNH specimen[23] (can change border color on that one too if needed). Let me know which you like best! And if there are any further mods, I have a lot of layers/flexibility to make easy mods at this point :) Dinoguy2 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated the T. rex scale to include Jane. Used Hartman's juvi Gorgosaurus skel, modified after photos of the Jane mount. Dinoguy2 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The T. rex-only diagram is top notch! perfect Sheep81 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... almost. There is a vertical line missing from the grid right above Stan's neck. Sheep81 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like the white border, For the tyrannosaurid diagram i think you should use Sue. On Kent Stevens dinomorph site he has a morph between Jane and Stan [24]. Its quite cool :) might help with proportions?, but what you have looks good. On the colours, could you try out more subtle shades, see what it looks like? Looking at the link to GSPs Gorgosaurus, i think liberius should probably have a longer head. thanks Steveoc 86 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that subtler colors would be nicer on the eyes. Also, since the tails do not line up, it is hard to judge the lengths of some of them, the green one in particular. this site has color combinations that are pleasing and try to optimize visibly distinct colors for color blind people. Debivort 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, muted the colors a bit, tried to space them to all tail tips at least are visible. Used GSP's gorgosaur. Also added a little tansparency so the grid is visible over the dinos, might make measuring easier?[25] Dinoguy2 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's a diagram of some of the largest theropods too (maybe for use on Dinosaur size?). Dinoguy2 07:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool diagram! Check the spelling of Carcharodontosaurus though. : ) Sheep81 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Daspletosaurus larger than Albertosaurus? It looks the opposite in your diagram. Could be an illusion I guess. It was probably a similar length but more bulky, right? The skulls are good! Sheep81 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The new colouring is looking really good. The about theropod scale diagram, you've placed mapusaurus in 3rd place. From what ive seen of Ville Sinkkonen mapusaurus its looks quite abit smaller than trex.Steveoc 86 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd about Mapusaurus--I used Ville's skeletal, and matched the scale bar to the scale of the grid. It comes out to about 12m, which is the same length as the rex in the diagram (this also agrees with the numbers on the size article). Das nd Albertosaurus were the same length on average from what I've read (9m), but the Albert page notes that the largest specimens were 10m, so I used that to scale. Not sure if there were biggers daspletosaurs. That said, it did look like the Das was a bit short so I made it a little bigger. The Albert also looks a bit taller, since I gave it longer legs (the albertosaurines are more gracile and have proportions more like juvi tyrannosaurs, I think). Dinoguy2 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When i said smaller i ment less massive, less robust. This is scott's sue and mapusaurus compared [26], To me mapusaurus looks smaller. Its even more obvious when you conpare the bones. It would be nice if you could use GSP's giganotosaurus, as giganotosaurus is proportionally lower than mapusaurus and has a larger head. I was going to scale GSPs daspletosaurus to known bone measurments to see the largest i could find, but Mortimiers Site is down. Steveoc 86 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't have that straight comparison. Re-sized Mapu and moved it to 4th place even though it's still a bit longer, otherwise you couldn't see it behind the rex. Used GSP's skeletal for Gig, and moved Theri to the back so the tail tips are visible (except spino, but since the tail is unknown anyway that's probably a good thing) Dinoguy2 02:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus appears to only have one leg. Great otherwise as far as I know! Debivort 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it has 2, but I can understand your confusion--that might be the only skeletal digram I've ever seen of a dinosaur standing still! ;) Also, uploaded new version of Tyrannosauridae, the T. rex comparison, and individual tyrannosaurids. Dinoguy2 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like all of these images a lot. Sheep81 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed :) , heres GSP's Daspletosaurus [27].Steveoc 86 08:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

These are really neat, Dinoguy. On the first image, "Spinosaurus aegyptiacus" is misspelled (you've included an extra 'e'). The "one leg" of Carchar looks odd because all the rest are shown with two. Is it possible to add in another leg? Therizino bringing up the rear looks a bit out of place, but I get why you did it (to show the tails, so that's a very minor issue. Nice work. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow that looks great. But might I ask why the size of Spinosaurus was reduced? Jejoego 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know ive said this several times but this time i present evidence. Dinoguy has scaled spinosaurus to Hartmans reconstruction. Which i feel has a head that is too large, making the largest specimins too small. (About 14.5m) [28] This is an image showing Stromers drawings, the photo of the lower jaw, plus another drawing of the lower jaw I found in another paper (which has a scale bar). Two of the drawings have measuremnts taken from stromers paper and they all work for a 75cm mandible fragment. There are several skull reconstructions (all similar) directly scaled to match the size of the jaw fragment, with their approximate lengths measured from the tip of the snoat to the funny prong thing at the back. A few months back i had email discussions with Hartman, (i raised this issue when he kindly showed me his completed reconstruction, i was never able to convince him with words alone) The measurement of 1.68m was what he said his reconstructed holotype skull was. This is due to the photograph which 'apears' to say in handwriting 95cm (which Hartman said he traced). ps this isn't an angry rant, just raising a point :) thanks Steveoc 86 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point I had the spino scaled to Hartman's diagram, but subsequently scaled it up to match a 16m overall length. It occured to me that this made the proportions too large overall and that due to the pose (all the verts not laid out in a straight line etc) it should be shorter, so I sclaed it back in the newest version. I'll fix the spelling and see what I can do about a carchar leg in the next version :). Dinoguy2 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that you say that you scalled it to 16m because in your first version it was scalled to 16m and in your current version it is scalled to 15m. Jejoego 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the animal is not lying with its verts in a straight line, I downsized a bit in each version to compensate for the pose. I don't have my original, Hartman-scaled version uploaded and might have over-written the file actually... Dinoguy2 14:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean when you say the animal is not lying with its verts in a straight line. Im not even sure if a vert can be in a complete straight line :P. Jejoego 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you dont mind me saying so but I think its a bit strange that in your scale it shows that Tyrannosaurus is 4m tall and in the Tyrannosaurus article it states that Tyrannosaurus is 4.5-5m tall. A similar thing with Spinosaurus, it shows on your scale that Spinosaurus is about 4.5m tall but in the Spinosaurus article it states it being 6m tall (though Im not sure if it means the height at the head or at the top of its sail). FlyingHobo 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The running poses tend to make them a bit shorter. Those heights are probably based on max height standing straight up and/or rearing up a bit. I believe 6m for spino must include the sail, otherwise that seems pretty excessive... Dinoguy2 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sauropelta size chart

Based on the GSP skeletal. Dinoguy2 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome! But maybe make the lower neck spines angle backwards a little bit instead of being vertical? Not so far that you can't see them of course but just kinda angled, maybe about the same degree as the upper spines. Thanks a lot for doing all these diagrams! Sheep81 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem! New version, lighter color green as in the tyrannosaurids and more angles spikes. Dinoguy2 08:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Perfect! You are the bomb diggity. Sheep81 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks Great. Steveoc 86 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sauropelta is like "yeah, bite my neck. see what happens." Sheep81 11:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The feet do not look right to me, particularly the hindmost foot. Image:Sauropelta.gif shows incredibly small, gracile feet on Sauropelta. The hind feet are less than half the length of the skull. The forefeet are evn smaller. On this image, the feet look like giant clodhoppers, which looks to me to be more accurate, as I've seen a lot of ankylosaur(id)s reconstructed with large, heavy feet. But this doesn't match the Columbia University skeletal at all, and the hindmost foot doesn't match the other legs. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'd trust GSP's skeletal here. I'm not sure who makes that 'style' of skeletal from the Columbia site, but I have several of them on my computer and they're consistantly less accurate than GSP's, Hartman's, etc. Also, while they're a lot less dainty looking than the (almost ridiculously minute) hand and foot bones in the Colmbia skeletal, they're smaller than the silhouette makes them apear, because GSP's skeletal includes soft tissue, the 'pad' of the foot, etc. Dinoguy2 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Well, Paul is the man when it comes to skeletals. I haven't seen the particular skeletal (the unofficial gallery shows mostly life restorations). None of the pictures I found online, though, show hind feet more half the length of the skull. I know we're using rigorous skeletal reconstructions here, but I haven't found many. Carpenter's got a nice skeletal of Sauropelta with feet that are considerably smaller. And I know it's not a rigorous skeletal reconstruction, but Justin's old Sauropelta life restoration shows shorter feet, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the image is fine, the idea of this image is to give an idea of size rather than anything else, maybe its got swolen feet :), needs a rest. Steveoc 86 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the feet touching the ground seem to me to be an appropriate size. However, the feet in the air are not the same size as the ones touching the ground! Maybe just shave off a bit of both of the feet in the air to match the ones on the ground. Otherwise it's pretty close and is probably just a different interpretation of soft tissue. Sheep81 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is Carpenter's actual description of the animal, which includes a whole section on footprints and foot shape in Sauropelta. You can see that they aren't quite as huge as GSP's version (at least the ones off the ground), but they aren't the little pogo stick feet of the Columbia restoration either. The picture on TOLweb, if you closely, doesn't include phalanges on the middle two feet. It just has metapodials in direct contact with the ground, which probably would have been painful. Sheep81 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Regarding Steveoc's comment: The Good Article reviewer presently looking at the Sauropelta article has suggested this article could make it up to Featured status. If we're striving for accuracy, the article should present a size diagram which has feet that are also accurate, not just "an idea of size"; if that was the case, we could just show two arrows, one with the length of a human, and one with the length of a typical Sauropelta specimen. We're also showing shape, and the shapes and size of the feet just don't look right, based on what I've seen. Dinoguy probably has far better skeletals than what I've seen, but I would be remiss not to mention my reservations about this current image. Regarding Sheep's comment: I'm not sure that it is a different interpretation of soft tissue: in many vertebrates with unguals, the end of the unguals show approximately where the end of the feet are. I know the feet of Ankylosaurus have never been found, but maybe we have a better idea of the feet of Sauropelta? Dinoguy did such a lovely job on the theropod scale diagrams, but I'm certain someone would mention a correction if he depicted Tyrannosaurus with three fingers on each hand, and certainly no one here would describe it as close enough, or "we're just trying to give an indication of size". I think this is a similar situation; it just doesn't look right, from what I'm seeing. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sauropelta, unlike Anky, has very nice feet. I've cropped out a picture from Carpenter (1984) superimposing the skeletal remains of the foot over some generic nodosaur footprints from British Columbia. That image is here. Note the size relative to the body. Like I said, not quite as monstrous as GSP's but significantly bigger than the Columbia restoration or the TOLweb restoration, which somehow got cut off at the bottom and is missing parts of three of its feet. Sheep81 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Sheep. As always, the man of a thousand references comes through. I should have thought to check Carpenter's papers in the first dang place. Carpenter's description shows feet which differ considerably both in size and shape from Dinoguy's size diagram. They certainly are much larger than the Columbia skeletal, but I said from the beginning I thought the Columbia skeletal showed incredibly small feet, and that DG's image looked more accurate to me. Dinoguy's theropods always look terrific, but if there was a problem with his proportions of known skeletal elements of a theropod, I know no one here would be indicating that only the overall length of the dinosaur matters, and that it is close enough, that the shape and size of part of the animal don't matter. I know a lot of editors prefer the big scary theropods to the herbivores (and herbivorous/omnivorous theropods), and want to spend more time on them, but we should be as rigorous with both, and try to avoid theropod bias, even if the theropods are "cooler". Firsfron of Ronchester 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reallise the artical might be a featured, i gess your right, my last comment wasn't very constructive. Dinoguy do you have a hi res image of GSP Sauropelta as i have only a low res from his Scentific american book of dinosaurs (this has been scaled up)[29]. Im not sure due to the terible quality, it seems to me to have a very slight black area of foot padding with might make them seem larger, but its hard to tell. Is it me or does the front foot on the floor seem slightly larger than the other? Ive noticed another thing, the pose is different between the drawing Dinoguy has used and the one i have uploaded, Do you know how recent your version is? The hind feet do seem smaller comparing dinoguys image to the GSP image i have. P.s when i said 'needs a rest' i wasn't refering to your argument, it was a lame joke gone bad, im rubbish at writing :).Steveoc 86 22:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were referring to my argument, Steve, though I appreciate the clarification. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)Wow, ok... it's not that big a deal to shave a few pixels off the foot ;) For the record, here's the skeletal I used [30]. The feet do seem slightly larger than the one in SciAm, which I'm guessing is more recent. However I also think people may be misinterpreting the pose of the lifted feet (silhouettes tend to make the shapes of htese things more confusing). Anyway, i'll re-do the feet based on the SciAm and Carpenter skeletals. Dinoguy2 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You got that outline from an Error 404 message? I'm impressed! Seriously, it looks really good now (not that it didn't before). Sheep81 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, link should be working now ;) I also updated Daspletosaurus with longer/larger arms, since accoriding to the new-and-improved article, they weren't as puny as in T. rex. Hopefully the new proportions are ok, I just eyeballed it based on photos of the Field Museum mount. Dinoguy2 03:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new version, Dinoguy. The feet look much more like the reconstructions now, in my opinion. Looking at the GSP reconstruction on your site (the illustration on the far left), that is one huge neck spine! Imagine walking around in thick woods or something with one of those on each side of your neck! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Parksosaurus

I did this a few weeks ago, Its based proportionally of GSP's Skeletal, which is quite low res. So details like the hands (which are curled in GSPs drawwing) are difficult to make out. [31]. Looking at his i might change the pose to make it more interesting, also i think the neck may be too long i'll have to check. Also there's a link to an updated tarbosaurus futher up the page. Im not shure whether the artical needs it however since it has a scale diagram and many skeleton and mount photos. thanks Steveoc 86 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any anatomical issues; I like it, it's nicely 3D and has kind of a "dinosaur noir" thing going. J. Spencer 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i dont know how i missed them, but ive actually found several little things here that dont quite match the Skeletal reference, By Noir, i asume you mean that its black and white, im not great with colours i always make them too garish. :) Steveoc 86 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but you feet are pretty different from the skeletal. Those toes are flipping enormous! Reminds me of my old Caenagnathasia-as-a-wading-bird drawing. So unless the skeletal is incorrect, the toes should probably be proportionally longer and more slender, with longer claws etc. The tail also looks a bit small compared with the skeletal. Dinoguy2 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he's got theropod foot syndrome. I wonder what has surprised him so much? Sheep81 05:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A dromaeosaurid, just off-canvas, of course! :) Parksi has pretty good-sized feet anyway. J. Spencer 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i hadn't notaced the toes, I compared the two drawings next to each other and i notaced the tail yesterday, its a little to short and too robust. Hes suprised because......errr......t-rex is comming and his swolen feet will inbitibit him. :) i could try tone down the expressions.Steveoc 86 08:31, 13 June 2007

(UTC)

I cant find any other reference for this animal so im going to match the feet to the GSP skeletal, i'll happily change if any new reference comes to light.Steveoc 86 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

heres v2 (This isn't the final version.) [32], theres alot of little things that are different including the feet and the tail. Interestingly out of all the suggestions above the hardest to change has been the supprised face. I tryed changing it but it just started to look gormless.Steveoc 86 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this alright,[33] can i upload it to the commons and put in the artical? Steveoc 86 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Amurosaurus

thumb|v1

v2

thumb|v3 comments? Debivort 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks good overall, but I have to say that back rear foot just looks...werid. Almost looks like one of the front feet in that pose. It looks that way in this skeletal[34], but personally I'd change it to match the splayed-out, down and forward pose of most other hadro illustrations (inclding you other ones). Also, all of the rear toes appear to be the same size. As you can see in the skeletal, the middle toe was longer and thicker (true of all ornithopods). The front claws should also be a tad longer and contract the ground--the 'hoof' incorporated the claws, they weren't vestigial things up on the side of the paw. Dinoguy2 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The feet ... always the feet. Yes, that's the skeletal I used, and curse it to hell for its non sigmoidal feet! As for the nubby foretoes, I think that form came into my head a while ago from this image, but all is fixed in v2. Debivort 06:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can find much on this dinosaur but judging by the skeletal, maybe a little thing with the length of the front feet/hands. Maybe a little longer, In the skeletal look at the length of the hand and fingers on the floor. Overall it looks good.Steveoc 86 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

hands extended. Debivort 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great now! No problems that I can see. Dinoguy2 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats better, i can think of anything else.Steveoc 86 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Eocursor and Gigantoraptor

• 
• 
• 

Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal for the proportions. ArthurWeasley 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Middle toes should be noticeably longer than the outside toes. Otherwise I think it's pretty good! Sheep81 07:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the coloring (it's an unusual choice), and the belly wrinkles like the ones you did on Othniela. So neat! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Observation about the cheeks and mouth: although Eocursor was an ornithischian, it was really primitive; the paper shows it quite close to Saurischia. Most of the Saurischians I've seen, even the primitive ones, show wider mouths, with visible jaw adductor muscles. I'm not suggesting Eocursor should be shown with jaw adductors (because Pisanosaurus has evidence of cheeks), but it seems to me that Eocursor should probably have a more "primitive" mouth than Lesothosaurus, closer to that of Saurischians...? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The sliluete on Hartmans drwaing does seems to show the cheeks and or abductor mussles starting a little further back. Firsfron do you mean more like this? [35]Steveoc 86 09:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The feet also look bigger in Hertman's skeletals. What's up with basal ornithischians and big feet? Otherwise, looks great! Love the coloration. Dinoguy2 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarize, you guys want longer middle toes and less cheek? Will submit second version later this evening. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New version of Eocursor has longer middle toes and less cheeks. Also uploaded Gigantoraptor based on reconstruction by Xu in the Nature paper. Just added a crest and some feathers. ArthurWeasley 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor looks awsome, i saw it on the news a few days ago. This is the only skeletal i can find,[36] I can't see any irregularities,(except for the shape of the skull, but judging from the skeletal its not known.) great work Steveoc 86 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor looks really good, I like how you've added a bit of a crest and scaled down the eye (the "official" reconstruction just looks like a gargantuan Ingenia). One thing I'd do is feather the hands--the position of Citipati nesting specimens indicates they had proper wings stemming from digit 2, and Caudipteryx also has primary feathers. The hands should either be completely obscured by feathers save digit 1 (which also has small feathers in most specimens), or some kind of degenerated primary feahters should be present. I tend to use ratites as a guide here, and overall your feathering looks very ratite-like save for the wings. (Also, remember that studies show even if maniraptorans were actually raptoring with their manuses, feathers wouldn't have gotten in the way due to the way their arms were put together). Dinoguy2 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like your Gigantoraptor also. This is kind of off the wall, but maybe put something else in the picture for scale? Just to show how big it is maybe. Not like a real scale diagram, but maybe just something in the background? Just a thought. Sheep81 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its so similar proportionally to its smaller reletives, so it would be nice to make it look larger. On a similar note, maybe some one could do a Oviraptorosaurs size comparison diagram. Steveoc 86 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks huge. ArthurWeasley 07:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha... I was thinking like a tree or something, but that's funny. :) Sheep81 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL i was also thinking of some form of vegetation..... i like it :)Steveoc 86 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, trees are much less exciting and they come in all sizes. ArthurWeasley 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bwah! That's hilarious... not really encyclopedic, but hilarious. Eocursor looks great, IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve and Firs - a plant of some sort is preferable. Give it a row of wild flowers, since it is the cretaceous. Otherwise, as a non-scale diagram, it looks like it belongs here. Debivort 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Creation Museum? No way! That would be rated PG-13 over there. OK, I'll turn her into a vegetable of some sort (In the meantime, guess whose silhouette it is). Cheers ArthurWeasley 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. PG-13 you say? An actress? Here's one guess. Debivort 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good try, but no, that would be NC-17. That was actually her. ArthurWeasley 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

She's hotter anyway, and a better actress. Sheep81 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

HA ha, shes looks hot who ever she is! ;). A dinosaur in a creationist museum would be 18 and over or R rating (with a mental heath warning). On a more serious note, maybe she could transform into some form of small Fern. I think there usually 'similar' in size. (or a shubbery)Steveoc 86 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, she is out of the picture now. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the style of vegetation in the new version. Are the ferns a little big? They seem like they would stand about 4-5 feet tall based on the previous scale lady. Here's a version I threw together in parallel. I don't know how I feel about it, so I don't expect it to go into an article, but it's a style we could think about using in the future. Debivort 23:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new version, but i agree the vegation should be smaller. My problem with the photocomposit is how the two styles contrast each other. Interesting idea though. Steveoc 86 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is inevitable in all but the most photorealistic drawings. I tried to address it by applying an "artistic" filter in Photoshop, but the result is still a bit unsatisfactory. Debivort 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the plants are an appropriate size. There weren't a ton of angiosperms back then, so your flora is mainly ferns of all different sizes and gymnosperms. I like it. I can tell how big it is compared to the trees there. Sheep81 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Even in the Cretaceous? Debivort 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought it was early Cretaceous for some reason, apparently not. So... yeah there would have been more angiosperms. Still though, there are 5-foot-tall ferns even today, so it's not that outlandish, I don't think. Sheep81 00:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, certainly not! I was just suggesting you add a positive clue that it was Cretaceous. But this is totally a minor point. Debivort 02:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he ate all the angiosperms! Sheep81 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, rather than break with our normal style, why don't we use the original gigantoraptor image in the taxobox, and add a separate scale diagram with CZJ?Debivort 00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We could do this too. Sheep81 00:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This was what I meant when I said trees come in all size. Plants can't be really be used to give an absolute scale, as they exist in a whole range of sizes. ArthurWeasley 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to step on any toes, but I slapped together a Gigantoraptor size chart if that would help. It doesn't have any Welsh hotties in it, but nobody's perfect :) Dinoguy2 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot support one without Mrs. Zorro. Debivort 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For real, I think she should replace the dorky waving guy in all of our scale diagrams. :) Sheep81 05:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypacrosaurus

• 
  v1
• 
  v2

next hadrosaur. Debivort 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The shading is nicely done; I worry that the hind leg looks too small around the hip area. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, shading is the one thing I can get consistently correct. wider hip. Debivort 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, how ever im not shure about the hight of the back, this is the only vagly decent shot the the body i could find,[37] maybe a little lower. Steveoc 86 09:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that one when I was sketching it. I'm not quite sure what you are refering to with "height of the back" but, here's some analysis. If you mean the height of the neural spines, in both my drawing and the photo, they are about 80% the length of the humerus, so that's about right I think. If you mean the height of the spine relative to the head, I think the linked photo is mounted in a bipedal stance, the shoulders are at the level of the hips, the elbows at the mid-femur level - I don't think it could be on all fours, so it may not be comparable in that respect. FWIW, I largely used this mount as a guide, but it is weird too - it looks like the animal is crumpling forward, so I didn't follow it strictly. Debivort 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the height of the back is fine, the crenulated ridge just makes it look a bit taller, but the actual spine ridge follows the photos closely. Dinoguy2 09:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hay, I was refering to the depth of the body overall, but you maybe right. Looking at the mount you used, its not as far of as I thought, Its difficult reviewing dinosaurs like this with limited skeletal refernce. I found this, its back isn't quite so flexed [38].Judging by the skull it may not be fully adult. Steveoc 86 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have read the caption ;) ' Spines along its backbone developed to a much greater height than in most other duckbills, but are not conspicuous on this specimen because it is a subadult.' Steveoc 86 18:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would support using this image in the article if there are no objections. Sheep81 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Or... I should probably, you know, LOOK at the article before saying things like this, haha. Sheep81 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus major by ArthurWeasley

(moved from talk page) Something like this? ArthurWeasley 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
  P. major
• 
  P. major perspective

That is awesome! Except for the ridge on the nose... if you look at the skull the "ridge" is actually the nasal on the other side pushed upwards during fossilization. So it would just be a smooth surface there. But otherwise, exactly! Sheep81 08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, looks really great. One thing I would do is use shading to convey the extreme difference in width between the snout-beak and rest of the head (not as extreme in this species as others, but still). If you look at the top views, the node is really 'pinched', which could be shown somehow even in lateral view. Dinoguy2 08:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an image comparing P. major with P. mongoliensis. Check out the snout width to see what Dinoguy is talking about. It's very narrow in front of the eyes in P. major. I'm not sure how easy it would be to convey this from the side though. Sheep81 08:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Great picture, I agree it would be nice to convay the narrowness. Considering the great job you have done on this it would be nice if you did all the pittacosaurus species skull pics. It would make them easily comparible as they would all have the same style. Steveoc 86 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A perspective view might be more appropriate. How about this? ArthurWeasley 17:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved the image to the top) I like the perspective view also. One thing I noticed is that his lower beak and upper beak aren't pointing quite the same way... the lower one is angled just a tiny bit backwards to my eye. I could be wrong though. I was thinking, if we do this, maybe have one view from the side and one from the front? That way we could catch the shape of the head from the side, which is important, but also see them from the front, where we could see things like the different jugal horn shapes and the narrow snout of P. major. Not to ask you to draw anything you don't want to or monopolize your talent, but what do you think about that idea? Sheep81 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for the front view. I guess, I'd like to have a front view of the skull to help me with. Is this available? ArthurWeasley 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, not published anyway. Never mind then. Sheep81 23:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The perspective drawing is great. Are you planning on doing every species with mutiple views? or are you saying we should pic one? Whatever the case each speices skull should be at the same angle(s) or a more direct comparison. Ive always had a thing for orthographic views, as i feel they show a more perfect view of the animal. If that makes sence. As a drawing I perfer the perspective one, however for an encyclopedia I prefere staight on views.Steveoc 86 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We could use both drawings for P. major and use just a side view for the rest. The image I provided for P. sinensis has a front view though, which I think is pretty gnarly looking! Sheep81 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! These are beautiful, Arthur! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor vs. CZJ

• 
• 

Ok, I'm a pretty big fan of the idea that Catherine Zeta-Jones should replace dorky waving guy from Voyager as the default human in these size charts. So without further adiue... Dinoguy2 06:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, like it. ArthurWeasley 06:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is she actually drawn to scale? Sheep81 07:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, not exactly. Google says she's 1.73 m. Though she is wearing heels in that photo. Dinoguy2 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-scaled to approximate her actual height. I figure 1 pixel = 2 cm, so she should be 86 px tall. Compensated for the pose, I figure around 80 px should do the trick. (never thought I'd be doing this for a celebrity, haha). Dinoguy2 07:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! As for the dinosaur though (obviously the less important part), can we maybe use Arthur's image as a silhouette instead of the official image with the grotesquely hyperextended knee? I can't wait to see "Gigantoraptor erlianensis with Catherine Zeta-Jones for scale" as a caption! Sheep81 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Arthur's verion would work better as well, especially since the skeletal lacks feathers and my other scale diagrams include soft tissue and such. I did modify this from the skeletal, fixing the knee and foot pose, but I'll put up a new one with AW's shortly. Dinoguy2 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Die dorky waving guy, die! Debivort 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated, Arthur's version. Dinoguy2 08:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that is awesome. Looks like Gigantoraptor is screaming "CATHERIIIIIIIINE!!!" Obviously Gigantoraptor wants Catherine Zeta-Jones' autograph. Sheep81 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I always though wiki progect dinosaurs needed more sex appeal. We need to reach out to a new audiance ;) The diagram Looks good, I also think the one Arthur's pic looks better.Steveoc 86 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the new audiance we were trying to reach were women ? Anyway glad to see that CZJ was chosen as the new mascot for the WP:Dino project. ArthurWeasley 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We aren't serious about that silhouette, are we? It seems sexist to include an image that isn't all that different than this one, and the high heels throw off any proportion, rendering the size scale sort of useless. The guidelines are clear about using the male image, but if we wanted a female, the female Voyager image would be much better. The CZJ silhouette would be better for Uncyclopedia than Brittanica. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Firs! Are you proposing to replace the liberated and clothed CZJ by the Voyager nude and submissive female figure ;) ? ArthurWeasley 06:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I don't know how you get "submissive" out of a silhouette... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the Voyager couple, only the male is actually doing something ("greeting") and is clearly shown as the leader. That's sexist. ArthurWeasley 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The voyager dude/AW version is still up on commons I believe, unless I accidentally overwrote it... Dinoguy2 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I did. Here it is, so take your pick ;) Dinoguy2 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus sinensis

• 

Next one. Also updated P. major above. ArthurWeasley 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! I really like the colors you have used so far, very natural-looking. A couple things though. P. sinensis is known for having a reallllllly long jugal horn. It slopes down on top, but underneath it's pretty much flat, not angled downwards much at all. It should pretty much be coming straight outwards at the viewer. Also, there should be a smaller bump directly above the jugal horn, slightly below eye level. Not a huge horn or anything, but noticeable. If you look at where the yellow color goes up underneath the eye in your picture, right about where the yellow ends is where the bump should be. A couple things, but overall I am thrilled with your work so far. Sheep81 08:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work AW, these are turing out really awesome! I also love the textring and coloration. I don't know what it is on this one, but the snout has a kind of 'narrow' look to me even without any perspective. Not sure if it's intentional or not, but it works :) Dinoguy2 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Might be the enormous black shading line below the nostril, heh. Sheep81 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant drawing, Looking at the reference you provided on the talk page it seems this species head is really wide (with exception to the snoat), partly due to the side horns things. It would be nice to convay that somehow.Steveoc 86 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking the line demarcating the cheeck horn that slopes down and forward under the eye helps a lot with this. Maybe if it were more prominant/darkened up, the rear of the head would appear even wider? Dinoguy2 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis

• 
  P. lujiatunensis
• 
  P. sinensis
• 
  P. major

Next in the series is P. lujiatunensis. I've tried to correct P. sinensis as well to account for the long jugal bone. Not sure if it renders. Seems that Spindler wasn't very successfull in this either. May be I should restart from scratch. ArthurWeasley 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the jugal looks much better now. But I might be seeing what I want to see cause I already have an idea of what it's supposed to look like, you know? Maybe just touch up the shading underneath to make it more clear what is going on? I'm not an artistic expert as you can tell. Otherwise it is right on.

You've done an excellent job with P. lujiatunensis as far as I can tell. I'm looking for little nitpicky issues but haven't found any yet. Especially good on the angle and size of the horns. This and P. sinensis had the biggest jugal horns, their skulls are actually wider than they are long. And you did a nice job with the front of the face especially. :) Sheep81 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like opening all three images up in different Firefox tabs and then flipping through them like a slide show. Hehehe... Sheep81 11:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, i cant see any thing major, again its just trying to convey the width. This will be an excelent series of images. :) Will all the images be composited into one picture or are they going to be kept individual? If they are composited together maybe it would be nice to have them all to scale. Even if the perspective image of p. major isn't in the final species comparison it should definatly be avalible in the aproved images catagory, its a great drawing. Steveoc 86 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

styracosaurus

hello people it has been a while :P. [here] is a small sketch, i must admit it was a rather complicated one since i didnt found any skeleton and every image in the net has a diferent head. so i hope it is right this way.LadyofHats 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The sketch looks brilliant, cant wait to see the real thing, theres this image of Styracosaurus albertensis[39] The key is to figure out which species you want to draw. Maybe someone with more knowledge of this animal could help you better. Steveoc 86 22:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most images seem to be of s.albertensis. [40] [41]Steveoc 86 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lady! Welcome back! We already have a life restoration of Styracosaurus. What we don't have is head comparisons of the species. That is what I was really hoping for: the text goes into great detail about the differences between the species, but without an illustration, it's not as useful as I'd like. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lady! We missed you! ArthurWeasley 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thankyou people. so let me see if i got this right, what you want is a head of everyone of the Ceratopsidae (about 18) to compare between them? that could take a bit of time to collect all the information... or how did you had thought about it?-LadyofHats 09:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he just means the 3 different species of Styracosaurus. But please finish the picture you're working on, it looks like it's going to be amazing!

If you want her to draw the other two species, you've gotta find her some pictures folks. Sheep81 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

here is a cast of the skull of Styracosaurus albertensis. I haven't found good (or any) pictures of the other two species. Styracosaurus ovatus had shorter frill spikes, possibly only two frill spikes on each side, and the two centermost spikes pointed toward one another, rather than away from one another. Styracosaurus parksi had a shorter, more robust lower jaw, and a different shape to the cheek horns and frill. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice the roughness above the eyes, kind of like in Achelousaurus. Sheep81 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be able to scrounge up some images of ovatus in the next few days. Are we sure the other two species are even valid? Dodson et al. list parksi as a synonym of albertensis and ovatus as a nomen dubium in 2004... Sheep81 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not sure about the validity of the other two species. The article already states this. There is a picture of S. parksi here, in the original paper. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ok here is the finished version of the sketch. i will work on the skulls and show you a sketch soon LadyofHats 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)::

Great work, love the sutble colouring. (i hope you dont mind i move the image to neaten up the page)Steveoc 86 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

styracosaurus heads

[here] please chose your favorites and let me know wichoneyou want.. since in my opinion there are not 2 that look the same LadyofHats 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

is anyone seeing this thread?LadyofHats 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it, LoH. :) I was waiting for Sheep's promised image of S. ovatus before weighing in; at this time, I've only seen the skulls of the other two. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus mongoliensis

Next one. ArthurWeasley 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• 

I'll be able to have a good look at this tomorrow. Looks good at first glance though. Sheep81 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really good, just needs a bit of work. Shave a little off the top of the nose so that the top of the skull is flatter, this is a diagnostic feature. It shouldn't have that little upward tick seen in your drawing, in fact it should start curving gently downwards right about there. Also, the jugal horn extends way too far backwards. To me it looks like it goes all the way back below the ear! I think you've interpreted that long backwards part of the jugal as part of the horn, when it's actually just the bottom of the skull. The horn should disappear into the skull almost immedately after the point (maybe a half-inch or so? three-quarters?), with just flesh after that. You don't need that big black shadow either since there would be nothing overhanging it. Here's a picture to see what I mean, roughly. Otherwise it looks top-notch. Thanks! Sheep81 06:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? ArthurWeasley 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is really great now. Excellent job. Sheep81 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchiceratops

while you deside on the other i did this one. hope it is ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyofHats (talk • contribs)

Lovely. Head closely resembles the skull cast here. Good job! ArthurWeasley 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. It's beautiful. One thing: in life, the cheek horn would probably have been covered in a horny sheath, making it a little longer, and pointed. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

i added a pointed cheek bone, hope you like itLadyofHats 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome! Thank you! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Charonosaurus

v1

v3

Last of the hadrosaurs for my project. Debivort 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to closely match the skeletal here. Looks fine to me. ArthurWeasley 01:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the one I used! I made a slight tweak, sharpening up a bit, the pokey post hip protuberance thing. Debivort 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed lower jaw per steveoc's comment in next section. Debivort 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but i actulally ment the back of the skull were the jaw muscles would be.Steveoc 86 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so by "back" of jaw you mean the back of the jaw. Got it. V3. Debivort 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats better, thanks Steveoc 86 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hadrosaurids

v2

v3

v4

Assuming the above passes, here is the result of my hadrosaur project. Debivort 06:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is beautiful, Debivort! Really breathtaking! My absolute favorite of these illustrations is Charonosaurus, but I also love Brachylophosaurus. And all of them, really. I love how you've scaled them and.. really neat!

I don't know how the others will feel about the 1970s style dinosaur family tree (that you'd probably see in a book from the 70s), but this is so beautiful. Thank you so much for your work. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I am very please with the result too. What makes it 70's-style? It follows all the phylogenies that were linked from this discussion. Debivort 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, Deb! ArthurWeasley 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. I think what he meant by "70s-style" is that it actually looks like a tree, not a cladogram. I'm not sure about Telmatosaurus as a hadrosaurine though, I've never heard it as anything but as basal hadrosaurid (between Probactrosaurus and the hadro-lambeo split). And also generally Brachylophosaurus and edmontosaurines are considered to be more closely related than either is to Saurolophus. If you moved Telmatosaurus down to the trunk below the two branches, and then switched Brachylophosaurus and Saurolophus, it would be both beautiful and phylogenetically accurate! Otherwise I really really like the idea and the execution. Nice job! Sheep81 07:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this look? Debivort 07:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic!!! Sheep81 08:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An excelent addition. The only minor thing, maybe check the back of Charonosauruss jaw [42]. The lower jaw should probably carry on a little further. I dont mind the style of the diagram, as long as its accurate or uptodate. In not great on phylogenetic relationships though, so i cant really comment on that. Great workSteveoc 86 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version doesn't now match our Hadrosaur#Taxonomy section now, which was obviously based on something (Horner 04?). If this new version is used, the article would have to be altered. Yes, by 70s style I mean it's the style of "family tree" you'd see in one of those dinosaur books from the 70s, which portrayed dinosaurs in family trees instead of the cladograms commonly depicted today. It is a beautiful illustration, and Debivort's been so patient with us. Thanks, Debivort. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A tree has all the same topological properties of a cladogram, no? So the difference is just stylistic right? Debivort 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say that, but if the others have no problem with the old school-style tree, I won't object. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's art. If we want a cladogram we have a template for that. :) Sheep81 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For the academic sake of the question, what information is missing or different in this diagram from a cladogram? The alignment of the leaves on one side? Anything else? Debivort 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a "true" cladogram would include numerical values for the probablity of each relationship, etc (like in Senter 2007), though most papers even just relegate that to the supplementary material. I much prefer this style for an illustration. Excellent work Deb! Dinoguy2 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed the article. I have no idea how Telmatosaurus got into the Hadrosaurinae, like I said I have never seen it as anything but a basal hadrosaurid, except a few studies which said it wasn't a hadrosaur at all. Horner (2004) certainly has it in a basal position. Sheep81 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus sibiricus

• 

Next. That one looks quite interesting, doesn't it? ArthurWeasley 07:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the one I was waiting to see! It looks very nice but if we could just tweak the horns a little bit. The horn in front of the eye is triangular and points outwards, maybe like 20 degrees above horizontal. I can't quite tell what is going on there in your drawing, would it be possible to redo that? The postorbital horns are good, maybe make the lowest horn a bit more prominent and the middle horn a bit smaller. The jugal horn in this species is pretty long also, and inclined just slightly below horizontal (not nearly as much as in P. major). Could you extend the jugal horn just a bit, by adding a fairly narrow tip to it? Also I think if you smoothed out the bulge right above the jugal it would look more prominent also. From the text of the paper (not so much from the image) it is clear that the horn should be divided by a ridge down the middle like you drew for the other species. Finally, this species had a very large frill behind the head compared to the other species. It wouldn't protrude like later ceratopsian frills, but there would be an upward incline from right behind the postorbital horns, and then the frill would flatten out a bit and end right over the ear. You can see this pretty well in the image from the paper. Then there would be a noticeable but not huge step down towards the neck. I don't think there would have been any overhang though. Thanks! Sheep81 08:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that the lower jaw should be a bit deeper because of the big flange. P. sibiricus is basically Psittacosaurus on steroids. Here's some visual suggestions]... obviously this is just scrawlings made with my mouse, not a professional tablet or anything, so feel free to take your license with my suggestions, but I think improvements along these lines would make the image top-notch. Thanks! Sheep81 08:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Illustrator

I made it.. I MADE it..*happy dance* i am now the first illustrator in WHOLE wikipedia to make it in the Commons:Meet our illustrators.. isnt it that wonderfull? ...oohh YEAHHHH!-LadyofHats 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link for you. Congratulations!! Sheep81 11:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!Steveoc 86 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

LoH, you are the best!! Cheers. ArthurWeasley 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is so awesome! How does one get chosen for such an honor (besides obviously illustrating a ton of great images)? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The best! Congrats LoH, well deserved! Dinoguy2 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

well as far as i understand it there is this project in commons to promote those people who make really a lot of quality images. it started with meet our photographs, that project has grown up so much that the limit grow from 5 to 10 featured pictures. but since now noone had made so many featured ilustrations. i do believe also that is becouse not many people that make good work are interested in becoming featured. In any case at some point someone sended me a mail to inform me that i was the only one illustrator in commons to have such an honor .. and i am so happy about it-LadyofHats 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! That's so neat! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus meileyingensis

Next in the series. ArthurWeasley 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
  P. meileyingensis
• 
  P. sibiricus

Good job on both of these! You nailed the near-circular skull of P. meileyingensis and its puny jugal horns. Great! Are there any left? Sheep81 08:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

neimongoliensis and ordosensis of course. Carry on. Nothing to see here. Sheep81 10:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work as always, The only minor things i can think of is the skull refernence you posted seens to have a little dent by the nostrals. Also the lower jaw seems to have a more angular tip.Steveoc 86 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe extend the lower jaw a little farther forwards and make the bottom edge more convex... I'm not sure what little dent by the nostrils you mean. Sheep81 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps move the jugal horn about a centimeter forwards, it's kind of too far back. The shape is good though. Sheep81 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By dent i ment if you look at the drawing above it has a smooth curve from the top of the orbit down to the beak, were as in the refernce there curve is more irregular [43]. If that makes sence :) Steveoc 86 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... read the caption for that picture. : ) Sheep81 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA.....Sorry ignore my stupididy, Wrong pic. The front of the head is fine. ;) (The names are so similar) Steveoc 86 13:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These are all shaping up really nicely AW. Great job! Are there any phylogenetic studies of P.? Could be cool to put together a cladogram like Deb's hadrosaurids. Dinoguy2 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one published, another was shown at a conference. There are like 2 more species still to be described, so maybe everyone is waiting til then... Sheep81 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Maiasaurs

So, here's what I had in mind in terms of a sweeping epic image of a herd. I'd like your thoughts regarding the landscape and the herd, rather than the technical acuracy of the individual dinos to which I will pay close attention in the final version. Debivort 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks really cool! I'm not really up on paleoecology, but the landscape/plant life look accurate to me (would be cool if you could do some specific plant species from this formation). The only thing I'd check on is the volcano in the background--is there anything to indicate volcanic activity in this formation? Dinoguy2 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely in Maia's home Two Medicine Fm., which is full of bentonite layers (=degraded volcanic ash). J. Spencer 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Laramide or one of the other orogenies which created the Rockies was ongoing to the west during this period... in fact that's where all the sediment that created the Two Medicine came from. Sheep81 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a great looking sketch, the environment looks really good. Steveoc 86 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it too. I wonder if you could add in some medium-sized "teenage" maiasaurs instead of just adults and babies? Sheep81 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Could do easily yes. I was actually wondering about this as I sketched, and ended up basing the herd demographics on something like wildebeasts in which you have newborns and adults, but since the migrations are annual, and the baby growth rates are so high, you can't really distinguish the 1 year olds from the adults. Debivort 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Adult maiasaurs were 7 meters long though, so I don't think they hit full size as fast as wildebeest. A herd of elephants might be a better comparison for you. Sheep81 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

v2 - ignore tonal changes in this one.

OK - so here is the uncolored version. Please review the technical accuracy of the individual dinosaurs now. Thanks! Debivort 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a few crocodiles or turtles would be a good addition. J. Spencer 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea - they look startled anyways, so I'll have them looking at a crocodile. Will appear in the colored version. Debivort 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great pic, maybe the heads should be a little deeper at the front, [44] [45](scroll down) They seem to have quite boxy heads. Also Hartmans image mentions some soft tissue under the thoat. Like J. Spencer said, maybe there could be crocs or tutles on the other side of the river to fill up that space. Steveoc 86 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxy heads and more wattle. As for "filling up the space", negative space is important, and that space is slated to be marsh/grass/meadow space - I don't think another herd would be helpful to the composition, but I will add a croc or two in the river, and some turtles further along upstream. Debivort 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Was there grass when maiasaura as around? Steveoc 86 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

According to grass it was consumed by herbivores in the cretaceous. Debivort 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they have found grass phytoliths in Late Cretaceous dinosaur coprolites. Not 100% for sure but a good bet. Sheep81 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and most of the grass evidence at the LK is in Gondwanan continents. Having some personal experience with a relative and the Judith River Formation, I think ferns would make more sense. J. Spencer 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's such a neat drawing. I look forward to seeing the final colorized version. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus neimongoliensis

That's the one you were talking about, Steve ;).ArthurWeasley 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• 

Great Work! I can't see any faults, (I gess ive already reviewed this one) ;) Steveoc 86 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is pretty much a perfect match for the skull reconstruction I posted. I really like the color too. Thanks!! Sheep81 09:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Avaceratops

ok here is the sketch, once again my doubht is about the feet. when i got it right it is 5 in the front and 4 in the back.. right?-LadyofHats 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lovly sketch, i love the active poses. [46] [47] These images show 5 front toes and 4 back toes, so i think your right. Steveoc 86 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

it is done hope you like it-LadyofHats 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the colouring, they look so playfull. :) Steveoc 86 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a great addition to the page, LoH. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus ordosensis

Last one in the series. Upper part of the skull is hypothetical. ArthurWeasley 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• 

Great image! It closely matches the known material, The only thing i gess is to make a note in the description saying that some of it is hypothetical. Steveoc 86 08:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep! That looks like it! I agree with Steve's suggestion about putting a note on the description page. That or do like some illustrators do and just put a leaf or a branch in front of the parts we haven't discovered yet, heh.

Now that we have all these headshots, I was wondering if we could arrange them all in one image for the main Psittacosaurus page to replace Spindler's drawing. I'll put them in individually on the "Species of..." page. Sheep81 09:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! It's incredible the number of images that were did while I was busy. And also was a coincidence that Sheep had the same idea of the psittacosaurus, exactly I wanted that Arthur do them, because you know, he is a good drawer:) And, for the main Psittacosaurus, it can put all the images in one, like the hadrosaur diagram, but obviously this don't have to demostrate classification. Dropzink 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus head series

Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• 

Fantastic! To scale and everything. Congratulations, excellent work. I'm glad you got them all finished before I had to leave also. Thanks! Sheep81 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excelent! Thanks for all the great work you've put into this series. Steveoc 86 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They're soooo adorable! You've really brought them to life, Arthur. They look great. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! These came out amazingly well! Dinoguy2 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, they look perfect! --Dropzink 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)