This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaurpaleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them 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 paleoart 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 added to therequested images list or by including "Request:" in the section title here, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. 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, perWP:OI andWP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested duringWP:Featured Article reviews).
Per project consensus, AI-generated paleoart is not accepted, and will be removed and nominated for deletion when encountered. From our experience, AI paleoart is always inaccurate, and since it derives from copyrighted, human-made artwork, is is both unethical and legally questionable.
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove 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 preventWP: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.
Example: If anhesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from knownnon-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration ofCastorocauda lacks hair.
While evaluating an oldSimolestes restoration by DBogdanov for inaccuracies to fix, I noticed it was never reviewed, and wondered how many of his older images this is the case for. It turns out it's a lot, so I thought it was time to finally get them over with here, as many of them are very widely used. I know these megathreads are cumbersome, but I don't see any other practical way of getting through this. But there are so many images that it seems they have to be posted in several rounds (one round per Commons category page[7]).FunkMonk (talk)05:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for the next batch, but damn, this took time... Of course, anyone is welcome to rearrange the gallery accordingly.FunkMonk (talk)21:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deuterosaurus is in need of major revisions, its posture is outdated based on its closest relative TapinocaninusRubidge (2019) . Its considerably shrink wrapped heavily and based on the evidence we have dinocephalians most likely didn't have hair.Eru Calypso (talk)21:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this doesn't apply to the head only restoration? In which case I don't think it's worth the effort to fix the other one.FunkMonk (talk)17:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dimetrodons posture is dated see Scott Hartmans skeletal and article on the subject[8] , and in general most of the mural work seems to have glaring issues with posture, Brithopus is considered nomina dubiaKammerer 2011. I would also say most of these are too shrink wrapped.Eru Calypso (talk)08:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, being able to stand upright doesn't mean it wasn't able to crouch and sprawl (resting pose etc., which some of them seem to specifically be in, though the walking one is iffy)? So I'm not sure we can say they're all downright inaccurate?FunkMonk (talk)20:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've finally got time to do a deep dive and have a crack at going over all of these. Broadly, the hair on the therapsids is something I want to acknowledge as contentious, but since depicting hair on them neither here nor there with current evidence I won't count it as a critique. Onto individual reviews, starting with the anomodonts because I'm biased:
Anomocephalus: Nothing egregiously wrong, but I think the proportions are slightly off. I can't match it up with either the skull reconstruction of Modesto et al. (1999) or the fossil—the snout is a little too long and its dorsal surface too shallowly angled. Assuming the areas with highlights correspond to the bony landmarks of the skull, the orbit also looks too small and the zygoma arched too high. That said, we're not shrinkwrapping and wouldn't see these landmarks anyway, and colouration doesn't have to correspond to them, so these could be ignored. You could quibble the visible teeth, but the mouth is open slightly so I'm not worried about that, and theyare its most prominent feature. Overall I'd still call thispassable, ideallywith revisions, but not a priority.
Australobarbarus: As far as I can tell, this shouldn't have tusks, but with limited accessibility to Russian literature I'm not entirely certain on that. The snout is too deep (with the nostrils too low) and the beak too hooked—cut off the existing beak below the nostril and you'd just about have it right. The tail is very short comparing it to photos of the material and just compared to other dicynodonts in general, not sure why. I'm not sure where the 'hump' over the shoulders and neck comes from either. Body proportions otherwise at least seem to match photos of a referred skeleton.Needs revision.
Aulacephalodon: So this is intended to beA. bainii, but the tusk is very small whenA. bainii is known for its hypertrophied tusks. I suspect it's taken cues from the "A. peavoti" skeleton mounted in the Field Museum, which lacks tusks and has a distorted, compressed skull, which could also be why the cranium looks so shallow compared to typicalA. bainii. I presume the paired nubs at the front of the snout are intended to be the nasal bosses, in which case they are much too small and the flat surface of the snout separating them too wide. Otherwise, I think the body proportions are fine. Potentially workable, butneeds revision.
Biseridens: Exposed teeth have already been edited out, skull matches the fossil material, body is reasonable extrapolation for a very early diverging anomodont.Pass.
Cistecephalus: Proportions and anatomy look good. Small eyes are accurate to known sclerotic rings in other cistecephalids, even with relatively large orbits likeCistecephalus.Pass.
"Dicynodon": ActuallyVivaxosaurus, likeAustralobarbarus I can't match it to any known specimens, but it approximates the overall shape and might blend several skulls? It's got the diagnostic anterior lobe on the caniniform process (proportionately sized to the holotype), but the snout is convex and bulbous rather than diagnostically shallow sloping. The tusks also seem to be smaller than figured specimens, and the upper beak may be too hooked. The dentary may need to be a little deeper too, but these sort of things could depend on the specimen(s) used as references. Overall, broadly depicts the right morphology, deviations from specimens could be chalked up to taphonomic or even individual variation, with one diagnostic feature that appears incorrect. Could be passable, butneeds revisions.
"Dicynodon": ActuallyEuptychognathus kingae, based on a skeletal reconstruction of a pretty complete specimen by King, so the postcrania is fine. The skull of the specimen it's based on is damaged, however. The premaxilla in this specimen is damaged and most of the dentary symphysis is missing, so both the premaxillary and dentary beak would be longer, especially the dentary which is longer and shallower in the holotype than King's reconstruction. Both beak tips also appear to be out-turned in the holotype.Needs revisions to work.
Antarctilamna ultima descripted here is based on juvenile specimen described here[9] (unfortunately Wikipedia Library does not work for Springer paper right now), which is only tentatively assigned to that genus, so it could be controversial. Although, the article ofAntarctilamna was edited by what appears to be describer Robert Gess himself, and the article conclusively states that the specimen in question is in fact a juvenile of this species, so Gess seems to be personally certain of this. That said, I think some commentary is needed either way, since research has come to inconclusive conclusions on the matter.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)22:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely have thoughts about the cartilaginous fish, and I'll leave discussion of the bony fish to someone more qualified.
Brochoadmones looks to be very closely based on the specimens and figures inHanke & Wilson (2006), which as far as I know is the most recent detailed treatment of this taxon. Unusually, Bogdanov's has an additional prepelvic spine that isn't present in the fossils, giving his a total of seven prepelvic spines instead of the accurate count of six. This seems to just be a simple mistake, as the specimens are well-preserved enough that such a spine would've been preserved if it were present, so I would suggestminor tweaks if possible to remove the seventh prepelvic spine.
Agree with the above aboutAntarctolamna, both of Bogdanov's reconstructions differ significantly from what's been proposed for material more confidently assigned to the genus, and the page itself may have some conflict of interest concerns. They do closely match the Waterloo specimen, so the question is just if that specimen actually belongs to this genus rather than one of accuracy.
TheCaseodus matches both the skeletal reconstructions and figured remains ofC. basalis in Cope (1895) and Zangerl (1981). The two currently recognized species ofCaseodus (basalis andeatoni) are identical in every aspect besides the shape of the teeth, so this reconstruction is a good genus-level approximation. A minor complaint is that the gill slits are positioned very close to the back of the skull, overlying the gill arches themselves, rather than opening further back near the pectoral fin. The size of the gill chamber inCaseodus isn't known, though, so I would call this a minor complaint at best and not something worth worrying about. I give this reconstruction apass, although I wouldn't mind to see the gill position tweaked if possible.
Apologies for the late reply, the 5th gill opening would presumably sit just before the pectoral fin. The gill slits themselves sit quite a bit further back than the underlying gill arches in living sharks to make room for the gill basket, although there isn't any literature specifically suggesting to what extent this was the case in eugeneodonts (and thus I don't think its necessary to adjust the drawing). I would consider this adjustment totally optional, I don't think its all that pressing and would by extension apply to all(?) of Bogdanov's Paleozoic shark recons which put the gill slits directly above the gill skeleton.Gasmasque (talk)18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ThatCampodus is a weird one, one and I've been meaning to comment on it for quite some time now. While small amounts of skull material that might belong toC. agassizanus have been described inGinter (2018), these are extremely fragmentary and ambiguous, and the genus remains largely known by its teeth. This drawing is interesting because its very clearly based onthe absolutely gorgeous body fossil listed under the eugeneodonts here (also seenhere alongside some questionable information that's been transcribed to the Wiki in the past). The thing is, this specimen has never been scientifically described to my knowledge, and has certainly never been described as a genuine body fossil of the historic wastebasketCampodus. There is something of a mystery about what this specimen actually is and where it comes from, Richard Carr even suggested it may be aFadenia from Greenland, if I remember correctly. The University of Nebraska site has several mislabeled fossils, including multipleRomerodus orodontus called "cladondonts" (spelling error theirs) seenhere. This exactRomerodus specimen is photographed and correctly labeled in Gerard Case'sPictoral Guide to Fossils, and it is worth noting that the illustration of it is strikingly similar to Bogdanov's own cladodontGlikmanius reconstruction (a genus known only by teeth as of 2008). I say that neither theCampodus or the (also unreviewed until now)Glikmanius should be used, as both are very closely based on mislabeled fossils of totally different fish. If the Nebraska specimen is ever described, Bogdanov's "Campodus" would make a great life reconstruction of whatever taxon that ends up assigned to.
I'm going to give apass toAcrolepis,Aidachar, andAllenypterus.Birgeria needsminor revisions; the ventral lobe of the caudal fin is too long. It should be shorter relative to the dorsal lobe of the fin.Cladocyclus needsmajor revisions; the head is way too long and the mandible should be more upturned.A Cynical Idealist (talk)00:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They both have images of the fossils on their respective articles.Birgeria may be passable depending on which species it is meant to represent since one species has a much more dorsoventrally symmetrical caudal fin.A Cynical Idealist (talk)01:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My lack of fish knowledge makes theCladocyclus too difficult for me to fix, looks like there are all sorts of head elements that would have to be significantly warped in a specific way that I simply don't know about.FunkMonk (talk)03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a stab at theCampylognathoides - inaccurate, but definitely salvageable. General proportions look good; the feet could make look a bit longer, but skull shape, wing length, tail length, etc all seem to match Witton's skeletal very closely. Main issue is the wing musculature - it'd be pathetic on any pterosaur, andCampylognathoides in particular has an especially overengineered shoulder. Witton frames it as a "pterosaurian gorilla" in his book. So the lower arm should be very prominently muscled, not a twig. Other issue of note is the teeth, which are so long and thin they protrude past the bottom of the jaw. Should be much more blunt and unspecialized; Witton's skeletal and a clear image of a skull are both on its page as reference material.LittleLazyLass (Talk |Contributions)19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that the crest is speculative, so may or may be worth removing. The overbite is also erroneous, and there's a shrink-wrapped fenestra that might need erasing.LittleLazyLass (Talk |Contributions)00:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the article onProterosuchus: "Chasmatosaurus yuani was named by C. C. Young in 1936, based on specimens from the Induan-age Jiucaiyuan Formation of China. It is considered a valid species of proterosuchid, but is not formally assigned to Proterosuchus. It is considered to be in need of taxonomic revision. It is more closely related to Proterosuchus goweri than to other species of Proterosuchus."A Cynical Idealist (talk)00:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would that look? Considering how the upper jaw considerably overhangs the lower jaw, I'm not seeing how lips could even seal the mouth. I found this attempt[10], but even there, one version has the frontmost teeth exposed.FunkMonk (talk)01:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be overdoing it, even in modern reptiles, such as monitors, you can see faint indications of the fenestrae. Not sure why the spines should be moved, do we have any evidence against them?FunkMonk (talk)09:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of a rationale, though, it's not like those are complex features, they exist independently in many reptile groups. I did find a few other proterosuchid restorations with them as well, but in general, new, professional restorations of these are few and far between.FunkMonk (talk)10:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The teeth are visible in the image, but are obscured by the object in its mouth and the angle of the animal's head. I think if nothing else needs to be done besides the teeth, this is apass.A Cynical Idealist (talk)01:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any source that states this explicitly or rules out lack of lips entirely? It sounds like it's the same debate as for dinosaurs, with no conclusive evidence. For our purpose, there's difference between "most likely" and "inaccurate", only the latter have to be removed.FunkMonk (talk)19:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tho I myself would lip rauisuchians, I am unaware of any papers expressly arguing for the presence of them in this group. That being said far as I can tell the number of fingers, toes and corresponding claws does not match what we know from members of the group and tho the tail is only partially preserved both Scott Hartmann and the Museum für Naturkunde in Stuttgart show a much deeper tail based on the few caudal vertebrae we have (Gower and Schoch 2009). I will concede that this might be a perspective issue however.Armin Reindl (talk)11:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chalishevia andBatrachotomus don't need lips, even though I and @Armin Reindl would personally lip both erythrosuchids and rauisuchians. However, the number of digits and the tail depth, as above-mentioned, should be changed, and the skulls are shrinkwrapped, so those need some working too.2600:4040:5100:FC00:8C46:67FF:FE1A:BCC1 (talk)22:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the neck is necessarily wrong, the holotype ofSimolestes has ~20 cervical vertebrae, using a3.2 cm centrum length for the only measured midcervical gives a total neck length of 64cm assuming fairly constant centrum length (and not taking cartilage into account), the snout tip to occipital condyle length is 73cm, so I don't think the neck is unreasonably long in the front individual (the back individual looks like it's somewhat longer-necked though). The cervicodorsal transition looks like it could use a bit more meat on it. The tail, however, does seem rather long; it almost looks longer than the torso. InHauffiosaurus the tail seems to be about as long as the trunk, inPeloneustes it's typically reconstructed as a good bit shorter, and while incomplete, it does not look like it would have been particularly long inSachicasaurus; the latter two taxa are probably better models for body proportions.The iconic not-Liopleurodon skeletal shows a slightly longer tail than trunk, which might be what the proportions here were based on, but I have no idea what, if anything, this was based on. I'm somewhat concerned about the tooth arrangement as well,having 5-6 symphyseal tooth pairs is diagnostic ofSimolestes, but there only seem to be three here. I haven't done a rigorous check but looking at the figures from Noè's 2001 dissertation I'm also somewhat suspicious of the head shape, the practically straight jawline in the toothbearing part, the gently rounded "chin", and the positioning of the eye all seem suspect. --Slate Weasel[Talk -Contribs]21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ceresiosaurus has some bizarre anatomy on the trunk, I don’t know how to precisely describe what’s wrong but it should be more smooth rather than the way it is.The tail is also too lizardy, nothosaurs likely used their tails for propulsion so reconstructions should include a more paddle shaped tail. Neck also appears too long and the body/tail too short.Driptosaurus (talk)03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the belly fatter, but I can't seem to find other restorations that give it a paddle-like tail? Any skeletal to go by if I am to make the neck shorter?FunkMonk (talk)20:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothosaur tail fins are a fairly recent development and I don't see many reconstructions with them either. The one on thenothosauruswikipedia page has one. In 2021 This paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12542-021-00563-w) is the most recent one I can find talking about tail propulsion in nothosauroids. There's no preserved soft tissue suggesting a tail paddle but just about every aquatic animal has some compression on the tail for better hydrodynamics, so a round tail is unlikely.
For the neck length, the neck seems a bit long compared to the skeleton on the page, at least in relation to the head size. It appears closer to C. lanzi than C. calcagnii.Driptosaurus (talk)22:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The neck on the image in the infobox is very clearly compressed by taphonomic forces. Several of the vertebrae are overlapping and the neck itself is bent in half. I think the neck in this image is fine as is.A Cynical Idealist (talk)00:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life reconstruction of the Polycotylid plesiosaur, Unktaheela specta, described in late December of 2023. As always, if there are any changes I should make, I will do so as soon as I can.— Precedingunsigned comment added byShamuBlackfish (talk •contribs) 9 September 2025
After adding a {{unsigned}} tag to this section, I noticed that it had been added nearly 2 months ago, meaning if I hadn't added the tag, it would have been archived with no reply. I thinkFunkMonk would have advice for this reconstruction, as I can't say much about it besides that it looks odd compared to other plesiosaurs, especially the lack of a caudal fin. -BlueEleephant (talk)06:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am wrong: this section is actuallyfour months old, so maybe, the spontaneous edits made to it throughout that time kept it from getting archived. Either way, this image deserves to get reviewed by an expert. -BlueEleephant (talk)06:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not an expert on these guys (we have a few editors who are), but the tail-shape seems in line with how polycotylids are generally restored now?FunkMonk (talk)12:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this one, its inaccurate because it has arthropod like antennae.Used in de and fi wiki.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^|13:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I drew the second one back at the turn of the century when various vendiamorphs were still thought to be arthropod-like organisms. As far as I know, all of the articles still using this either are using it for historical purposes or their editors have not yet gotten the memo aboutVendia sp. being proarticulates. The first picture is accurate, based off ofthis paperMr Fink (talk)01:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like they haven’t updated, I know since on de wiki it is probably too simple to be innacurate reconstruction and the other based on the links is probably saying vendia is a trilobite also spriggina.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^01:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d probably let others voice their opinions on the new one since basing things off of papers can still mean mistakes.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^01:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this whilst touching up the article forParavendia, but the number of isomers for that one is one too many, its only known to havefour isomers on either side (The front set of course forming something akin to a head-shield), but here you've reconstructed it withfive isomers on either side.
This image has never been reviewed, the interpretation of it as an opabiniid is questionable but I feel like assuming it’s like other opabiniids then this looks like it might need revisions.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^19:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time you stopped inserting images in the middle of your comments. It's just not good at layout. Aside from that, probably this image needs to be removed from article, cause most of modern studies does not support affinity ofMyoscolex as opabiniid, so revision is impossible.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)22:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean as a historical image it might not be good as it appears the anatomy also differs from known opabiniids.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^00:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be mouthless, lacks setal blades, is too thick and the attachment of the swimming flaps is odd.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These recons haven’t been reviewed yet, the lobopodians look rough.These are not used anywhere so it shouldn’t be a problem.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^01:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Junnn11's reconstruction is diagrammatic; it's meant to show the anatomy, not how it looked in life, so it's acceptable to exclude elements that aren't part of the body and that it didn't make to show parts that would otherwise be obscured (in this case by the tube). This reconstruction aims to represent how it would have looked in life; this would have included a tube, even if it didn't make it, and even if it's not part of the body.Radiodont2011 (talk)18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the conulariids, though? That image could be very useful, though I know so little about conulariids that I cannot even attempt to review it.Radiodont2011 (talk)23:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thamks for reviewing mate, and I was looking forward to use these later on even if I said I won't use em I've changed my mind so I would highly appreciate you if u could tell me if there are other probs in the paleoart.
Hello there! I've made a reconstruction of Athabascasaurus and figured I'd submit it here for review before posting it to the page for it. Let me know if I need to make any adjustments!Benwrops (talk)06:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ordovician extinction probably fine, Cretoperipatus replaced months ago, Cryodrakon idk probably fine, Koolasuchus probably fine, Isoxys bad, Tambach fine, Repeno idk, fish probably fine idkPrehistorica CM (talk)19:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prehistorica CM: I hope you aren't too bothered by Zenghecaris's antics. I and other Wikiproject Paleontology members have really appreciated the high-quality artwork you have contributed to Wikipedia over the years. As a question, do you think that the paddle-like exopods suggested forIsoxys volucris in the Martin et al. 2009 study are correct, or do you think that they had exopods more similar to those ofI. curvirostratus?Hemiauchenia (talk)19:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be cautious about rubberstamp reviewing like this. If you aren't familiar with a taxon or the clade that the taxon belongs to it might be better to ping someone else more familiar, or to try and familiarize yourself, before commenting. Just saying reconstructions look fine at a first glance even when they have previously been noted to not be fine is not ideal.Gasmasque (talk)11:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gasmasque Yes, you're right. I will admit, I can often review better with non-avian dinosaurs, but I have pinged others before. I'm terribly sorry for doing this. I will humbly permit others to properly review it.~2025-31600-97 (talk)12:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cretoperipatus was already found to be incorrect during that article's review, since the coloration of the worm is actually known and it was not bright blue. No need to correct this reconstruction since Prehistorica did a very nice 3D model as a replacement. TheProtopsephurus is very painterly so it is hard to say if this is intentional or not, but the dorsal fin looks quite different in shape from the preserved specimens and also seems to be much fleshier, more like the fin on a cetacean than on a bony fish. It otherwise looks pretty consistent with the fossils, and the odd looking dorsal fin might be more of a result of artistic liberties than scientific ones.Cryodrakon is very fragmentary, so making sure the limb proportions look consistent is about all that can be done. It definitely looks like a pterosaur to me, and at least at a quick glance the wing and hindlimb look roughly consistent in proportions to the fossil. No comment on the other reconstructions, those are definitely better covered by someone more familiar.Gasmasque (talk)11:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we really have the blue one as a separate file, sooner or later somebody is going to use it, even if someone puts an inaccurate template on there’s a chance it will be used as File:Opabinia BW.jpg is used in several wikis even though the template is there as an accurate reconstruction, that one has some history in though, being used in the english version for quite a while.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk^22:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question I think could be asked for all of Tatarinov's image mirrors, frankly. They're a headache when the original paleoart gets updated, that's for sure.Gasmasque (talk)23:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone add the 5.5 m estimate to this size chart? It's been bothering me that one is not present here recently.— Precedingunsigned comment added byOtodusm (talk •contribs) 28 November 2025
Yeah, it looked about like that. It would be better to include these unreviewed images together in a single new section, or in this case preferably in one of the two already existing open sections where Bogdanov's cartilaginous fish reconstructions are being discussed.Gasmasque (talk)23:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to give a real review, oops. TheFadeniapasses, with my only criticism being the minor gill position comment I brought up previously for Bogdanov'sCaseodus. This illustration is very closely based on the skeletal and dental reconstructions by Svend Erik Bendix-Almgreen published in Zangerl (1981), and the numerous textbooks that reuse the figures. The actualFadenia crenulata fossils remain largely undescribed, but the (probable) close relativeFadenia uroclasmato has very similar fins, teeth and gills and serves as a better-figured analogue that confirms the anatomy heresans a side profile of the head.
The problems with this image come from the prey animals: some kind of hooded, inking, orthocone cephalopod from the Late Permian. I assume these are meant to be some kind of orthocerid nautiloid, which would mean theNautilus-esque hood might be a misinterpreted mouthpart and there shouldn't be any ink. Were there such things as ink-producing orthoconic cephalopods during the Late Permian? Are orthocones of any specific genus known from Wordie Creek? I don't know enough about them to say off the top of my head. Pinging @Carnoferox as the closest thing we have to an orthocerid expert, just to verify if these are even usable for anything in particular or not. Ican say thatFadenia has been proposed as a cephalopod hunter, so my concern is only with their anatomy. Would it be reasonable to create an alternate version of the image with the large foreground shark cropped out (and maybe rotated 90 degrees), and the background and cephalopods removed?Gasmasque (talk)17:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orthocerids did have opercula (I disagree with the jaw interpretation), but they should be round to match the shape and size of the shell opening. The opercula on these orthocerids do look to be based onNautilus and are thus too triangular. Ink sacs have occasionally been proposed for orthocerids but have always turned out to be misinterpreted structures. The current evidence suggests that ink is restricted to coleoids.Carnoferox (talk)00:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The jaw interpretation does seem to be prevalent enough that itmight be worth opting for no opercular covers instead of trying to modify the nautilus hood into a more appropriate shape, if it's worth keeping the cephalopods at all. Could ink have been present in Paleozoic non-ammonite ammonoids or bactritids? Bogdanov doesn't seem to specify an intended genus or order or subclass, so if they're kept I don't know what taxon they should best be modeled after besides "generic orthocone".Gasmasque (talk)06:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the operculum of orthocones is still a topic of ongoing debate and has received little recent research, and even ifAptychopsis was an operculum, there is no certainty as to what it was like in orthocones of lineages other than orthoceratoids. (Especially bactritids which are related to ammonoids and coleoids would have had no operculum at all.) Cephalopods with internal shells already existed at the timeFadenia lived, and it would be better to replace them with such type of cephalopods, but frankly, that may be beyond the scope.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)16:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards an alternate version with just the foreground shark and the background and cephalopods removed. Because they have somewhat confused anatomy and aren't any specific kind of cephalopod I don't know if retaining them is useful, since the subject is the uncontroversialFadenia anyway. A paleoecology section, where a depicted predator-prey interaction would be most useful, would in my opinion be better illustrated by brachiopods since there is direct evidence thatFadenia fed on those.Gasmasque (talk)05:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to theFadenia: there is a very small dot behind the eye that I had previously not even noticed because of the dots across the body, which is probably meant to be a spiracle. I'm not familiar with any sources that suggest a spiracle in any caseodont genera, and have seen some sources which say they aren't known in any holocephalans. That may be best to remove if revisions are being made anyway.Gasmasque (talk)06:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an alternate version of theFadenia with some minor tweaks to the face, eye, gills, and pectoral fin that help is align as closely with the original figures (and shark soft tissues) as possible. More importantly I've gotten rid of the background and cephalopods. Something I hadn't noticed during my original review is that the original drawing doesn't have the projection from the mandible that is known in this genus, so hopefully my effort to edit that in doesn't look too crude. I've gone ahead and switched the file on the animal's enwiki page to this one, since I don't see any reason to retain the other reconstruction.Gasmasque (talk)21:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buccaspinea is probably among the more completely known Radiodonts, we have most of the trunk, the oral cone and the frontal appendage so its surprising to me there aren’t any life restorations in commons except for one but it isn’t the main focus and isn’t really useful as a recon, I could only find one recon on the internet and probably there won’t be much more. Maybe @Radiodont2011 could make a reconstruction?Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk01:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since my reconstruction just shows a solid background and does not attempt to show the habitat, it is fine as-is. I'll fix the segment lengths soon.Radiodont2011 (talk)02:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe if it is just a recon of the animal itself we can make a white background version as the black background could be misleading as it implies that Buccaspinea lived in the open ocean as no sea floor is visible.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk13:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I measured out the segments of the fossil and my reconstruction (if only very roughly) and found that the only segment that was too far out of the range of the fossil was the first segment, so I separated it into two segments. I think now all the segments should fall within the range of the fossil.Radiodont2011 (talk)22:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
anatomically it should be. in hurdiids, the appendages typically surround the mouth like a basket - this is also true in buccaspinea, where the oral cone takes up nearly a quarter of the entire body length. the oral cones of radiodonts, especially buccaspinea, are also three-dimensional, and protrude outwards greatly.Prehistorica CM (talk)23:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proportionally, Buccaspinea had a huge oral cone compared to most radiodonts. And I assume the lack of an oral cone was one of the issues Prehistorica had with the Falciscaris that he didn't mention because that reconstruction will be inaccurate once he publishes his reply paper, so it wasn't worth pointing out. Also, I wasn't quite happy with how the oral cone in this one came out, so I redid it. The size should still be right, though.Radiodont2011 (talk)02:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please think of the oral cone as something like a hemisphere. The corners (the small plates) formed creases, like jello. Please see myreconstruction here (The oral cone is biting outwards from the top and bottom here, but the point stands). To be honest, we already have two fine reconstructions ofBuccaspinea(one published in a paper, and also Jun's appendage diagram), so i will not be adding this one.Prehistorica CM (talk)03:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how usable is the reconstruction from the paper? The Pahvantia is outdated and it wouldn’t be the best recon to use as it is pretty small and isn’t really good for the page.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk20:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reconstruction from the paper seems high resolution enough that maybe we could crop it and still end up with a high-enough resolution image to be usable. I think that in combination with other images, we should be able to represent the taxon fairly well.Radiodont2011 (talk)02:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the other reconstruction is from the paper, I really don't think we can question the appendage morphology, but I agree the numbers are very confusing. Really, I just put it there for now until mine gets passed, and we can replace it.Radiodont2011 (talk)00:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prehistorica CM, if you didn't already see (I know I didn't ping you in the other comment, and it got somewhat buried under the other replies), I fixed the oral cone per your comments and I request your thoughts.Radiodont2011 (talk)00:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the appendage, it’s just not precise like yours or Prehistorica CM’s and it is supposed to be quite small so really, it’s not a reason to remove it but one with a more precise anatomy would be better.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk00:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is probably fine because Echidnacaris' oral cone was much smaller than Buccaspinea's and the angle of the reconstruction might also put the oral cone out of view, but I would definitely ask prehistorica.Radiodont2011 (talk)01:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this reconstruction hold up in 2025, it was reviewed in 2023 but new studies have been made since then, it doesn’t matter that much as we have Prehistorica CM’s 3d reconstruction.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk00:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glaucabalaena, a Gray Whale from Pliocene-eraPiedmont, formerly called Glaucobalaena
About a month ago, I noticed that this image was not used in any page, includingthe article about its subject, except foran old archive of this page, which made me wonder if it was suitable for use in the article. However, I forgot about it for a while, but I finally remembered today. The description of the file on Commons doesn't say what source it is from, and since the nominal specimen of the species (MGPT-PU 19512) only includes part of the skull &mandible, I am curiousif the image is based off of any source, or not.Note: I am fairly new to this Wikiproject & its community,so I might not know everything about the customs here.BlueEleephant (talk)03:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a reasonable enough reconstruction. We only have fragments of the skull and mandible so the only thing we can really go off for the rest of the body is the gray whale, and the rest of the body here is decently obscured by being pointed away from the "camera". The description is wrong though, Glaucobalaena seems to be a mixup in the abstract and a few figures, with Glaucabalaena used nearly 5x as much in the paper that described and named the remains.The Morrison Man (talk)00:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I honestly wonder why the paper the article uses as its main source doesn't care to normalize one spelling of the genus name over the other, e.g. use onlyGlaucabalaena, and not everGlaucobalaena, huh. Likewise, I also am confused by the fact that the original articlewas started asGlaucobalaena, yet uses the same source the modern article does. -BlueEleephant (talk)00:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the original article was started based off the abstract, which has the name asGlaucobalaena for some reason. The inclusion of that spelling is probably a mistake on the authors' part.The Morrison Man (talk)14:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Theglaucus[11] page on Wiktionary states that "glaucus" is from the Greek "glaukós", which could be spelled as "glauco" if used as a prefix, which might explain the spelling mistake in the abstract. -BlueEleephant (talk)16:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not especially familiar with cetaceans so I can't comment on the accuracy of this image besides a vibes-based "looks nice". Generally if an image has been on a review page before (likethis one, as you mentioned) but didn't receive comments, we treat it as usable. Though we slightly modified this system this year to require explicitpasses orfails to make image usability more clear. That being said, I'm not sure what you mean by "what source it is from", as this is a user-created image and thus not "from a source". The restoration seemsconsistent with the available sources; the bodyplan matches its phylogenetic position as a gray whale relative. Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk)09:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, okay. When I said "what source it is from", I meant "what source the reconstruction was based off of", but I didn't really make that clear enough. Good to know that this recon is probably apass, but I am still confused on the "Generally, if an image has been on a review page before but didn't recieve comments, we treat it as usable" part of your comment; sometimes, I will go look at one of the archives of this page, or really just any section on this page, and I will see a section that got no replies before getting archived, or a section here that is 40 days old, and has no replies, and I will get worried that nobody with the required skillset saw the section, or nobodyat all saw it, which is what prompted me toinitiate this thread at the Teahouse. Normally, when nobody replies to a section on anoticeboard, I assume that either nobody wanted to reply to it for some reason, or nobody with the right amount of time/permissions/skillset saw it. -BlueEleephant (talk)17:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was discussed at some point, but if sections are still being auto-archived without comments, that is a problem. Something like this should probably be discussed at the project talk page (here) or onthis page's talk, where it will get more visibility from people familiar with the process compared to at the Teahouse. -SlvrHwk (talk)22:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. About an hour ago, I added the image to Glaucabalaena, thinking about your comment, but it is good to know that I probably should have gone toWT:PALEO first, instead of the TeaHouse, but like I stated there, I wasn't quite sure where I should have brought up the discussion, so I decided to play safe and go to the TeaHouse, where I knew somebody would direct me to the right place. -BlueEleephant (talk)22:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize, now, that there may not be a need for a discussion about this page's inactivity,at all. I looked at some recent archives of this page a couple minutes ago, and about 95% of the sections theredid get at least one reply, eventually, so I might have just straight up been adunce when I made the TeaHouse discussion. -BlueEleephant (talk)23:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back, and I think I cooked with this new batch.
Bungartius perrisus, an aspinothoracid arthrodire placoderm found in the Famennian (Late Devonian) of Ohio.
NewBung hit the scene, I have improved my modeling skills over the past few months, more complex color schemes, proportions, scale-less skin texture AND better suturenormals for dermal cranium. Also, I based the body proportions on Engelman's 2023supplementary materialon section 5 (conclusions) where his measurements placed Bungartius' total length as 178.8 cm.
Gymnotrachelus hydei, from the Late Devonian of Ohio.
Hey! Hit thegym! Jokes aside, here's a Gymnotrachelus school. The fishes are about 74 cm, also based on the supplementary information seen above. They are fusiform in shape, have finely serrated gnathals, themorphology offins and thecolor scheme are what you'd expect from anopen water fish.
First off, these are a huge improvement artistically and look very nice visually! That said, I'm really not sure about theGymnotrachelus scene(?), it is quite hard to focus on the anatomy of the fish themselves at thumbnail size. Something similar to theBungartius with a lighter background and only a single individual would be preferable if not trying to depict a scene, or alternatively you could keep the schooling behavior and place them in an ocean environment, which would make them both a bit easier to see and could serve to furnish a paleoenvironment section. As for the anatomy of theGymnotrachelus themselves, why have you given them separate shark-like gill slits extending far beyond the gill opening?Gasmasque (talk)02:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that since the Orbit-Opercular length measurement for arthrodires goes to the cranio-thoracic joint, that's where the gill arches would be, and the individual gills need to vent the water passing through them. The homologous submarginal (= operculum) is pretty small in comparison to the distance between that and the cranial neck joint. Plus, the exact nature of the arthrodire gill condition is pretty enigmatic, both in fossil record and at least to me.
On one hand, you have one gill cleft at the posterior border of the pharyngeal gill cavity where the water flows out of, on the other hand you have Engelman for example saying stuff like, due to the position of the branchial arches in relation to the endocranium being constrained across gnathostomes, the effect will be that the enlarged mouth from the dimensions of the cheek and mandibular arch would cause the gill slits to be covered, at least in his case study, Dunkleosteus.
Given the positioning of cheeks and jaws in relation to my inferred position of the branchial arches, the gills would have plenty of space to have individual slits, plus the submarginal "operculum" would be small enough to permit multiple slits, though that's probably due to the extensive space caused by modifying the orientation of the redescribed fossil reconstruction in antero-posterior view. I wanted the Gymno to have a more natural head elevation as the reference image had the head levitated to the extreme and the mandible swung down. so I had to rotate the image and make sure the elements except the stationary pectoral girdle were aligned properly when modelling and before any normal bump mapping could be done.
In the Bung, this problem is not applicable because of the tight fit of the branchial arches and the possibility of the combined cheek+submarginal+mandible unit getting in the way and working as a specialized "pseudo gill cover".PlacodermReconstructions (talk)02:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any papers or sources showing or explaining evidence of multiple gillslits in Gymnotrachelus despite no evidence for any other placoderm having multiple gillslits?Mr Fink (talk)17:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this constitutes original research, and if I can be blunt it isn't particularly well founded original research. I don't think there is any reason to expect shark-like gill slits in this genus based on current evidence, and I have not been able to find any recent sources advocating for that. Notifying @EvolutionIncarnate, since she has worked closely with Engelmann and is more knowledgeable about arthrodires than I am. Also, please do not add this to the page if there are unresolved accuracy concerns.Gasmasque (talk)21:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is no evidence that these placoderms would have multiple gill slits, due to how jammed together their gill arches are and no indication they would not have an operculumEvolutionIncarnate (talk)02:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Life restoration of the extinct muensterellidEnchoteuthis melanae
So I made this reconstruction of Enchoteuthis a while back, but forgot to post it here for review, most of the anatomy is based onGreenfield’s diagram, however I have also added some speculative papillae above the eyes based on modern octopods, which I thought would fit well given this groups relation to modern octopods. Would be very open to criticism from anyone knowledgeable on cephalopods.Fossiladder13 (talk)16:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any soft tissue for enchoteuthids, so it's all a matter of uncertainty, but I do have some nitpicks with this. The general body shape looks fine, but the mantle fins are a bit weird. I cannot really see it in the dark, but it looks like they are conjoined at the top? I don't think this is a condition seen in any octobrachian; it also looks like they come out of the body at the widest part when they should originate closer to the dorsal surface of the body. As for the eyes and the speculative papillae, while I must admit that they do look pretty cool, they are very much unlikely, as are the eyes themselves, which are very octopus-like. Octopuses have eyes like that because they are benthic animals often times inhabiting complex reef environments, but when you look at pelagic octopuses likeOcythoe, Haliphron or argonauts, you see much simpler eyes without any papillae. See also cuttlefish compared to pelagic squid, etc.
As for the arms, they are probably fine; the interbrachial web in Muensterella is described as very short, and its presence actually cannot be entirely confirmed at that, but this varies a lot even amongst species of the same genus in modern cirrates, so it probably doesn't matter. As for the suckers, in Muensterella they are described as creating a zigzag pattern the closer they get to the distal end of the arms, so they stop being in a straight row, but this also varies wildly in modern-day taxa, so it doesn't matter, I think.Dean Falk Schnabel (talk)18:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This relatively new image appears to have some problems, the H-element shape is wrong, the eye size is exaggerated, the P-element is missing, also one has setal blades on the bottom of the flaps and the other has them on top, also they should be on the trunk, the oral cone looks wrong too.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk01:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to ping account@Jose manuel canete: who added image in Wikipedia. Note that second image is already tagged inaccurate, but seems model is not changed well. (uploader is different but judging from name they are same)Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)02:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Radiodonts have setal blades on their segments not their flaps, also it lacks segments for the reduced flaps. Plus, the one with two Anomalocaris is the one in review I posted the 14copy.jpg for comparison.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk03:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some other things that ought to be changed: the comment on the "neck" flaps also applies to the tail fan, the more distal endites should have dorsal spines (this was actually portrayed correctly in the one with the single Anomalocaris), and the frontal appendages should have 14, not 11, podomeres. And for clarification for Jose manuel canete: the issues with the oral cone are that 1) all the plates are the same size, when there should be three large plates with medium and small plates in between, and 2) the plates lack "teeth" on the interior margin.Radiodont2011 (talk)03:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jose manuel canete, sorry for the barrage of feedback! Your work is excellent artistically, and we are suggesting revisions not simply for the sake of criticism, but because we think it would be great to use your work in an article once these revisions are made.Radiodont2011 (talk)03:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is used in list of Placoderms, even though I’m not an expert this is clearly outdated so what should be done? Maybe there should be a note saying it’s inaccurate on the page or it could be replaced.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk16:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excited to see the revision, this artwork is a personal favorite of mine in spite of its datedness. Are you planning to base the revised version off of a specific formation, or to use an anachronistic mix of placoderms to better showcase total diversity?Gasmasque (talk)18:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a redo ofDunkleosteus as per the 2025 paper, also a collection of Cleveland Shale critters and a collage of placoderms to showcase diversity.Mr Fink (talk)23:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made this reconstruction of Pahvantia, it will probably be inaccurate, I’m pinging @Radiodont2011 as Radiodont2011 has more experience reconstructing radiodonts, I based the head off of the diagrams on the page and I omitted the dorsal flaps as the Cladogram on the Hurdiidae page places Pahvantia between Hurdia and the “Cambrorasterine” forms, which lack dorsal flaps.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk20:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I alone am qualified to review this (I would ping someone else after you make the changes I request), but generally, I think it looks great, though there are a couple of changes I would make. My main concern is that the frontal appendages look more slender than shown in both Junnn11's appendage diagram and figure 6 inCaron & Moysiuk, 2021. The position of the P-elements also looks somewhat unnatural, almost as though they are situated completely horizontally, and the anterior edges look like they are perhaps too far away from the H-element. The eyes also look a little small, but I think that last one is probably optional. The image quality isn't great, but I appreciate there is little you can do about that, and there will always be some artifacts whenever you try to get an image on paper onto a computer. Maybe you could try going over it digitally?Radiodont2011 (talk)21:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how to go over it digitally, I tried to make the eyes bigger, I tried to fix the frontal appendages by covering the overlong part with the P-element and I tried my best on the P-element.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk21:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The frontal appendages and eyes look much better. The P-elements still look like they are situated in an unnatural way, though it's pretty minor. Refer to this image by Junnn11 of Hurdia, which is very similar to Pahvantia anatomically, when editing the P-elements. I appreciate this is in lateral view, unlike your drawing; just try the best you can. I think it's minor enough that if you can't fix it, it's probably still usable (though I would maybe check with someone else). What I meant by going over it digitally was to open the file on your computer/phone and in the photo editing tools, try to "paint" over some of the lines to make the image sharper. I don't know how well it will work, but perhaps it's worth a shot. Also, this image is very dark, so when uploading new versions, make sure the light works out well.
Here’s a new recon of Houcaris as an Amplectobeluid, the appendages are rough because of the size, which is a problem, this one isn’t really good but it’s better than File:Houcaris reconstruction.jpg (the one in glitter pen).The endites look a bit closer to Tamisiocaridid appendages because of the numerous auxiliary spines which should be evident enough to identify this.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk22:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new Pahvantia looks pretty good. The only things are that the "spine" at the anterior tip of the H-element looks slightly too long and the segments look somewhat sclerotized. It also might be more useful to show Pahvantia in lateral view to show the frontal appendages and P-elements, but this is good, too. The Guanshancaris also looks pretty good, but the placement of the appendages on the Guanshancaris is indeed very odd, almost as though they are rotated 90 degrees from the position they should be in, and it would be best to revise this, if possible. Generally, when drawing radiodonts, if you want to show the details of the frontal appendages and/or P-elements, try to draw it in lateral view, so that you can show these elements well without putting them into unnatural positions. The Guanshancaris' segments also look sclerotized.Radiodont2011 (talk)16:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just that I can’t draw the head in lateral, I’ll upload a new one soon, the reason it looks sclerotized is that making it look fainter means that it would look somewhat messy, I’m not giving it much texture, sometimes that’s just to make it less messy like the shaded one.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk20:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of your reconstructions still have the same issue with parts being unnaturally situated due to the body being "twisted" when the anterior part is put in lateral view, but the posterior part is in dorsal view. I think the extent of this is low enough for File:Pahvantia reconstruction.jpg topass it. The H-element of the Guanshancaris still looks too large; your original Guanshancaris was probably most accurate. If you can get the frontal appendages into a more natural orientation (which would most likely mean putting the entire head in lateral view), that would definitely still be best, but otherwise, I'll probably stillpass that original Guanshancaris anyway.Radiodont2011 (talk)23:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version with the white background might look better if you make sure that the outline is made sharp, with bold lines (the P-element on the right and some of the flaps had the outline removed completely in some spots). Yes, I do think it would be best to fix the oral cone. Though it might still be okay as-is, it would be better to fix it.Radiodont2011 (talk)23:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made this recon of Falciscaris for fun and not for Wikipedia, I somewhat dumbly assumed it was a basal aegirocassine due too overall similarities in frontal appendage structure (podomere number, relatively round distal endite, lack of dorsal spines) I don’t expect that to be WP:OR infringing as the paper, based on a not detailed read does not assign Falciscaris to any subfamily or suggests any specific relationships.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk23:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For fun and not for Wikipedia"? This page is more than just a forum to share your art. If you just want your illustrations to be appreciated, wouldn't it be better to post them on DeviantArt or somewhere similar?Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)12:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about the skeletal reconstruction of crocodylus porosus being of use in any page, but it does serve as a base for other extinct relatives, the skull of C. thorbjarnarsoni is correctly scaled considering damage and perspective.
Crocodylus porosus
Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni
Crocodylus falconensis
Crocodylus sudani
Skull diagram of Crocodylus checchiai
Crocodylus checchiai
Size comparison of Crocodylus anthropophagus, sadly, not much more could be done with the given description of this taxon
This was reviewed a few years ago but I think it might need to be tagged inaccurate due to it’s lack of P-elements, but there might be something special about Innovatiocaris that I don’t know.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk21:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Life reconstruction of gobiosuchus, to portray its body proportions and arrangement of osteoderms with the given measurements, descriptions, and limited pictures of the specimens
It looks good, I would say maybe get rid of one of the teeth at the very front of the dentary, since you don't depict any of the other teeth in pairs it makes it seem as though their are four caniniform dentary teeth as opposed to three on each side. Otherwise it's very good.Driptosaurus (talk)21:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the 1997 paper describes "the enlarged 4th dentary tooth" and the pit for it more than once (as its widespread on crocodyliformes), though im aware of the conflicting drawings showing said tooth as the third, i personally chose that to be a reconstruction artifact considering the very widespread enlarged 4th tooth as an homologous feature as they write aboutLiterallyMiguel (talk)21:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 4 reconstructions of various animals from the Coalbrookdale Formation. I don't know if any of these would be useful on theCoalbrookdale Formation page, but they might be useful for some of the individual animals' pages.
Aquilonifer spinosis.
Carimersa neptuni and Colymbosathon ecplecticos.
Kenostrychus clementsi, Punk ferox, Offacolus kingi, and Cinerocaris magnifica.
It does have the tentacles, I drew them with stripes to better differentiate them. I can see how that'd be hard to see though; I'll make sure to increase the brightness of these images.UltraLuther (talk)22:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FunkMonk. These are beautiful reconstructions that would be great to have on their respective pages, but I think they should be brightened slightly as the darkness makes the subjects hard to see.Wiki.Ichthys (talk)22:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess it’s preservation as the length in the virtual reconstruction is inconsistent with the feeding tentacles in relatives, anyway, the virtual recon only shows known material.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk03:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Radiodont2011, I couldn’t make a new historical Myoscolex as I had password problems and can’t access my old account or Wikipedia library for the Myoscolex paper, I made another reconstruction of Pahvantia with dorsal flaps, in case that is needed but it looks weird (contributing to the file name).
this is the third Pahvantia subsection you've made, the fifth pencil sketch of Pahvantia you've uploaded, none of which are usable on anatomical terms. I ask you to slow down.Prehistorica CM (talk)02:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistorica is right, Zhenghecaris and Radiodont2011 should post less frequently here. Zhenghecaris has already left over 200 comments on this page alone, which is peculiar. Please be aware that posting multiple unnecessary reviews can be extremely annoying to other users who wish to leave reviews. In fact, people aren't able to comment on reviews other than yours very often, and one reason for this may be that you post too frequently and your comments are quickly swept away. Zhenghecaris, why not try refraining from posting for a week or so and calming down a bit? If you keep doing this, might be able to force you to do so by blocking you.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)02:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is from a paper but there are a few problems, the frontal appendage placement is kinda weird, it appears to wait her have no frontal appendage and only endites or more likely, it lacks P-elements, also one of them does not have visible frontal appendages or P-elements, plus they lack setal blades, so this should be removed from the pages where it is in sue, right?Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk22:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i will agree, the cordaticaris is very weird. this image also seems to include multiple plagarized elements (agnostid, mollisonia, cambroraster, etc).Prehistorica CM (talk)03:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Been a while, struggled with motivation but thats not important. Did a quick, admittedly fairly tentative size comparison forEremosuchus since I've expanded the page the past few days.Armin Reindl (talk)13:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s an illustration I’ve made of the Campanian plesiosaur Elasmosaurus platyurus devouring a juvenile Tylosaurus, based on recent research into the feeding habits of Elasmosaurids which show that some of them were much more raptorial and capable of taking on bigger prey than previously thought:https://sobekswimmingpool.wordpress.com/2021/05/30/what-sea-dragons-ate-plesiosaur-diets-revised/
The blog actually happens to be heavily researched as it’s run by three biology students who are citing research papers on the subject they’re talking about, and they’re also alluding to a then-upcoming paper that was published in 2023 on the ecology and feeding habits of mosasaurs from the Bearpaw Shale of Alberta and which states that the dietary preferences of the local Mosasaurus and Prognathodon species were similar to those of large Elasmosaurids and the mackerel shark Cretodus:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363611314_CSVP_2021_Abstracts_Feeding_ecology_Bearpaw_mosasaursMakairodonX (talk)03:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s an illustration I’ve made of a Dimetrodon grandis standing upon a rock under a full moon, in order to highlight the potential nocturnal behavior of this Early Permian synapsid.MakairodonX (talk)00:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll try to correct and rework the image by increasing the size of the Dimetrodon and changing its eye shape, and I can also decrease the side of the cliff too.MakairodonX (talk)03:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: please make sure to upload updates as "new versions" of existing files, rather than entirely new files. "Upload a new version of this file" under "File history" on the Commons page (e.g.,here). -SlvrHwk (talk)06:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Can I have another review of my drawing? This time I try to reconstruct Eardasaurus. I mainly used the skeletal photos on Wiki. But admittedly I have a bit difficult time estimating the head height dimension since the skull was quite flattened. As for the body, I used Peloneustes since they are both basal thallasophonean and closely related? Sorry if I am wrong and thank you in advance as always...
aah I see. Thanks for the input... I will try to make the body more streamline mainly by reducing the back height. For the smoother, should I just erased most of the body line and roughness detail?DD (talk)07:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
leptomitus and fuxianospira are not usable (fuxianospira lacks a pneumatocyst, and leptomitus has an osculum), dalyia might be fine. these were commissioned by the uploader so own work is excusable i supposePrehistorica CM (talk)04:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to reiterate that a whole-body reconstruction of an animal known only from its frontal appendages would not be very useful for an article. Proportion is not bad according toAnomalocaris, but details are rough.Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)03:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this is too dark, sorry, the background remover erases a lot of the actual thing so I have to make a dark piece and it’s dark in the places not erased partially by the background remover so it is not easily fixable.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk17:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An illustrated reconstruction of the extinct Bermuda hawk
A quick illustration of theBermuda hawk I made because there exists almost no paleoart of this Accipitrid. I look a lot of liberty with this reconstruction because no contemporary descriptions of the bird exists to my knowledge other than one account from the Wikipedia page where it was said to resemble a "sparrowhawk". I based the illustration off the proportions of a sparrowhawk and attempted to make the plumage similarly remeniscent of the species. Due to the species being the type species of its genus, as well as the only member, its place in relation to other Accipitrids isn't well-understood. As a result I didn't know any related birds I could base the reconstruction on, so the plumage is a complete guess, though I tried to make it appear suitable for a woody subtropical environment with mottling and browns (Bermuda is dominated by conifer forests).Gone Extinct (talk)05:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. I'm tempted to suggest adding more elements from the environment, but it's clear that you want focus on the beast, and anything additional would distract from that.Mr Fink (talk)06:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have a tendency to blur up my backgrounds when I get the chance lol (stems partially from my inability to nicely render environments that don't look kinda off). Also just a question, how do I know when this is sufficiently accurate enough to post on the actual article?Gone Extinct (talk)06:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have reconstructed the tibiotarsi as being relatively gracile and skinny, but in life they were more robust in proportion to the body than those of the red-shouldered hawk. In general the animal should be a bit more robust (especially in the toes) as it's similar in size to the Red-Tailed Hawk (B. jamaicaensis). The leg anatomy known is more likeButeo lagopus than anything else so I would look at those for reference. The plumage being sparrowhawk-like is fine but the fossil material shows the actual proportions of the animal as being quite different and relatively robust.
Perfect! That's exactly what I'm looking for. I'll make the appropriate anatomical changes and replace the file when I'm ready. And thanks for the cite too, having references will make this far easier.Gone Extinct (talk)01:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Driptosaurus I've bulked the leg up to portray it more accurately in life. I used mostly red-tailed hawk leg anatomy to base it on, though I did breifly look at rough-legged buzzards for help with texturing. I think for the most part the tibiotarsi has been bulked up sufficiently, though any more tips will be taken into account and added in future versions if needed. I lengthened the talons to be more in line with both reference species and the Bermuda hawk's bird-catching behaviour as stated in the citation as well. The cuff has also been 'fluffed' up more to aid in implying thigh structure.Gone Extinct (talk)02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sick, thanks! I'm already editing the article to improve on its content and declassify it as a stub now, so I'll add the image when I get the chance. Thanks for helping with the anatomical accuracy.Gone Extinct (talk)06:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These look fantastic. The brightness is not an issue at all here and the anatomical diagrams are very informative. It's not every day you see an illustration of an ostracod.
My knowledge of arthropod anatomy is fairly limited, so I can't comment much there, but I do notice that the small extension on the Colymbosathon's dark red appendage doesn't seem to be present in the life reconstruction, is that intentional? Also, maybe it would be beneficial to have the appendages labeled in the diagram?Wiki.Ichthys (talk)20:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I completely missed that I hadn't drawn the 2nd appendage's endopod. I can easily fix that, as well as put labels on the diagram.UltraLuther (talk)21:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration in question featuringMetaspriggina.
I just noticed that I was mentioned in a conversation held in November last year in a talk page section about Cambrian fish due to the fact that I've made several illustrations of them over the years I've been on Wikipedia. In particular, @Zhenghecaris stated that the presence of a tiny fin was inaccurate. While the fossils themselves do not preserve any clear fins, I took the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" approach due to the presence of fins in related animals likeHaikouichthys andMyllokunmingia — not to mention the presence of fins in other, non-vertebrate chordates, extant and extinct, such as lancelets, tunicate larvae, appendicularians, andPikaia. As such, a small fin could have plausibly existed in this animal. Where I would concede on, however, is the presence of visible fin rays resembling those of bony fish, which would not exist regardless, as is the case with my other pre-vertebrate illustrations also mentioned in that conversation.Giant Blue Anteater (talk)23:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i think this is a really cool layout and the colours are cool but anatomically, as others have pointed out and beyond that which i dont feel the need to comment on, it needs some work. i encourage you to keep at it.Prehistorica CM (talk)00:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to make a new version of my Verrocaris reconstruction as the replacement ended up being turned into a Tamisiocaris, note that gnathites on the frontal appendages are not mentioned in Oxmanet al. 2025 and are instead based on actually looking at the fossil images.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk18:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "gnathites" are simply one of the pairs of endites, which are positioned like that because the specimen has been "twisted" in the preservation process (from Oxman et al., 2025: "The specimen is twisted along its length. The five most proximal podomeres are seen in lateral aspect... Seven distal podomeres display their ventral surfaces"). Even if the specimen did have gnathites which the authors did not mention, it would still be original research.Radiodont2011 (talk)18:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do think that ta-tea-two-te-to is right that since this is a fragmentary taxon, this image might not be the most useful. I would at the very least include the entirety of the frontal appendages (without cutting the ends off), since those are the only part we have, and I would also make it a head-only reconstruction to clearly center the frontal appendages. In the future, I would recommend focusing more on more complete taxa. Also, in the future, probably best not to make several new sections for reconstructions of the same taxon by the same artist; just put new reconstructions in the same section.Radiodont2011 (talk)19:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I’m annoyed by the lack of visual editing and it takes ages to find the last section, I also often mess up with wikitext, I still remember the time when I put the taxobox inside gallery tags.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk19:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should avoid this next time but the problem is that the appendage was located too close to the edge, I totally underestimated the space needed to draw the appendage, it takes quite a bit of space to draw 15 endites, also this it the first time drawing a radiodont at a more sophisticated angle, I agree that it is not very useful as it is only known from appendages, I thought I would only be including the head and maybe the first segments, I ended up drawing the whole thing minus the tips of the tail fan which didn’t have space and were pushed to the edge of the paper, then I subsequently cropped out half of the thing,Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk19:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a new version of my old Tamisiocaris without crazy shading (this is actually a completely new illustration at a similar angle), I omitted the second endite pair on all but the shaft endite as the rest is clogged with auxiliary spines.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk23:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks somewhat better; there are still things I might change about the head and the P and H elements (they still extend too far back, there is no boundary between the first trunk segment and head), but more importantly, I again am not sure that this image will be particularly useful: Tamisiocaris is fairly fragmentary, and the Tamisiocaris page is already quite cluttered with images, so there may not be room for another.Radiodont2011 (talk)03:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I coul$ to make it better as the file already exists, I hope it fixed the problems, I omitted auxiliary spines on second endite row as the image would be too messy and omitted it completely on the second one which is more cramped.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This really shouldn’t have gnathites, this is supposed to be a generalized morphology of a hurdiid but gnathites are not that widespread within hurdiids, hurdiinae and aegirocassinae lack them and so do Falciscaris, ursulinacaris, mosura, and infercambriensis; it should be excluded as special features such as dorsal flaps (this goes slightly into or but most of hurdiinae are more similar to cambroraster and Stanleycaris and relatives are too, lacking in them), elongated body, furcae and lack of auxiliary spines, just to name a few.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk01:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,the aim is making it informative instead of representation of the trends. Not to mention gnathites are exclusive to hurdiids but not an extremely rare traits (at least 4 species got it) and they're possibly ancestral to hurdiid itself (likely homologous to the inner endites of non-hurdiid and reduced). Same goes for dorsal flaps in the generalized hurdiid diagram.Junnn11 (talk)01:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
maybe get rid of the hand on the 'rauisuchian maxilla' image. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have that there.
For ticinosuchus, this paper suggests only 9 teeth are present in each maxilla compared to the 14 in your image.[17] I couldn't find anything in the nesbitt paper that contradicts this, if it's an incorrect understanding of the specimen please let me know.
About ticinosuchus, after many conversations with people about the interpretations of desojo 2012 (including people that personally took photos of the skeleton in exhibit), it came as a conclusion to deviate from their interpretation of the maxilla (and other bones) in some aspects, in this case, its preservation state likely isnt good enough to rule out the presence of more maxillary teeth after the ones preserved in-situ, and a toothrow of 12-15 teeth that extend along the bone's length is more in-line with other relatives.
N. dniesteri is the attachment disk of frond-like Ediacaran animals, i.e. it isAspidella.N. paula is a misunderstanding that can be ignored, most likely also anAspidella.N. occlusais not actually a disk or a ring, but this has not yet been described. So, is there any meaning in the drawings forNimbia?Aleksey(Alnagov (talk)12:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]
As far as I am aware, most studies note discoidal forms likeNimbia to be probable synonyms ofAspidella, instead of outright synonyms (See the recentIvanstov & Zakrevskaya's 2025 paper, where they mentionN. occlusa andN. dniesteri in a list under the title of"List of fossil species of “jellyfishes”,probablesynonyms of the attachment structure, Aspidella terranovica").
As forN. occlusa not being a disk/ring, but such a thing not being described, effectively doesn't exist in the eyes of Wikipedia. You can only mention something like that if there is a source to back it up, if there is not, then that'd be seen asWP:OR. Also this confuses me slightly, because as far as I am aware, we do have a description of whatN. occlusa looks like (Fedonkin (1980), and further detailed added byHofmann et al. (1990)). Same technically goes forN. paula, as whilst that is most certainly tentative at best (something I've made mention of in the article), I am not aware of any papers discounting it and synonymising it with any other discoidal forms, although it won't be to difficult to remove it from the size chart or reconstruction image if/once that happens.
Also regardless of all this, I believe it is still important to make reconstructions of such things to show the public what they look like, specially in the absence of any free to use images of the fossil material or other reconstructions, even if they may one day actually become junior synonyms ofAspidella.DevonHalDraedle (talk)13:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The dimensions ofNimbia oclusa from the original Fodonkin's description are: diameter from 15 to 40 mm, ridge width 3-5 mm. The inner radius is 3-5 times greater than the outer ridge width. The ridge is segmented, with segment widths from 1.5 to 4 mm.
Your drawing is out of proportion: the inner radius is 8.5 times greater than the ridge width.
- The dimensions ofNimbia paula are not given in the short description (Ivantsov et al. 2015), but there is a photograph with a 1 cm measuring stick. Diameter ~5.2 mm, ridge width ~1 mm. The inner radius is ~1.6 times greater than the outer ridge width.
In your drawing, the size ofNimbia paula is overestimated by 4 times, and the proportions are out of proportion. Furthermore, in the diagram, Nimbia paula is drawn with a question mark, which in itself raises questions about the appropriateness of such a drawing.
- The dimensions ofNimbia dniesteri from the original description: diameter from 10 to 30 mm, ridge width 3-6 mm. The ridge has a trapezoidal cross-section.
The drawing misrepresents the proportions and sizes of differentNimbia species, does not show their 3D form, and is not a reconstruction, as the organisms' appearance is not reliably known.Nimbia are convex ring-shaped ridges on the base of a sandstone layer, i.e., they are parts of organisms submerged in the ground.
Dozens of genera and species of simple discoid fossils described in the last century are a heavy legacy of the "dark ages" in Ediacaran paleontology. Currently, among professionals, almost all of them are deliberately consigned to oblivion as trash taxa. Why aren't they all clearly synonymized withAspidella? In many cases, it is impossible to determine the nature of fossils or determine the criteria for distinguishing genera and species: the attachment discs of feathers, diverse microbial colonies, and diverse sedimentary formations all look similar. Furthermore, the attachment discs of animals of the same species can differ dramatically in fossil form due to different taphonomic conditions, different ages of individuals, sediment characteristics, and manifestations of seasonal growth.
Hoffman's work. Note that it constructs a very flawed formula for attributing fossils from the Twitya Formation toNimbia oclusa from the White Sea: "Our specimens also compare closely with theCirculichnis montanus reported from the Vendian Danilov and Zharnov Formations of the Ukraine, as well as theNimbia gaojiashanensis andAnnulusichnus regularis from the Sinian Dengying Formation of Shaanxi Province, China." Given the great similarity in shape and size, it is possible that reexamination of the latter taxa may reveal them to be synonymous withNimbia occlusa. Our specimens are therefore assigned to this taxon.
Currently, the relationship ofNimbia gaojiashanensis andAnnulusichnus regularis with the genusNimbiahas been rejected; they are Gaojiashania tubes. Specimens of "Circulichnis montanus" from Ukraine are lost. Hoffman's article makes no comparison of the fossils with the White Sea specimens ofNimbia oclusa, and their relationship is essentially unsupported. Moreover, the Twitya fossils are 100 million years older thanNimbia oclusa from the White Sea and are considered microbial colonies (Grazhdankin 2007).Aleksey(Alnagov (talk)10:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]
I thank you for the wealth of feedback on my modelled reconstructions, and will certainly make sure to rectify the issues you've pointed out.
As for whyN. paula has a ? on the size chart, that is because I didn't quite clock the scale bar on the photo in Ivantsov et al. (2015), and the fact said scale bar was 1 cm in length, so thank you for pointing that out! Also forN. dniesteri, the reason for its larger size is because it it based on theSonia Sandstone specimens, which were measured to to 45 mm in the longest axis. The same paper also shows thatNimbia is not just a ring as seen in Fig 4. g & h, with clearly differentiated material between the matrix and specimen, though I can certainly see the ring needs to be made more pronounced at least as its clearly the main feature, perhaps even I could make the central region notably more transparent in the models to make the rings stand out better.
And for the Twitya specimens, I had kind of forgotten about that paper by Grazhdankin & Gisela (2007) discounting them, so I've already rectified that in the main article, thank you. Though I do not know of any papers discounting the Kazakhstan specimens yet, so that of course will remain for now.
And yes, the whole ordeal with these forms is certainly very interesting, and I can agree that most of them most likely form some insane synonym tree (as is suggested with sayErnietta,Namalia andKuibisia, though like withAspidella, not formal), and I do hope that at least some day, someone or some people are able to hunker down and get to the bottom of this properly (if thats even possible in the future of course, considering, as you've mentioned, its quite impossible or very, very hard to do right now), because if this conversation is anything to go by, the current situation certainly causes alot of backs and forths, headaches and so forth!DevonHalDraedle (talk)11:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is preferable to rely on holotypes, which are the reference specimens of a species. All other specimens are either correctly or mistakenly attributed to it.Nimbia has such simple morphology and an unclear nature that some less responsible researchers label any ring-shaped fossil asNimbia.
Right, I've updated the 3D models and size chart, so that they should now match the proportions of the original material for each species properly. Also tried to emphasise the rings much more as well in both.
(Wikipedia might be a bit slow to update the images, so if it looks like nothing has changed on your end, then you might need to wait a little bit, or check the images on commons.)DevonHalDraedle (talk)15:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Sorry for asking another review while having image still being reviewed. This time I tried to reconstruct Patagosmilus mainly based on herehttps://stri.si.edu/story/prehistoric-predator I admit that the ear is very speculative and I based it loosely from other "deemed accurate" recon such as from Serpenillus or the one that show Thylaccosmilus have quite a peculiar front view. As always, is it good enough before being colored?
Overall I think it looks good. It has the correct skull shape rather than just using Caninemys like some older mounts, the art takes into account the scales that overly the skull sutures. The only critique I have is that the "horns" are drooping rather than being pointed upward as reconstructed by Cadena and colleagues in 2021. I am curious whether or not theres a reasoning for that that I'm simply not aware off. Otherwise I think its good.Armin Reindl (talk)09:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. My name is Edwin Chávez and I'm the author of this drawing. I'm taking note of the observations and making corrections to theStupendemys illustration. I'm going to replace it because the "horns" on the carapace are indeed curved too far downwards. I'll upload the updated version shortly. Best regards.Disfrasaurio (talk)18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, you can simply upload a newer version of the image and overwrite the old one on wikimedia (the option should show up on the upload page in the "version history" section). Regardless, thank you for contributing, it's definitely appreciated.Armin Reindl (talk)21:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe making the life reconstruction more outstanding from the background? (like the life reconstructions ofCinerocaris andColymbosathon). Currently the animal is a bit difficult to recognize in thumbnail. Otherwise I see no issues.Junnn11 (talk)03:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is is that is the most likely interpretation based on phylogenetic bracketing? I can't judge, as I don't know much about trilobites.FunkMonk (talk)12:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^|13:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^|13:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image has never been reviewed, the interpretation of it as an opabiniid is questionable but I feel like assuming it’s like other opabiniids then this looks like it might need revisions.Houcaris\Zhenghecaris^|Talk^19:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_Marjum_biota_(cropped).png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=link}
