Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Discontinued yearly archives: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (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 the requested 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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" (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category), 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). 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, it is both unethical and legally questionable. Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page: Criterion sufficient for using an image: 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 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: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, 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. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Megalania size chart

• 

Could someone add the 5.5 m estimate to this size chart? It's been bothering me that one is not present here recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otodusm (talk • contribs) 28 November 2025

Reconstruction of Titanoprosoma edgecombei

Currently working on a short article for Titanoprosoma edgecombei, I made this simple diagram based on the reconstruction of Bicknell, Kimmig, Smith & Scherer, 2024. Thank you for your time, Lobopod lover

Aenigmatorhynchus

Hello, it's been a while... Can I ask for another review? This time I try to draw Aenigmatorhynchus the long billed bird that proposed to be hard food specialist... I mainly used the fossil photograph that can be found on wikipedia and the describer paper. Also I tried to show the animal trying to eat some snail (Viviparus sp. since Messel Pit is said to have them?).

Is my image goos enough to be used? Thank you in advance as always!

• 
  Aenigmatorhynchus

DD (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have enough knowledge to review birds so ping @Driptosaurus: who have reviewed bird reconstructions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Overall, I think it's quite good. There is little that can be said in regards to anatomy implied by the animal's phylogeny since it is difficult to place, but in general it represents bird anatomy well. Some notes:

• The gular pouch should be closer to the back of the beak as it would not attach anterior to the mandibular symphisis. The front of the bill is actually very narrow, so the pouch would be positioned quite far back. This is one of the things that sets this genus apart from other birds, so it's good that you've chosen an angle showing it off.
• I would pull the feathers back just a tiny bit so that the top and bottom side of the cheek area are exposed. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply and input! @Driptosaurus: I have tried to correct my drawing from your input. Is it good enough? DD (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's looking great. My only suggestion is to make the lower jaw a bit narrower mediolaterally. This guy has a very skinny beak. Driptosaurus (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Driptosaurus: Thank you again for your correction! Is this thin enough? Sorry for not having enough observation on the mandible... DD (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Daeng Dino:: Here's a link to an image of the mandible for refrence. It begins to widen quite far back, which is hard to see from the side but visible from the bottom. link Driptosaurus (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Driptosaurus: Okay, is this good enough? I hae tried to correct the thickness again and the widening near the base based on the image that you sent... DD (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Daeng Dino: Yep! Looks perfect. Pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Driptosaurus: Glad to hear that and thank you very much once again! DD (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oreinorema

A pair of Oreinorema bergstroemi investigate the defences of a wandering Onychodictyon ferox.

Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the new radiodont Oreinorema bergstroemi and Onychodictyon ferox. The Oreinorema does differ from the reconstruction in their Figure 5b; however, it is entirely supported by the fossil and the text of the paper, while the reconstruction they present is simply unsupported. Hope thats alright. Also Isoxys in the background. Prehistorica CM (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Pass Fantastic work as usual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Pass No complaints from me Montanoceratops (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but can I request for images that showing each Oreinorema on white background? It would be more suitable for wide usage and showing its morphology clearer.Jun (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

does this workTamisiocaris borealis|Talk 18:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Since Prehistorica is busy right now, at the moment this works until new one to be uploaded. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Slavoia

• 
  Slavoia

Hello all. Sorry for asking for another review while having other image still being reviewed... This time I made Slavoia. I mainly based it on the fossil image and photo on the genus page. For the skull I used the skull drawing that can be found just by typing the name. As for scalation, I tried to incorporate worm lizard and lacertid type of scale since it is said the classification is between them?

oh I tried to draw it in black or white color like my old drawing. I will color it if it deem more usable. As always, is my image good enough? Thank you in advance...

DD (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks fine for me, but if you need better skull ref, this pdf would be useful. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to Ah thank you very much for the input and additional source! I will try to corporate it after finishing the color... Ah sorry, while you are at it, is my Aenigmatorhnychus quite spot on? Thanks!

Otodus & Dunkleosteus

• 
  model of otodus megalodon compared to a 6ft diver
• 
  Megalodon skeletal
• 
  skeletal reconstruction of dunkelosteus with a 6ft diver for scale
• 
  life reconstruction of dunkleosteus

decided to upload the 3d models of my otodus and dunkleosteus life reconstructions and their skeletals for usage on their respective pages

EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see anatomy is fine. I think the Dunkleosteus model would be useful for the article, but I'm not sure if the O. megalodon model would actually be useful. Compared to Dunkleosteus, which the skull anatomy is important, I personally don't think a turnable 3D model is necessary for Megalodon, which has fewer known elements and is mostly speculative (size comparison image is enough). Also, it would be more helpful if you could specify which specimen the scaling was based on. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also you said two megalodon size shows the upper size range and the average specimen, but how exactly long they are and what data have you based on? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

the size estimates are from a generalization of upper estimates and averages. the upper size is based on ghc-6 while the smaller one is less defined in terms of specimen. the large estimate is 23m and the average one i have at 17m or so. i still think it would be helpful to have these on the pages themselves EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a paper stating that the average total length is 17 m? If that is data you derived yourself, I believe it would against WP:OR. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Nalacetus

An unreviewed paleoart of Nalacetus originally added to the polish wiki, made by @Bbsddd. Please review for accuracy. Unofficial Jurassic World (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think you really need to learn how to properly insert images. I know it might be hard to understand since you're a mobile user, but this is what your edit look like on a PC. If you try to add a image to article, don't forget to put "|thumb" on end. You have made this mistake many times over the years. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Tiucetus

Hello again. May I ask for another review? This time I tried to reconstruct Tiocetus...

I mainly use the skull photograph and recon from here https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cetotheriids-from-the-P0-beds-of-the-Pisco-Formation-a-Cranium-of-Tiucetus-rosae_fig9_360291832 since the material lost most of its anterior portion. As for the basic bauplan or finshape, I used related taxa like Cetotherium and also taking a glimpse of pygmy right whale

Off course this is not the final version since I will try to color and tidy it up. But I just want have my basic sketch reviewed first if I may... So as always, is my drawing good enough to be used? Thank you in advance!

• 
  Tiucetus

DD (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

While at it, I have add some color to my drawing. How is it now? DD (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't think that color inside mouth could be that red? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to Yes I totally agree with you but I am kinda confused what color is appropriate.. Should it more black or pink? DD (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ta-tea-two-te-to I have it made it more whitish from observing images in internet. Is it good enough? DD (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks better to me, @The Morrison Man: would you like to review anatomy? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Vulcanidris

• 
  Vulcanidris cratensis

This species is incomplete, so some parts have been inferred from other haidomyrmecines. Qohelet12 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks really great! I'd say pass. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus terrelli

uploading orthographic view of my dunkleosteus model, made with scientific consultation by russel engelman

• 
  life reconstruction of dunkleosteus terrelli

EvolutionIncarnate (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Pass An impressive piece of work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass AFH (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Carlostheguaiki's Thylacosmilus atrox

Evirapo (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

As pointed, text on image (especially National Geographic logo) could be issue. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Helmetia

Helmetia expansa

New reconstruction. Qohelet12 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Junnn11: any comments? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass Nice work as always. The antennae have each segment longer than the redescription, but the detail is in fact unknown and that's still within the range of trilobitomorph diversity (e.g. Sinoburius, Saperion) so I think that's ok. Jun (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

New mammals by DBogdanov

DBogdanov seems to be back to regularly uploading, and now he's on a mammal-spree, so here are some images that might be of interest to PrimalMustelid and Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• 
  Plesiogulo
• 
  Eomellivora
• 
  Microstonyx major
• 
  Sus strozzi
• 
  Didymoconus rostrata
• 
  Amphiorycteropus gaudryi
• 
  Ceratotherium neumayri
• 
  Megalictis ferox
• 
  Hyaenodon pervagus
• 
  Leontinia gaudryi
• 
  Scarrittia canquelensis
• 
  Choerolophodon pentelici
• 
  Anancus kazachstanensis
• 
  Anancus lehmanni
• 
  Dihoplus schleiermacheri
• 
  Eucladoceros dicranios
• 
  Granastrapotherium snorki
• 
  Escavadodon zygus

FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I really like the notoungulates and the Granastrapotherium, but about the latter one, I'm not very sure of the ending of the trunk - it's too elephant-like in my opinion. I would prefer something more akin to the nostrils of the tapirs.--Rextron (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Your version already in the article looks better in that regard, so there's no reason to replace it. I see A. C. Tatarinov uploaded a new version over yours, though, not sure what they did. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

In some moment I would review my version, hehe. I would think that the rest of the mammals are ok.--Rextron (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Pseudosuchians by Solanohikali

• 
  Carinthiasuchus
• 
  Labrujasuchus
• 
  Poposaurus gracilis
• 
  Teratosaurus

Those are uploaded by @Solanohikali: (I guess "Toyotamaphimea") and not used in articles at the moment. Are those good to use, @LiterallyMiguel:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I have some suggestions. Carinthiasuchus shouldn't have claws on its outermost toe (digit 5).

Labrujasuchus should have significantly larger forelimbs rather than the Effigia-like proportions here. Also not sure why it is depicted here with a tiny outer toe.

The Poposaurus pose is a bit strange but overall it looks nice (maybe the head could be a little larger?)

Teratosaurus should have only three hand claws.

Minor suggestions overall, and the art looks very nice. Driptosaurus (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The arm length honestly looks good on Labrujasuchus, i would say the pelvic area needs to be deeper though LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• 
  Poposaurus langstoni
• 
  Arizonasaurus
• 
  Ctenosauriscus
• 
  Shakajlura
• 
  Effigia
• 
  Tainrakuasuchus
• 
  Benggwigwishingasuchus
• 
  Shuvosaurus
• 
  Etjosuchus
• 
  Sillosuchus
• 
  Fasolasuchus
• 
  Vivaron
• 
  Prestosuchus
• 
  Arizonasaurus skeletal

Many more works uploaded. Pinging author @Solanohikali: again. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Ctenosauriscus definitely was not a biped. Will add more suggestions later. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Also Arizonasaurus skeletal is uploaded, how is this @LiterallyMiguel:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

there are some problems with the identification and arrangement of certain bones on the Arizonasaurus skeletal, like the neural spines, but i'll probably just be uploading my own version anyways,

Regarding the paleoart, it all honestly looks really good, but each one has their own proportional mistakes and other details, like extra claws where they shouldnt be on most if not all of them. The osteoderms being way too large and the feet too thick on Benggwigwishingasuchus, the Prestosuchus having too long of a torso, Ctenosauriscus being bipedal, the torso on the pelvic area being too shallow on labrujasuchus, and Poposaurus having too broad of a chest/torso. i also feel a reconstruction of Poposaurus langstoni is too speculative at the moment

The ones i would give a pass already as they are would be Teratosaurus, Carinthiasuchus, Fasolasuchus, sillosuchus, and perhaps Vivaron (although i find the dorsal osteoderms strangely large, but its a minimal/unpreserved detail.

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Agnostus pisiformis

• 
  Agnostus pisiformis

I've wanted to do this recon for a long time. Qohelet12 (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Müller & Walossek 1987, the trunk of a meraspid juvenile always have a pair of penultimate limb buds as the final appendages (labelled "tlb") before it reach holaspid stage, which have 5 pairs of fully developed trunk appendages. In this case it will be the 5th trunk appendages in meraspid stage 2c (1st-4th developed +5th bud, Fig. 4, 11C). I'm not sure why the model made by 10 Tons omitted the appendages, as they seems to fully agreed on the interpretation, and the model is based on the same instar according to Eriksson & Horn 2017.

Other than that it's accurate to the aforementioned sources. Fine work as always.--Jun (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Adapids

Hey folks, here again with a selection of adapids from Eocene Europe. Adapis, Darwinius and Godinotia

• 
  Adapis parisiensis
• 
  Adapis size chart
• 
  Godinotia neglecta
• 
  Godinotia size chart
• 
  Darwinius masillae

Triloboii (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent non-mammals by DBogdanov

• 
  Amphicotylus

How is this Amphicotylus, @LiterallyMiguel:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok so, charming as always from Dmitry, the proportions look good overall as is the shape of the skull, but there are some misunderstandings with the soft tissue details on the head with how the jaw muscles look. The depressor mandibulae muscle shouldn't be so apparent and bulge out on the living animal (it's also obscuring the ear in a weird way right now), every upper teeth should also be visible with the mouth closed, as also is a second caniniform on the lower jaw characteristic of early neosuchians.

The scales and integument are rather schematic and simplified but i feel that could be let past for the purposes of wikipedia as the dorsal osteoderms look accurate LiterallyMiguel (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you uploaded a corrected version, so should be fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Chilotherium paleoart

• 

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Carimersa neptuni

• 
  Diagrammatic Reconstruction
• 
  Life Reconstruction, hunting a Platyceratid
• 
  Simple reconstruction for phylogenies

UltraLuther (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice as always! I'd say Pass. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Liopleurodon attacking hybodonts

Please review

• 
  Liopleurodon attacking Hybodont sharks

Bubblesorg (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hybodonts are mostly benthic fish, so probably you wouldn't see dorsal fins over sea. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Not all all hybodonts were benthic fish (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spp2.1350)--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, at least some were open water fish (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/14/2/85). --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Gasmasque: for further review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Are these meant to be any specific genus, or at least based on any specific genus/reconstruction? It's hard to tell at the scale they're drawn at, but the one being vaulted into the air has claspers while lacking the cephalic spines over its eyes that Jurassic hybodont males had. Gasmasque (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

They are based on Hybodus but are not meant to be any genera since the hybodonts from the Middle-Late Jurassic are still under review. There are cephalic spines near the eyes but they are hard to see due to the scale. Let me update this image quickly to make them more clear. --Bubblesorg (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I made those changes. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Barbatteius vremiri v3 simple reconstruction

• 
  Barbatteius vremiri simple reconstruction in side view.

Life restoration of Barbatteius vremiri based on the currently available fossil material. Compared with my previous reconstruction, this version incorporates revised body proportions and more refined integument textures, reflecting a closer interpretation of the available anatomical evidence. The cranial osteoderms are depicted as relatively small but with a distinct surface texture from those covering the rest of the body. This choice was made to reflect the possibility that cranial armor differed in appearance from the body osteoderms while remaining conservative due to the limited fossil evidence. Prominent jowls were also included, as similar soft-tissue features are present in several extant teiid lizards, including tegus (Salvator/Tupinambis) and ameivas (Ameiva), where they are generally more pronounced in males. Since Barbatteius vremiri is currently known mainly from a nearly complete mandible and partial cranial remains, many aspects of its external appearance remain uncertain, and this reconstruction should be regarded as an informed scientific interpretation rather than a definitive depiction. Rafa acioly (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The quality is a bit rough, and there is excess space at the top and bottom of the image. That said, I think the proportions are fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

i put more space in the bottom so the image could fit normally in the Wikimedia and not look like a extremely long rectangular image. Rafa acioly (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Marosichthys

Hello all. May I ask for another review?

This time it is another Indonesia fossil fish... I have tried to draw a prehistoric tang that is called Marosichthys. It is said to be related to Naso genus so for the body reconstruction I based it from the average Naso species bauplan... The head is fortunately quite well preserved although I choose not to make the jaw protrude since the paper I used https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/504721 mention it is probably discolated jaw...

So is my image good enough? Thank you in advance and sorry if I will be on another Indo fish spamming...hahaha

• 
  Marosichthys

DD (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @A Cynical Idealist:. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I would make the lips bigger, or otherwise give it the typical tang's mouth. It looks so odd with the mouth that big for a tang. Mr Fink (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okok. Is it better now? I have tried to shrink and thicken it. And yes I have to admit the previous one mouth looks weird compare to most tang.. DD (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Glyptogenys paleoart

• 
  Paleoart based on the holotype
• 
  One made more visible

This paleoart of Glyptogenys ornata was produced using the available anatomical evidence from the holotype dentary and comparisons with both extinct and extant squamates. Body proportions were estimated through a stepwise anatomical extrapolation. The preserved dentary was measured using the published 5 mm scale bar. Based on the preserved tooth row, the original dentary was estimated to have contained approximately 23 tooth positions, resulting in an estimated dentary length of about 19 mm. Comparisons with extant teiids and fossil polyglyphanodontians suggest that the dentary represents roughly half of the mandibular length, yielding an estimated mandible length of approximately 38 mm. Skull length was then inferred to be approximately 43 mm based on mandibular-to-skull proportions observed in related lizards. The resulting skull dimensions were compared with proportional data from living teiids, such as Ameiva and Aspidoscelis, to estimate a snout–vent length of approximately 26 cm and a total length of 85 cm. The body plan follows the generalized morphology of terrestrial teiid-related lizards. Cranial soft tissues were reconstructed conservatively, with only a modest expansion of the posterior head to accommodate jaw musculature, consistent with the unusually deep and robust dentary described for the genus. External scalation, coloration and soft tissues remain speculative because these features are unknown from the fossil record. The coloration was inspired by the modern teiids Salvator merianae and Salvator rufescens. Rafa acioly (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think some editing is necessary to make it easier to use, but the proportions seem fine. Also, you really shouldn't upload so many different versions of the same image... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i uploaded the image several times.. but that one is the last photo i would upload Just because of the quality. Also, i have a question, i would like to sorry if its a "dumb" one: am i allowed to put the images of barbatteius and glyptogenys in their respective wikis since those are all made my me and they're on CCO? Rafa acioly (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I just made version that should be more suitable for article. May better to wait bit more to review I guess? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome work bro! Your image is much better than the one that i uploaded. Rafa acioly (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Aussiedraco skull reconstruction and Physornis skeletal

• 
  Physornis
• 
  Aussiedraco

AFH (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)