User talk:Apokryltaros

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1

Miacis

Hello, how are you? I asked Arthur if he could please draw me a picture of Miacis, as I would like to get this animal to FA status on ca.wiki. It's amazing we still haven't got a picture of such an important extinct animal after all this time. Arthur said he's a bit busy as of late and he referred me to you. So... Would it bother you to draw a Miacis, if you have the time? Thank you in advance. Leptictidium (mt) 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Leptictidium (mt) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to work on it today: remind me to show you progress either 14 hours from now, or on Tuesday (after I've finished voting).--Mr Fink (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As you requested, I'm reminding you to show me progress :) Leptictidium (mt) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it looks just great. BTW, are you basing your picture on some individual species or the genus as a whole? Leptictidium (mt) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the genus as a whole, though, I'm leaning toward the Early Eocene Wyoming species.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, how are you doing? Have you done any more work on Miacis? Leptictidium (mt) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, exams and family always come first :) Leptictidium (mt) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just dropped in to ask if Miacis is ready. Leptictidium (mt) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Please leave a message on my talk page when it's finished. Leptictidium (mt) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already begun it on ca:Hyopsodus, but it's still a stub. If I can find some good info, it may well be the next prehistoric mammal I focus on, and I could use the info on .ca and translate it to .en. Leptictidium (mt) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Just saw the picture, it's great! Cheers. Leptictidium (mt) 21:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Category:Marsupial Lions

Just to let you know, we made Category:Marsupial Lions to hold all of the marsupial lion species. That way, we don't need to add the categories of diprodonts or prehistoric marsupials, what with marsupial lion being placed with Category:Prehistoric Diprotodonts--Mr Fink (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Mr Fink. I agree that being a member of the Marsupial Lions category implies being a member of Diprotodonts, Prehistoric Marsupials, etc, etc; (and also Carnivorous Marsupials but you/Hartebeest left that). However, the use of category tags is to assist the average reader to find other articles that belong to the same grouping (see Wikipedia:Categorization for more on this). Removing the tags for Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials is not helpful as now readers are unable to simply click on the link to see what other articles are in that category. Yes, these may be linked in the body of some or, even all, of the articles affected, but the category box at the end is a nice easy convenient place to branch out from, and maybe learn something more (and, afterall, isn't that Wikipedia's main purpose?). I am ambivalent about the Marsupial Lions tag, although I do feel it is too specific to be of much use (and the Thylacoleonidae article contains the same information) but I am happy to leave it if other editors agree. However, I am going to put back the Diprotodonts and Prehistoric Marsupials tags as the lay reader should not be expected to know that (in this case) Marsupial Lions are Diprotodonts. If you disagree with this, perhaps we could have an open discussion about this on, say, Talk:Thylacoleonidae so we can involve other editors. Regards, Secret Squïrrel 04:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, should we put the category "Prehistoric Diprotodonts" back in for the time being?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Prehistoric Marsupials + Diprotodonts then yup, I've done it. I left the Marsupial Lions cat. until we see what others think. Cheers, Secret Squïrrel 05:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm doing Synthetic Cubist art for a videogame set around the Cambrian, and you've done what appear to be the only pieces for some fauna on the net. Excellent works! ChozoBoy (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need anything particular at the moment, but I mention it if I do. We're looking for any common, unique, or dynamic animals (Trilobite, Opabinia, Anomalocaris, etc.)that can be abstracted and contribute to the gameplay. I'm trying to get a good idea of what the ocean floor would have looked like, as well. ChozoBoy (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommotia (revisited)

Thanks for displaying your new drawing of Tommotia and Friends. I'm not an expert, but your Tommotia looks elegant and favorably resembles the few other restorations I've seen. I especially like the inclusion of the other Small Shelly animals, which have been undeservedly neglected in many other depictions of Cambrian life. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paleontology Portal

Your art is definitely worthy of being selected pictures at Portal:Paleontology. I've added a lot, but you've been so prolific that I've gotten exhausted. :( Everything in your userpage gallery from the "Placodonts" onward needs to be added to the list. If you would like to do that, it would be a big help (and give your art some promotion). Also, the images I've added need to have their descriptions fixed and yourself given proper credit for them. Any help would make me appreciative. Keep it up with your distinctive art work! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I just wanted to note how disgusted I am at the discussion at WikiProject_Mammals. Please don't be disheartened; there are far too many people out there that take the view that anything they don't like should be removed, and I for one will be fighting them tooth and nail. All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to ignore all beaurocrats (gosh, I couldn't find a WP: page for that one!) Getting involved in silly debates like this will only embitter you towards WP, and that's a bad thing for everybody. Common sense will eventually prevail (if it kills me). If I were you, I'd unwatch the mammals page, forget about it, and let it all blow over. The good point they do raise, though, is that it is useful to reference any sources you use when making your reconstructions. As with all of WP, this allows people to decide for themselves how far to trust things. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a relief that some administrators are sensible. If there's no citations around, I guess it's best to be honest and give people an idea of how you came up with it - even if it's just as simple as "I just drew a moose but with a longer neck". Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In the battle over the inclusion of your paleoart you have my strongest support. This is why I hate deletionism. I swear, are those guys trying to do major damage to Wikipedia? Crap like this throws "Assume good faith" right out the ****ing window. We can't take this sitting down. Even if we win, this sets an ugly precedent that may encourage similar radical dletionists to be emboldened in the future. This doesn't bode well, we have to squash this movement now! *steaming out the ears* I'm going to alert the association of inclusionists to these happenings. Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: I really appreciate your support.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This user supports Stan. :P

User:Abyssal/userboxesicreated/supportstan

FYI. Also, I tried to suggest something of a compromise at WT:MAMMAL. If there's anyway that I could help implement that suggestion, or to help at all, please let me know. I'd be very sad to see your artwork go. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to mention both books and Web sites when they were used. For new images, the easiest thing might just be to say, "image based off description at XXX and partially informed by illustration on YYY" where XXX and YYY might be books, or good web sites, or even museum illustrations, etc. With books, just enough information to track the book down. I remember I was able to track down one of the books you'd mentioned about hippos, and it had a lot of interesting information, so another side benefit of listing such books is that other researchers (with no ability to draw like me!) can still dig up other information on the topic. Also, if the image is partially informed from reviewing the sources already listed on the Wikipedia article, there'd be nothing wrong with citing those sources again on the image page. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I should add a personal note to state that your images are excellent contributions and that the only additions needed are a list of sources to avoid such questions from passing editors. I must say that the discussions forced me to add sources to a couple of illustrations of extinct bird that I made as well. Shyamal (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked out your artwork and it's clean and credible. I wish I could produce anthing one tenth as good. Illegitimis non carborundum - don't let the bureauprats grind you down - no, that wasn't a typo :-)

This is one of the less pleasant aspects of Wikipedia - certain people lack the industry, resourcefulness and skills to produce good content, and they see this kind of move as a way to make themselves look important. It would be a major error to give them any encouragement at all. -- Philcha (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leidyosuchus

Hi, Apokryltaros;

Are you sure about that extension to the fossil range? As far as I know, genuine Leidyosuchus is only from the late Campanian (all the Paleocene and Eocene species being shunted off to Borealosuchus). J. Spencer (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Borealosuchus and Listrognathosuchus, to be fair, although the former got four species and the latter only got one. Leidyosuchus really slimmed down. J. Spencer (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

L. riggsi is indeterminate; if this was my website, I'd list it as "Leidyosuchus" riggsi under Crocodylia incertae sedis, or something similar. It may be close to Borealosuchus acutidentatus. I ran into a similar issue with Coelurus, which has the indeterminate "C." gracilis attached to it. I handled it there by including the species in the taxobox, but identifying it as indeterminate, and only covering valid C. fragilis in the fossil range and categories. My reasoning there was that only C. fragilis can be reliably shown to be Coelurus, so the article's categorization should reflect that, but at the same time "C." gracilis should be included in the taxobox because it is nominally a species of Coelurus and no one is probably going to give a new genus in the foreseeable future. J. Spencer (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthrozanclus image

Hi, Apokryltaros. Someone told me that you withdrew the Orthrozanclus image because you had doubts about it. I edited the article yesterday, reading the primary source thoroughly (Conway Morris & Caron, 2007). Your pic looks very like the b/w one in the source. I'd be very grateful if you'd reinstate it.

If you have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology, you'll see that there's little tolerance for the bureacratic attitudes you've had to put up with recently. As I said earlier, don't let the bureauprats grind you down! -- Philcha (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a relief - these Cambrian weirdies really need pics, because they're so unlike anything since. -- Philcha (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your plan to put in Wiwaxia and Odontogriphus behind Orthrozanclus, and perhaps a headshot of Hallucigenia, that would be nice for a panoramic shot for e.g. Cambrian explosion or Burgess shale type fauna. But for the Orthrozanclus article I'd prefer your previous pic as it's a nice size for the taxobox. If you let me know when it's uploaded, I'll add the relevant citation to the image description page (AFAIK there was only one relevant citation last time I looked) - your previous pic was very similar to the one in the cited article, but in color and with a credible background.

PS how do you know which is the head end of Hallucigenia? :-) -- Philcha (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS Just worked my way through to the cite for Orthrozanclus - it's

Based on description at {{ cite journal | author=Conway Morris, S., and Caron, J.-B., | url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5816/1255 | accessdate=2008-08-07 | title=Halwaxiids and the Early Evolution of the Lophotrochozoans | journal=Science | date=March 2007 | volume=315 | issue=5816 | pages=1255-1258 | doi=10.1126/science.1137187}}

Just copy and paste the inset text into the image description page, e.g. under "source". The link is to the abstract, as the full article is not freely available; but I read the full article when editing Orthrozanclus and your image was fine. -- Philcha (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your latest version of Orthrozanclus image, I like the detailing of the shell and the lowest band of sclerites. OTOH the upper 2/3 of the body looks segmented but not covered by sclerites. It's the same in the "official" pic in Conway Morris & Caron (2007) but I'm sure they said 3 bands of sclerites covering all except the shell. I'll check the text of their article a.s.a.p. and get back to you.

I know you're planning this originally as a scene with Wiwaxia and ? Odontogriphus (those "blobs on the left?), so you'll want colour-code the critters. However I suggest you make the colours only as strong as necessary to distinguish them - seawater is usually rather misty, making colours look a little washed out. Re the shell, my own choice would be a pale grey, just enough to allow you to shade to give a more 3-D look. since sea-floor was covered by a microbial mat whose top layer was cyanobacteria, I suggest its dominant colour should be the darker of the 2 shades in the taxobox at Cyanobacteria, with just a little bit of shading to prevent it from looking unnnaturally flat.

BTW Newly Identified Species Of Spiny Snail-like Creature, 505 Million Year Old, Described has a copy of the "official" pic. If you put the citation in the image's descr page, you might like to include that link. -- Philcha (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some technical glitch meant it took a while for me to get into the full text of Conway Morris & Caron (2007). Snippets from this article:

• "The central zone of the dorsal body is strongly convex but is flanked by flatter margins." I think you've done that well.
• "The scleritome consists of three zones or sets of sclerites and at least one shell (Fig. 1). One set extends around the entire body." You've got the set around the entire body. But the offical pic does not show the other 2 sets, and yours follows its example. The article does not give the absolute or relative sizes of the 3 sets of sclerites.
• "in Orthrozanclus, the sclerites are smaller (than in Wiwaxia) and do not seem to have any obvious segmental pattern. The most substantial difference appears to be the absence of siculate (ventro-lateral) sclerites in Orthrozanclus. The halkieriid scleritome is also comparable, in particular with marked similarities between the cultrate sclerites." There are times when it's hard to follow this article, because Science imposes very tight word limits. This snippet raises a lot of issues:
  • "absence of siculate (ventro-lateral) sclerites in Orthrozanclus" - but the earlier snippets state that there was a ventro-lateral band which ran all the way round! Perhaps "(ventro-lateral)" was a slip or a result of squeezing the text down a little too much, and they simply mean the ventro-laterals were not sickle-shaped. If so, not an issue at the scale of the drawings.
  • Cultrate sclerites are small but quite visible. They form the middle ring in Halkieria, project upwards and possibly projected outwards when the critter rolled up into a defensive posture (IIRC Conway Morris and Peel's long descr of Halkieria, 1995).
  • "do not seem to have any obvious segmental pattern" but the drawings suggest segmentation more than they suggest sclerites on the convex part of the body! OTOH earlier the article says, "more probably metamerism, traces of which are also discernible more posteriorly."
• "The precise arrangement of the anteriormost region remains somewhat conjectural."

My own preference would be to tone down the suggestions of segmentation and to hint at sclerites overlapping from front to rear on the convex part of the body (see Halkieria), but the article's apparent contradictions and the official pic mean that your present approach is quite defensible. Either way I'd insert the snippets into the image descr page to silence any objections. -- Philcha (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowengriphus perphlegis

Never heard of the critter. Google got me:

• Australian Museum Collections - The blob
• An Odontogriphid from the Upper Permian of Australia. No reconstruction. Describes it as:

The holotype and larger specimen (AM F.55115) is preserved as an almost circular, smooth imprint on a block of pink, indurated shale. Although slightly incomplete the specimen is about 130mm long and 120mm wide. The surface of the fossil is noticeably smoother than the texture of the surrounding rock and, in places, is slightly crinkled in rather random fashion. A slightly raised, sub-rectangular area some 30mm across and 40mm long extends near to what is taken to be the anterior margin. This raised area is bounded on each side by a sinuous, shallow impression that flexes inwards near its midlength. At the posteromedial end of each impression is an ovate lobe (`lobe' in Text-®g. 2) that bears a roughened ornament. Lying inside the raised area, in the midline, are two structures: a larger, transversely oriented, double-loop feature and, posterior to it, a much smaller ovate structure. The double-looped structure is situated at a wide part of the raised area, whereas the ovate organ is positioned where the raised area is constricted in width.

A prominent median ridge (Text-®g. 2), low but quite distinct and continuous, extends anteriorly from the posterior margin for about 80 mm, terminating just short of the anterior raised area. The anterolateral margins display well-developed subparallel grooves roughly following the outer margin. Some weak, rather irregularly spaced, subtransverse grooves intersect the anterior end of the median ridge at right angles. More posteriorly a set of grooves extends from the median ridge towards the posterolateral margin. All the other grooves and wrinkles were apparently caused by post-mortem crumpling of the dorsal and/or ventral integument of the organism. It is also probable that both dorsal and ventral features have been superimposed.

Not the most promising subject, I'm afraid. -- Philcha (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Now I've seen how your recent troubles started, I've formed my own opinion of the person responsible - a look at his user page made a deeply unfavourable impression, too. Let me know if you get any similar aggro - the last wiki-bully who tried it on with me regretted it, twice. That doesn't mean I'm a thug, just that experience has taught me to fight fire with fire because such people will regard the slightest concession as encouragement. OTOH if someone politely disagrees with me, I respond politely, in the hope of learning something (see for example Talk:Cambrian explosion, where I did plenty of both). -- Philcha (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The current illustrations discussion, WikiProject Mammals

Hey, don't let the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals bug you too much. There's obviously a certain degree of uncertainty in Wikipedia about what our general rules for such illustrations should be, and things are currently being worked out. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dodo image

Just to make it clear, I wasn't trying to vandalise the Dodo page when I added an image with the filename "Dodo.jpg", which you rightly reverted. The problem was that I had uploaded a new image to Commons I wanted to add which I named "Dodo.jpg", and then some lame fair use image on Wikipedia had the same name, and overrode it, without me knowing it until I pushed the save button. So I've requested that the fair use image be renamed so I can add the Commons image, and will replace it when that happens. By the way, I hope you won't leave Wikipedia due to two people disliking your illustrations, fight tha powah! FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you have my full support! FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponge illustration

My sense is that it's a cross-section, although I can't be sure. Are you able to access the original source, "Geology and Paleontology of the Ellsworth Mountains, West Antarctica, Geological Society of America Memoir"? I'd guess the original figure caption would be more helpful. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia image

Hi, Mr. Fink. I'm removing Image:Opabinia regalis2.jpg from Opabinia, which I've been working on and which now has quite a lot of illustrations. There also some issues in Image:Opabinia regalis2.jpg which I think need fixing:

• It shows no signs of what are generally regarded as gills on the top of each lobe.
• It shows 14 pairs of lobes, but Whittington (1975) said 15 pairs, and I've seen nothing that contradicts this.
• The prey looks like a bunch of daisies. It's quite possible that some of its prey did look like this, but perhaps something a bit more worm-like would be less distracting.
• I'm also not keen on the colour scheme, but that's a matter of taste.

If you re-work the image, I suggest you use as a model fig 7 of Budd, G.E. (1996). "The morphology of Opabinia regalis and the reconstruction of the arthropod stem-group". Lethaia. 29 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1996.tb01831.x. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) - but hide the "legs" in shown the Budd image, as they are not universally accepted. Then paste the citation into the image descr page to silence certain people who've given you trouble. If you don't have access to the journal article, give me a call and we'll find a way to get the Budd (1996) image to you.

BTW, any progress on the Orthrozanclus image? I found a copy of your previous pic in Google, and inserted it as the critter is so weird that it needs a pic, but that's just a temporary fix. -- Philcha (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand: it's an older picture, and I've been meaning to fix it up, especially the jaw/head of Ottoia. (Though, by "daisy," do you mean Ottoia or Dinomischus?) You don't suppose you could email me the pdf of the report? I can't access many scientific journal sites on my home computer.

As for Orthrozanclus, I'll have the next WIP ready by tomorrow.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing Orthrozanclus v2.

The "daisy" is what appears to be caught in Opabinia′s claw. I dont' know whether it's Ottoia or Dinomischus as I haven't got as far as these yet, and it may be a while as there are higher priorities at WP:CEX.

Re models for a pic of Opabinia, it might be easiest to send you just the relevant pics as the journal articles are long, especially Whittington (1975) - which is also a monster file, as the so-called "PDF" is just a scanned image of the article. I'd also rather just copy and paste the pics into an email,so I don't clutter my hard drive - copy and paste would require that you can accept HTML emails. Whichever of these options you prefer, you'll need to email me so I can send the pics, and you can use your email to tell me which option you prefer.

Re Myoscolex, all I know is in Opabinia. I suspect it's a poor subject for illustration as the specimens are poorly-preserved and there's debate about whether it was closely related to Opabinia or was an annelid. -- Philcha (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I sent the pics about an hour ago - please let me know if there are any problems. -- Philcha (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Fink, thanks for the recent update on Orthrozanclus.

ArthurWeasley just sent me a message that he's revising his Opabinia image, which is currently in the article's taxobox - its main problem is no gills. You may want hold off on that one for now - you artists are in such demand that I suspect you have a pretty full in-tray. But many thanks for the offer. -- Philcha (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

Hi, I'm just checking to see if you have any issues with Charlie the Unicorn in being mention on the Liopleurodon page, in light of the discussion between myself and DinoGuy. See the discussion page for more details, but essentially about.com has linked Charlie with an increase in views of its liopleurodon page. Any issues, could you discuss it on the article's talkpage? Thanks. Darimoma (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deviant Art

I notice that on your Deviant Art account you have a lot of paleoart that hasn't been uploaded to Wikipedia. Is that art under a Wiki-compatible license? 'Cause some of that would be look really nice in some articles I've been working on. Abyssal (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno the specific images, but alot of your placoderms and acanthodians haven't been seen on Wiki. Abyssal (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Your art work is appreciated! Abyssal (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to let me now when/if you ever upload those pics. Those are badass! Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)