File talk:Baltow,Poland Tyrannosaurus.jpg

Pronated "hands" ? But fossils don't show clearely the flexibility of the forelegs movement of the live animal... Can we apply the criteria of human medicine in paleontology ? It's just a scientific questioning, --Amélie Pataud (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You can biomechanically deduct the range of motion when you have the bones.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but in the scientific hand, many scientists not understand the fact that any reconstitution or a model is necessarly in great part conjectural, because even in the rare cases of preservation in amber, tar, peat or ice, the organic material is damaged, particularly concerning its colors. If one does not understand this process of « conjecturally reconstituted being » (whose most impressive examples are the « real size Dinosaurs » sitting proeminently in the gardens or in the front square of various Museums, or else prehistorical Hominidae presented in dioramas by many Museums), this one will consider as « inaccurate » and/or as a « copyviol », the whole of the computer-generated images and volumic reconstitutions, and Paleontology, Archaeology or Naval history will be deprived of all its iconography intended for general public, apart from the scientific pictures in specialized magazines, that will evade this iconographical « cleaning », possibly concerning even some great masters as Mauricio Antón, Dimitri Bogdanov, Zdeněk Burian, Heinrich Harder or Charles R. Knight. In the artistic other hand, Commons rules not understand the fact that the major part of palaeontological, archaeological or naval reconstitutions which are generally not art works, but often anonymous scientific and collective works. However nobody can find on the web another image identic with mine, but only some others more or less similar : my sources, because any reconstitution or model must stay within the limits allowed by researchers at the time it is made, and must necessarily be inspired by other pictures already scientifically proved, for example in the specialized magazines. Too bad. --Amélie Pataud (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of that tag is simply to show that the image may differ from current scientific thinking, not that it is completely useless or should be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)