I wanted to add a bit of extra clarification to this (THREAD).

As we have been discussing in the replies the issues are multi-faceted.

Firstly, there is the matter of posture & orientation. A lot of reconstructions have the forelimbs & pectoral girdle in implausible...

(1/7) https://twitter.com/Sketchy_raptor/status/1278309310666289152

... positions. However, regarding the correct position, there is a wider plausible range that is affected by multiple *sometimes* hard-to-discern factors like orientation of the spine and ribs. But what one should remain aware of is how dinosaur scapulae/coracoids...

(2/7)

... wrap around the chest, coming close to meeting in the middle but perhaps not actually touching - there are often intersternal elements to consider. There is debate about exact orientation and mobility, but avoid "choked" positions where they meet too close to the neck.

(3/7)

Orientation aside, the part that I want to emphasise is musculature. In dinosaurs, the deltoideus, supracoracoideus and pectoralis groups would have enclosed much of the proximal humerus and the origins of muscles like the biceps, sometimes a third (or more) of the length.

(4/7)

Because these muscles originate from different directions/places to the equivalent groups in eg. an elephant, the shape of the chest & forelimb ends up looking very different. Some of my recent in-progress models may help illustrate what I mean:

https://twitter.com/Sketchy_raptor/status/1276551024438923266

(5/7)

When I see images of dinosaurs with elephant-like chests and forelimbs, the visual implication to me is that the very different shapes of the underlying skeleton haven't been looked at properly, or that certain important shape-influencing muscles are missing.

(6/7)

A final note - I worry that when I criticise dinosaur imagery, I come across as unfair. In pointing out mistakes, I am not attempting to shame the artists for making them - we should all have the chance to learn. I'm just trying to advocate for more rigour in the future.

(7/7)