Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal at the following link: [link]
I really don't understand the push to be "realistic" in palaeoart, when you have the sketchiest of all clues on the nature, shape, form and color of your subject. Try to scroll through your head and imagine the details of the most striking animals today. The stripes of the zebra, the feathers of a peacock and the mane of a lion would possibly never fossilize, yet it is these features that are the most immediate us.
We've got to stop pretending; some parts and details of extinct animals, especially the most striking ones, will NEVER be known with any level of certainty.
It is not that I don't enjoy any good "realistic" reconstructions, in fact I think such artworks do an immeasurable service to science. But the role of palaeoart must also be to create a public liking and interest towards the subject. However, the push for "clarity" has turned the field into a hotbed of talentless artists, dishing out one identical piece after the other while copying each others' works (and mistakes) like a game of visual Chinese whispers. As a result, any mystery remaining in fossil animals gets extinguished in a torrent of banality. And we wonder, how and when did the study of extinct life turn into kids' stuff?
Here, then, is a picture of Majungasaurus that will probably never get obsolete, or published in a childrens' book.