Yeah that is absolutely a thing that should be done for the reasons stated
In some cases I obscure the unknown parts that may be critical such as the lower body of Cypseloramphus which I simply blurred out
Or the head of Antarctanax which I turned away from th viewer while also having it based on closely related taxa
Another method would be to simply have only the known part of the animal within frame, such as here with Aldiomedes, although I included a blurry full body animal in flight in the background to communicate to the viewer more effectively that the depicted bird is an albatross
All these three animals are however incredibly important and deserve reconstructions that reach the layperson, the first showing an important stage in the evolution of swifts and hummingbirds, the second being a recent discovery from Antarctica, an environment largely untouched by palaeontology due to the harsh working conditions, the third showing an important stage in albatross evolution and how they became such specialized squid hunters
After all paleoart as any type of scientific illustration is a tool for communication and in best case education
Take Deinocheirus for example
For the longest time only its arms were known so it was imagined to look like this (Taken from GEO magazine, issue 7 of 1993)
All that was known at the time is that it’s a large theropod with huge arms, so it was depicted as a generic theropod with huge arms
As time went on researchers found out that it is actually an ornithomimosaur like Aepyornithomimus, so it was depicted like a regular ornithomimosaur but proportionally scaled up to fit the size of its arms
In 2013 the discovery of two almost complete specimens was announced that showed that the animal was far stranger than one could have imagined, having a sail on its back and a duck-like snout
But why were the previous two interpretations so off?
Because palaeontologists and their hired paleoartists were just making shit up?
Of course not and in fact the complete opposite, the reason the previous versions were off is that they were in fact not making things up but stayed within the range of what is known
First it was known to be a theropod, so it was depicted as one
More detailed research revealed it’s an ornithomimid theropod so it was depicted as one
Both these statements are still true, it just turned out to be a rather strange looking ornithomimid theropod, far stranger than anyone could make up
Trial and error is the process of science, it is why science progresses instead of being stuck in stagnation
It is how in palaeontology we got from the lumbering beasts of the Victorian age…
…To our modern interpretation of these creatures with each new bone that is added to a more complete image
Paleoart helps to give an understanding of what the past may have looked like beyond naked numbers and bones and is therefore an important outreach tool for the public that helps people understand how nature got to the point where it is now and why species conservation is important
It amplifies an interest in natural history in general and helps one realize that nothing in nature is forever and how fragile the ecosystem really is
Even if illustrations are just depicting ichnotaxa from your local area that are known from nothing more than footprints
Depicting what this region may have looked like in the past may capture people’s imagination, make one proud of one’s home area that may otherwise appear mundane and even attract tourists to your village in the middle of nowhere
Paleoart is also a tool that documents the current stage of palaeontological research, helps to understand that science is constantly in progress and shows how far research has come
Also shoutout to @twentybrokenipodclassics for the best take
