File talk:Dinotherium.jpg

Concerning the note « This historical image is not a factually accurate paleontological restoration », this is a misunderstanding about the palaeontological, archaeological or naval reconstitutions. General public has to be informed that a reconstitution is, by definition, 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. Any reconstitution is thereby an « artist's view » that, in order to stay within the limits of what is allowed by researchers at the time it is made, must necessarily be inspired by other pictures already scientifically proved, for example in the specialized magazines. Even a photographer can, as an artist, modify his photography by esthetic reasons. 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 artist's views, of the computer-generated images, of the 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. --Amélie Pataud (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)