Since there's a hippo in the article as well, here are some major points:

- From the teeth shape and abrasion patterns we can tell that this was a herbivorous animal.

- Muscle attachment points intm the jaw and huge concave regions suggests large and powerful jaw muscles, so the hollow skinny picture in the article is not viable.

- Being a herbivore with powerful jaw muscles, this animal would need to chew on food a lot. Without cheeks, food would fall out as the animal chews, so it clearly has cheeks.

- Eyew need to fit in the ocular orbit, so they're not tint dots, they're large eyes.

- if we knew any surviving mammal, we would know this animal probably had eyelids (all mammals do).

- This head is huge and heavy, so we'll need a bunch of muscles to keep it up, so this animal has a chunky neck as well.

You can see what the reconstruction would look like with this info at ~40 minutes into the video.

> This is wildly inaccurate to the point that I would consider asking for this list to be taken down.

It's the Daily Mail - wild inaccuracy goes without saying.

Actually I’m surprised to see anything from the daily Mail posted here. I would have guessed it was on a block list.

Well, let's not go nuts. It is almost certainly the worst newspaper in the world, read only by the racist tubs of lard seen capering around Wembley at the weekend. But censorship is even worse.

It may not be true, but I swear there’s been an uptick in submissions from tabloid-like sites in the past year.

Why, when trying to determine what an ancient reptile looked like, would you use mammal species for all your references? Just in my experience, reptiles tend to have fat deposits in different configurations to mammals.