No. This was created by someone who has no idea how any of this work. Soft tissues leave marks on bones.
Soft tissues can also become fossils under the right conditions. For an example, here is the fossil used for the B. markmitchelli holotype:
It’s the single most detailed and complete soft tissue fossil ever discovered. It took the technician six years to extract and separate the fossil from the surrounding stone. The technician’s name is Mark Mitchell, and the species was named after him.
The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!
Fossils many times are more than bones and we get actual imprints of their whole tail or other parts of them
So one of the biggest leaps they have made in reconstruction over the last few decades is matching similar bone structure that supports soft tissue. It doesn’t work for all soft tissue, but if the beavers tail bones have bumps or other features that hint at supporting extra soft tissue there is a chance.
All the stuff birds have, like inflatable neck sacks and feathers that move with muscles are examples of things we absolutely wouldn’t get with fossils that are even better than a beaver tail.
