Dino Debuts

[Gwangi]

Who produced the first toy Tyrannosaurus? How about the first Velociraptor? Struthiomimus? Parasaurolophus? Protoceratops? I'm starting this thread in order to discuss the first appearances of various prehistoric genera in the toy/collectible market. Should be a fun way to pass some time, learn some things and do some investigation! We could even compile a list of these "firsts" if we felt so inclined. 

[Roselaar]

So let's start with the obvious: what was the first mass produced dinosaur toy or toy line? Marx mayhaps?

[Uroplatus]

Maybe Marx made the first real plastic toy dinosaurs, but i always thought the metal SRG figures were a few years older.

[Dinoguy2]

Maybe it would be helpful to start a list in the first post here that could be updated if somebody reads it and knows of an earlier figure? We already have a few firsts or possible firsts in the Carnotaurus and Utahraptor thread.

I guess we should also limit this to mass market figures that aren't model kits or ceramic or polystone type models? Plastic figures only?

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I think the fist Concavenator was CollectA's. Carnegie also released their Miragaia first but CollectA had one in the works as well and delayed the release.

[Jetoar]

I think thatn Invicta was one of the first brands that produced some species of dinosaurs as Muttaburrsaurus, Liopleurodon, Lambeosaurus and other too  .

[Dinoguy2]

It looks like the first mass-produced Tyrannosaurus was probably the one from SRG which came out in 1947 http://www.dinosaur-toys-collectors-guide.com/srg-tyrannosaurus-rex.html But that's metal so I'm not sure if it counts for this list.

I guess Marx was the first to do plastic dinosaur figures, and their first Tyrannosaurus came out in 1955 http://www.dinosaur-toys-collectors-guide.com/marx-pot-belly.html though I'm not sure if the Tim-Mee figures were earlier? This site makes it seem like Tim-Mee figures may have been out by 1949. http://www.dinosaurcollector.150m.com/Timmee.htm

The first Velociraptor has got to be JP series 1, since it was all about Deinonychus until JP effectively changed its name. http://daythenerdstoodstill.blogspot.com/2013/06/jurassic-park-series-1-velociraptor.html

But this brings up a tricky situation. Do we count "misnamed" dinosaurs as what they are labelled as or what actual fossil specimens/species they are based on? For example, the old Marx Trachodon was, like all old Trachodon, based on Edmontosaurus/Anatosaurus/Anatotitan annectens. Same with Palaeoscincus and Edmontonia. And all the old Brachiosaurus are obviously based on Giraffatitan. Most Oviraptors out there are actually Citipati now. Maybe we should count the JP raptors under Deinonychus using the same rationale! If that's the case, then the first "real" Velociraptor would be the Safari 1993 version. The first Deinonychus was probably the 1987 Playskool Deinonychus - This was my number one most wanted present for my 6th birthday and I'm pretty sure DinoRiders would have been on my radar if they'd been out yet!

[Jetoar]

I think that the first figure of Placerias is the Dinoriders figure:

[stargatedalek]

I'm against counting the JP Velociraptors at all, other JP dinosaurs sure, but the Velociraptor was not only exaggerated as the others but almost entirely fictionalized. In the book Wu mentions in passing that the raptors in the park are mongoliensis, so regardless of Spielberg's influence you can't really quote the book as evidence that they were mislabeled Deinonychus since the only Deinonychus in the book were the ones Grant was digging.

[Jetoar]

I'm against counting the JP Velociraptors at all, other JP dinosaurs sure, but the Velociraptor was not only exaggerated as the others but almost entirely fictionalized. In the book Wu mentions in passing that the raptors in the park are mongoliensis, so regardless of Spielberg's influence you can't really quote the book as evidence that they were mislabeled Deinonychus since the only Deinonychus in the book were the ones Grant was digging.

But in this post we are talking about of the debut of dinosaurs figures in the market not if this jP raptors are raptors or deinonychus. If you see the Stan Winston draws, you can see "Deinonychus". In addition "Velociraptor" of Kenner was the first figure of this animal with this name. Similar situation is AAA "Utahraptor" that it is Dilophosaurus but it was its debut.

[stargatedalek]

I was referring to the idea not to count them because they were Deinonychus. I don't see how it was off-topic. The film canon changed a lot from the novel canon, so while Stan Winston studios may have based them off of Deinonychus you really can't quote the book as confirmation for this since in the book the animals in the park and the ones Grant was researching were two different animals.

https://www.5novels.com/ScienceFiction/Jurassic_park/2497.html
"Velociraptor mongoliensis," Wu said, nodding. "A predator. This one's only six weeks old."

[Halichoeres]

The first Velociraptor has got to be JP series 1, since it was all about Deinonychus until JP effectively changed its name. http://daythenerdstoodstill.blogspot.com/2013/06/jurassic-park-series-1-velociraptor.html

But this brings up a tricky situation. Do we count "misnamed" dinosaurs as what they are labelled as or what actual fossil specimens/species they are based on? For example, the old Marx Trachodon was, like all old Trachodon, based on Edmontosaurus/Anatosaurus/Anatotitan annectens. Same with Palaeoscincus and Edmontonia. And all the old Brachiosaurus are obviously based on Giraffatitan. Most Oviraptors out there are actually Citipati now. Maybe we should count the JP raptors under Deinonychus using the same rationale! If that's the case, then the first "real" Velociraptor would be the Safari 1993 version. The first Deinonychus was probably the 1987 Playskool Deinonychus - This was my number one most wanted present for my 6th birthday and I'm pretty sure DinoRiders would have been on my radar if they'd been out yet!

Roselaar and I had a discussion similar to this in the unique species thread. I think where we landed was that in most situations it was best to count the animal that was billed, especially in the case of splits (Aussiedraco from Ornithocheirus, Giraffatitan from Brachiosaurus). In part this was because most companies don't specify which species in a genus they're trying to make, so it often--not always--boils down to a guess on our part. In the case of synonymy, I think it's a lot easier to keep track, so I for one wouldn't balk at seeing an old Trachodon named the first Edmontosaurus toy.

[Jetoar]

I only say that the figures have a name, in this case we have only see the name and the figure so " JP Raptors" are velociraptors with is inaccuracies. On other hand, they are products of the film. Old Bullyland raptor had got a similar style too, but theimage of the paper it was really diferent  .

[Dinoguy2]

I'm against counting the JP Velociraptors at all, other JP dinosaurs sure, but the Velociraptor was not only exaggerated as the others but almost entirely fictionalized. In the book Wu mentions in passing that the raptors in the park are mongoliensis, so regardless of Spielberg's influence you can't really quote the book as evidence that they were mislabeled Deinonychus since the only Deinonychus in the book were the ones Grant was digging.

It has nothing to do with the book; John Ostrom was quoted as saying both Crichton and the production team for the movie consulted with him on Deinonychus anatomy and relied almost entirely on his research papers. They gave him a call specifically when Crichton decided to change the name because they knew he'd be disappointed http://news.yale.edu/2015/06/18/yale-s-legacy-jurassic-world

"Crichton, in an apologetic way, explained that in the novel he decided to use the name Velociraptor, that I had said was the closest relative to the animal that I had found," Ostrom told The Times. "He said, 'It's more dramatic"

"Despite the name change, Ostrom wrote that Crichton had confirmed to him that the fictional Velociraptor was modeled after Deinonychus in "almost every detail.""

"Brinkman says that Steven Spielberg's production company contacted Ostrom and requested copies of all of his technical papers on Deinonychus."

Sounds like case closed to me. This also proves they're not entirely fictionalized. In fact other than being slightly too big and having flexible tails they are very accurate Deinonychus for their time.

[Dinoguy2]

The first Velociraptor has got to be JP series 1, since it was all about Deinonychus until JP effectively changed its name. http://daythenerdstoodstill.blogspot.com/2013/06/jurassic-park-series-1-velociraptor.html

But this brings up a tricky situation. Do we count "misnamed" dinosaurs as what they are labelled as or what actual fossil specimens/species they are based on? For example, the old Marx Trachodon was, like all old Trachodon, based on Edmontosaurus/Anatosaurus/Anatotitan annectens. Same with Palaeoscincus and Edmontonia. And all the old Brachiosaurus are obviously based on Giraffatitan. Most Oviraptors out there are actually Citipati now. Maybe we should count the JP raptors under Deinonychus using the same rationale! If that's the case, then the first "real" Velociraptor would be the Safari 1993 version. The first Deinonychus was probably the 1987 Playskool Deinonychus - This was my number one most wanted present for my 6th birthday and I'm pretty sure DinoRiders would have been on my radar if they'd been out yet!

Roselaar and I had a discussion similar to this in the unique species thread. I think where we landed was that in most situations it was best to count the animal that was billed, especially in the case of splits (Aussiedraco from Ornithocheirus, Giraffatitan from Brachiosaurus). In part this was because most companies don't specify which species in a genus they're trying to make, so it often--not always--boils down to a guess on our part. In the case of synonymy, I think it's a lot easier to keep track, so I for one wouldn't balk at seeing an old Trachodon named the first Edmontosaurus toy.

Hmm, I see what you mean, but even in this case it relies on our own ID. Trachodon isn't a synonym of Edmontosaurus, but Trachodon annectens is a synonym of Edmontosaurus annectens. The species isn't labeled, it just happens to be obvious in this case. Same with Oviraptor- most of the toys are ovviously based on specimens of Citipati and it's easy pretty easy to tell which based on crest shape alone. The problem is that both actual Trachodon and actual Oviraptor are too fragmentary to know what they actually looked like, so you could reasonably say they represent those species but are based on their better known relatives...

[Halichoeres]

The first Velociraptor has got to be JP series 1, since it was all about Deinonychus until JP effectively changed its name. http://daythenerdstoodstill.blogspot.com/2013/06/jurassic-park-series-1-velociraptor.html

But this brings up a tricky situation. Do we count "misnamed" dinosaurs as what they are labelled as or what actual fossil specimens/species they are based on? For example, the old Marx Trachodon was, like all old Trachodon, based on Edmontosaurus/Anatosaurus/Anatotitan annectens. Same with Palaeoscincus and Edmontonia. And all the old Brachiosaurus are obviously based on Giraffatitan. Most Oviraptors out there are actually Citipati now. Maybe we should count the JP raptors under Deinonychus using the same rationale! If that's the case, then the first "real" Velociraptor would be the Safari 1993 version. The first Deinonychus was probably the 1987 Playskool Deinonychus - This was my number one most wanted present for my 6th birthday and I'm pretty sure DinoRiders would have been on my radar if they'd been out yet!

Roselaar and I had a discussion similar to this in the unique species thread. I think where we landed was that in most situations it was best to count the animal that was billed, especially in the case of splits (Aussiedraco from Ornithocheirus, Giraffatitan from Brachiosaurus). In part this was because most companies don't specify which species in a genus they're trying to make, so it often--not always--boils down to a guess on our part. In the case of synonymy, I think it's a lot easier to keep track, so I for one wouldn't balk at seeing an old Trachodon named the first Edmontosaurus toy.

Hmm, I see what you mean, but even in this case it relies on our own ID. Trachodon isn't a synonym of Edmontosaurus, but Trachodon annectens is a synonym of Edmontosaurus annectens. The species isn't labeled, it just happens to be obvious in this case. Same with Oviraptor- most of the toys are ovviously based on specimens of Citipati and it's easy pretty easy to tell which based on crest shape alone. The problem is that both actual Trachodon and actual Oviraptor are too fragmentary to know what they actually looked like, so you could reasonably say they represent those species but are based on their better known relatives...

Yeah, fair enough. To me that's just more support for going with whatever the company was trying to sell. Even Brontosaurus, Camarasaurus head and all.

At any rate, there are probably only a dozen instances where taxonomy like this will make a big difference (unless you're Greg Paul), but I guess that's where the debates will happen!

[Dilopho]

I think this is the first Carnotaurus figure, by Jurassic Park series 2!


In fact, not counting the inaccuracies, I think this line brought many unknown creatures to life in plastic form.

Tanystropheus

Lycaenops

Coelophysis

[Roselaar]

Wasn't Tanystropheus done by Starlux?

[Halichoeres]

It certainly was. Starlux had many, many firsts, and in several instances they're still the only one. I think Starlux had the firsts for:

Alticamelus
Archelon
Baluchitherium
Bradysaurus
Cephalaspis
Coelophysis
Deinotherium
Dicraeosaurus
Diplocaulus
Drepanaspis
Edaphosaurus
Euparkeria
Eusthenopteron
Gigantocamelus
Ichthyostega
Machairodus
Moeritherium
Moropus/Paraceratherium
Nothosaurus
Ornithosuchus
Ouranosaurus
Placochelys
Platybelodon
Psittacosaurus
Saltoposuchus
Scutosaurus
Struthiomimus
Synthetoceras
Tanystropheus

Although I might be missing some Marx or MPC things, and some, like Scelidosaurus, were released close to the same time as the Invicta, so I'm not sure which was first.

On the other hand, JP probably was the first Lycaenops and Estemmenosuchus. If anyone knows some earlier ones, I'd be interested in hearing about it!

[Rogue1stClass]

The first Velociraptor has got to be JP series 1, since it was all about Deinonychus until JP effectively changed its name. http://daythenerdstoodstill.blogspot.com/2013/06/jurassic-park-series-1-velociraptor.html

But this brings up a tricky situation. Do we count "misnamed" dinosaurs as what they are labelled as or what actual fossil specimens/species they are based on? For example, the old Marx Trachodon was, like all old Trachodon, based on Edmontosaurus/Anatosaurus/Anatotitan annectens. Same with Palaeoscincus and Edmontonia. And all the old Brachiosaurus are obviously based on Giraffatitan. Most Oviraptors out there are actually Citipati now. Maybe we should count the JP raptors under Deinonychus using the same rationale! If that's the case, then the first "real" Velociraptor would be the Safari 1993 version. The first Deinonychus was probably the 1987 Playskool Deinonychus - This was my number one most wanted present for my 6th birthday and I'm pretty sure DinoRiders would have been on my radar if they'd been out yet!

Roselaar and I had a discussion similar to this in the unique species thread. I think where we landed was that in most situations it was best to count the animal that was billed, especially in the case of splits (Aussiedraco from Ornithocheirus, Giraffatitan from Brachiosaurus). In part this was because most companies don't specify which species in a genus they're trying to make, so it often--not always--boils down to a guess on our part. In the case of synonymy, I think it's a lot easier to keep track, so I for one wouldn't balk at seeing an old Trachodon named the first Edmontosaurus toy.

Hmm, I see what you mean, but even in this case it relies on our own ID. Trachodon isn't a synonym of Edmontosaurus, but Trachodon annectens is a synonym of Edmontosaurus annectens. The species isn't labeled, it just happens to be obvious in this case. Same with Oviraptor- most of the toys are ovviously based on specimens of Citipati and it's easy pretty easy to tell which based on crest shape alone. The problem is that both actual Trachodon and actual Oviraptor are too fragmentary to know what they actually looked like, so you could reasonably say they represent those species but are based on their better known relatives...

I'd advise against getting too caught up in scientific nomenclature. I have a painting from the 1970s of a bobcat that is titled "Felis rufus", and even though they are called "Lynx rufus" now, I don't think you would argue it isn't a bobcat. Trachodon is obviously meant to be what is now called Edmontosaurus, regardless of what animal the genus name Trachodon actually describes (if anything). Consider it a common name. We don't really have problems calling extant animals by genus names that don't apply to them, the spiny-tailed iguana, for instance, is not a member of Iguana, so I don't see why we get so bent out of shape about extinct ones.