Author Topic: ANIA New for 2017  (Read 1587 times)

Flaffy

  • Silurian survivor
  • *********
  • Posts: 1589
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Ouranosaurus
ANIA New for 2017
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:13:06 PM »
Quad Spinosaurus


Feathered Tyrannosaurus


Carnotaurus


Ankylosaurus repaint


They look much better in person than in the photos, well save for the anky, it's still derpy as ever.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 03:13:55 PM by FlaffyRaptors »


terrorchicken

  • Precambrian survivor
  • ******
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: carnotaurus
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2017, 06:48:23 PM »
the Japanese seem to have quickly taken to quadruped spino.

Roselaar

  • Eocene survivor
  • *****************
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2017, 08:44:42 PM »
Not for me, thanks. Though I admit the Carnotaurus is a bit charming.

Kaprosaurus

  • Full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
  • Wait,is this important? Or it's just for looks?
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Kaprosuchus Saharicus
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2017, 09:50:35 PM »
Quad spino looks interesting,does anyone know where to get this? Want to see more of this company.

sauroid

  • Cretaceous survivor
  • ***************
  • Posts: 3057
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Troodon
  • v.1 status and posts: i don't remember
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2017, 01:56:45 PM »
they look interesting but the segments/joints turn me off.

"you know you have a lot of prehistoric figures if you have at least twenty items per page of the prehistoric/dinosaur section on ebay." - anon.

BlueKrono

  • Silurian survivor
  • *********
  • Posts: 1726
  • "We're being hunted."
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Ichthyovenator
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2017, 04:09:38 PM »
I rather like the Spino; if I collected that species I would definitely pick this one up. Also not a fan of the over-obvious jointing though.
Got Brachauchenius?

terrorchicken

  • Precambrian survivor
  • ******
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: carnotaurus
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2017, 06:13:00 PM »
I wish they made more prehistoric mammals. They just have a mammoth and baby set & a smilodon & caveman set.
You should see how bad the joints look on the mammoth's trunk:

« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 06:15:16 PM by terrorchicken »

Silvanusaurus

  • Cambrian survivor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1130
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Erithacus rubecula
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2017, 10:59:07 PM »
The articulation on these looks so odd, it almost doesnt seem worth having joints like that. Its probably totally inappropriate but I quite like the huge ape-like forearms on the Spino.

stargatedalek

  • Pliocene survivor
  • ********************
  • Posts: 4379
  • I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Fratercula arctica
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2017, 01:41:56 AM »
Most of the joints on the modern animals are much better, the main problem with these is they don't offer the actual articulation to justify the joints. Seriously, how hard is it to actually place the tail joints in places that make any difference whatsoever? Placing them 1/3 and 2/3 down the tail is rather pointless as it doesn't really let you do anything.

OpalornisHuali

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Leaellynasaura
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2017, 08:01:14 AM »
Interesting toys, I like Spinosaurus although the hands look awkward.

Definitely like the T-Rex feathering!!

Turret

  • Jr. member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2017, 08:15:50 AM »
The mammoth looks kinda good. How big are these?

AcroSauroTaurus

  • Cambrian survivor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1003
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Acrocanthosaurus
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2017, 08:24:40 AM »
Well, considering "Quad" Spino is inaccurate now, they're a little late on the accuracy again. But then again, we don't even know if the "new" Spino fossils are even of Spinosaurus. ::) I also would've liked to see more color on the Tyrannosaurus and spikes and more color on the Carno.
I am the Dinosaur King!

OpalornisHuali

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Leaellynasaura
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2017, 10:46:08 AM »
Well, considering "Quad" Spino is inaccurate now, they're a little late on the accuracy again. But then again, we don't even know if the "new" Spino fossils are even of Spinosaurus. ::) I also would've liked to see more color on the Tyrannosaurus and spikes and more color on the Carno.

Inaccurate? I haven't heard the news, has there been evidence that they were bipedal?

It would be strange, honestly I thought bipedal Spinosaurus looked awkward even long before there was evidence for them quadrupedal.
Plus, large back legs would make being semi-aquatic rather hard I would think. And I thought they found evidence for small back legs..

stargatedalek

  • Pliocene survivor
  • ********************
  • Posts: 4379
  • I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Fratercula arctica
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2017, 05:28:02 PM »
Well, considering "Quad" Spino is inaccurate now, they're a little late on the accuracy again. But then again, we don't even know if the "new" Spino fossils are even of Spinosaurus. ::) I also would've liked to see more color on the Tyrannosaurus and spikes and more color on the Carno.

Inaccurate? I haven't heard the news, has there been evidence that they were bipedal?

It would be strange, honestly I thought bipedal Spinosaurus looked awkward even long before there was evidence for them quadrupedal.
Plus, large back legs would make being semi-aquatic rather hard I would think. And I thought they found evidence for small back legs..
He is incorrect.

Firstly, we actually don't "know" how Spinosaurus moved on land. Typical bipedal movement is very unlikely, it doesn't matter who's leg scaling you use, it doesn't matter which direction Spinosaurus leans, or if it held it's neck upright or not, or how thick the sail was, because the reason it wasn't walking on its hind legs is because of muscle atrophy, not balance.

So from there the first conclusion is "if it couldn't walk on two legs it walked on four", but we need to be careful that we don't just leap on that either. The last that I heard the only forelimb material from Spinosaurus or any close relatives is a finger, a very normal theropod finger. So we can say that the fingers weren't built for supporting weight, which means both knuckle walking and flat palmed walking are unlikely. Of course there are ways an animal can get around this to walk on it's fingers (and theropods in general are pretty great at finding ways to make use of gracile digits), but it's not a particularly likely reconstruction even if it's technically possible.

Spinosaurus didn't have any threats or prey on land that we know of. It hunted fish underwater actively, it wasn't an ambush predator let alone was it lunging onto land after Ouranosaurus or hunting on land during those mythical droughts the documentaries speak of. It even lived in a coastal, potential brackish or salt water, environment. It had no reason to ever hunt or fight on land. So there's no reason it needed to move efficiently on land at all.

I think the safest reconstruction is a Spinosaurus that either rests its weight on its entire lower arm (like a marine turtle), or on its underside (like a loon). Does Spinosaurus show the adaptations to be good at sliding on its underside or leaning on its arms? No, but it didn't need to be good at moving on land. It had nothing to gain from moving around on land besides somewhere to rest and dry off, so I would say the "calmest" and "easiest" methods of locomotion are the safest assumption.

Secondly, even if Sigilmassasaurus is a valid taxa, the only remains that were used from Sigilmassasaurus in the 2014 reconstruction are in the vertebrae (neck and tail IIRC). The legs are from Spinosaurus.


This Spinosaurus has a lot of problems, it's very shrink-wrapped, the skulls shape is wrong, the knuckle walking is unlikely, and it's practically stolen from the reconstructions for the 2014 paper down to the patterns and weird crest shape, but "not being a biped" is definitely not one of those problems.

BlueKrono

  • Silurian survivor
  • *********
  • Posts: 1726
  • "We're being hunted."
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Ichthyovenator
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2017, 06:18:41 PM »
If you don't mind my asking, what's wrong with the crest? I see plenty of reconstructions with similar crests. Is it implausible somehow?
Got Brachauchenius?

stargatedalek

  • Pliocene survivor
  • ********************
  • Posts: 4379
  • I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Fratercula arctica
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2017, 07:17:22 PM »
If you don't mind my asking, what's wrong with the crest? I see plenty of reconstructions with similar crests. Is it implausible somehow?
Nothing is wrong with it per-se, but it's shape is entirely speculative. Nothing about the bone indicates it should have these little spikes on it, that was artistic license, but it's being copied to no end now.

AcroSauroTaurus

  • Cambrian survivor
  • *******
  • Posts: 1003
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Acrocanthosaurus
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2017, 07:45:17 PM »
Ah, well I don't study spinosaurids, so some of my info may be off... Thanks for the info Stargatedalek. ;)
I am the Dinosaur King!

stargatedalek

  • Pliocene survivor
  • ********************
  • Posts: 4379
  • I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
    • View Profile
  • Dinosaur: Fratercula arctica
Re: ANIA New for 2017
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2017, 09:13:02 PM »
Ah, well I don't study spinosaurids, so some of my info may be off... Thanks for the info Stargatedalek. ;)
No problem mate, this comes up a lot so I'm fairly used to rephrasing it by this point.