The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Lanthanotus]

Thanks for the honorably mention so to say .

Nice addition to your collection, do you plan to paint them? They sure have a certain charme even in just flat silver as they are though, and also a simple black wash alone already highlights the details. So not an easy decision to make. I also considered getting the No 1 and 2 sets. Also an interesting book you got there.

[Halichoeres]

Nice addition to your collection, do you plan to paint them? They sure have a certain charme even in just flat silver as they are though, and also a simple black wash alone already highlights the details. So not an easy decision to make. I also considered getting the No 1 and 2 sets. Also an interesting book you got there.

I do plan to paint them, although it takes me a long time to get around to painting things. The detail really is impressive, I'll have to be careful not to obscure that!

A few Cretaceous eukaryotes:


GR Toys/Haolonggood Carcharodontosaurus
Scale: 1:30
Released: 2021
Cenomanian of Africa
It's possible I'd have made a different choice if I'd had both this and the PNSO physically in front of me, but that's not how this hobby works. I was misled by a photo with funky perspective to believe that this figure was a bit smaller, which would've been ideal. But the lips and balance are good, and the intricate paintwork is phenomenal. This replaces the unguligrade, fat-bottomed CollectA version. And with that, Carcharodontosaurus goes on the list of taxa that I'm swearing off buying. Even if several more superlative versions are released next year, it would take a lot to get me to consider them.



Carcharodontosaurids mostly look the same to me. If I just had their skeletons laid out before me, I don't think I could tell you which was which for a million dollars.


With Sarcosuchus, which hasn't been recorded in the same time and place as Carcharodontosaurus, but there were some other similarly giant crocodiles.


Rebor Ekrixinatosaurus
Scale: 1:18
Released: 2021
Cenomanian of South America
An utterly ridiculous figure. It's just the Disney Carnotaurus with the horns lopped off and a new coat of paint. 30 million years of evolution separated Ekrixinatosaurus from Carnotaurus, so this is a little like gluing a slingshot to a pronghorn and calling it Synthetoceras. The head shape is pretty wrong, and obviously the feet are a farce (at least it's stable!). The articulated arms feel very pointless. All the same, it's one of two Rebor figures in my collection (the other is Protolindenia), because sometimes I make a purchase declaratively. I'm declaring that you can part this fool and his money by making a different abelisaur for a change, JFC. Also, it's fun to just lambaste a figure now and again, especially if you can head off the inevitable 'it looks better in person' from its apologists.


Wendiceratops shying away slightly, as if from an interloper with halitosis.


Wild Past Tethyshadros insularis
Scale: 1:35
Sculptor: Stefan Klein ( @dinotoycollector)
Released: 2021
Maastrichtian of Eurasia
For my Mesozoic shelves, small ornithopods are usually the thing that's most obviously missing, so this is a welcome addition. The paint job, while not at Kaiyodo levels of precision, is better than it looks in photos.


"Don't sass me, pipsqueak, I've made future coprolites bigger than you."


Berliner Zinnfiguren unspecified conifer
Scale: 1:100 - 1:200
This is one of several plants included in Berliner's "prehistorical plants" kit, which itself is a subset of the scenery for the "Saurierkampf" ("dinosaur fight") set. In German, they call it "Geholze (Unter Kreide)," or "woods (lower chalk)." So I guess it's supposed to be a Lower Cretaceous set of plants, although most of the plants included are more common in the Jurassic. They identify most to genus, but this one they just call "conifer," with some text on the web site helpfully specifying that it's a member of Pinopsida (that's everything from spruce to yews, an absolutely gigantic clade spanning hundreds of millions of years). There's enough detail on it to exclude most true pines, larches, and umbrella pines. The Lower Cretaceous of Eurasia was home to several cypresses, as well as monkeypuzzle relatives like Araucarites and Pagiophyllum. I think this works best as one of the latter.


Looks like one of those experiments where you grow a seedling in the light and another in the dark. I'll add some pigments to the metal one by and by. And I'll share the rest of the set in my next update.

[Concavenator]

Congrats for your new acquisitions!

Heh, wasn't expecting to see a Carcharodontosaurus here. Is that 1:30 scale you mention a result of a recalculation? It's supposed to be at 1:35 scale.
I particularly like it and the Wild Past Tethyshadros. And these 2 should be to scale.

I recently sold my CollectA Carcharodontosaurus, though honestly I was fond of it despite its flaws, but objectively all the versions of this genus that are released this year are dramatic improvements. I no longer have this genus in my collection, so I'm considering to have it back again with this GR one (the PNSO one is very nice too). If you could and if you had some time, would you be able to post a comparison pic of the GR Carcharodontosaurus along with Dino Hazard's Irritator and Vitae's Tiantaiosaurus? I would really appreciate it, as they are some figures from my wishlist that I would be interested in getting, but seeing them together would surely be helpful 

The "Ekrixinatosaurus" might have been interesting if it had been one (if it'd been properly done).

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Lovely acquisitions, well the Tethyshadros, Carcharodontosaurus and lovely 2-dimensional metal flora and fauna are anyway.

I kinda agree that those giant Carcharodontosaurids look the same. It's also why Tyrannotitan is very low on my wish list because whilst it would be new, it would be the same again. Despite the lips, I think I will choose PNSO for Carcharadontosaurus, both because it's a better size and because of good ol' Everything Dinosaur.

[Faelrin]

Some real eye catchers there. Really enjoyable descriptions as usual too. I'm really torn between both the new PNSO and GR Toys, but I think the GR Toys is winning me over, particularly this blue variant, despite preferring 1:35 when the option is available (which I'm guessing the PNSO one is?).

Honestly I do find most carcharodontosaurs pretty similar as well, but I think that's due to the fragmentary nature of many of them unfortunately, and the way they are frequently restored. Had we had more remains it's possible they could have more to differentiate them, then initially appears. But considering many of their lifestyles are similar too, and that body plan they shared was also successful for millions of years, on two separate continents, I guess their anatomy being similar isn't entirely a bad thing either. Within the Charcharodontosauridae itself though, only Acrocanthosaurus and Concavenator really stand out to me, one having the large neural spines, that probably supported a hump of tissue, and the much smaller Concavenator, which also has those puzzling tall hip vertebrae. Acrocanthosaurus and Conconcavenator also have much more complete cranial remains to work with compared with their relatives as well, other then Carcharodontosaurus. Also it is quite nice to see how impressively large that Sarcosuchus is. It is not dwarfed by any means at all, despite the difference in scale.

I too hope there will be an Ekrixinatosaurus proper someday. And as much as I love Carnotaurus itself, I have to agree. They deserve a break for once, and a chance to let some of their cousins take the reigns to fame for once. Skorpiovenator, the recently described Spectrovenator, and many others like Aucasaurus, and Abelisaurus itself would be nice to see for once, and though much more fragmentary, Rugops and Rajasaurus have interesting skulls at least. Rugops even co-existed with Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus! Missing diorama potential right there.

Really nice to see you got the Tethyshadros pair as well now. I just saw that those are in stock now at Dan's Dinosaurs, so I'll need to get to ordering them soon. I really need more ornithopods in my collection too, and these are a great choice. Small, and have relatively complete remains.

[Gwangi]

The carcharodontosaurs make me think of cats, basically identical under the skin.

[Leyster]

Carcharodontosaurids mostly look the same to me. If I just had their skeletons laid out before me, I don't think I could tell you which was which for a million dollars.

Sadly, Carcharodontosaurinae are quite incomplete, and it doesn't help that companies do not research before sculpting (Collecta Mapusaurus, in example, has a completely wrong skull, Mapusaurus is known basically from its discovery for having a more rounded snout than other Carcharodontosauridae). Carcharodontosaurus itself is an animal that should not have been made in figure form, at least not with the frequency it appears: a few years ago at least we could say it had a fairly complete skull, but Ibrahim et al. 2020 shows that the skull is waaaay worse than Sereno pretends (and you can rearrange the bits to have it look more similar to Giganotosaurus, too). That the other remains have been reduced to dust doesn't help, either.
The only Carcharodontosauridae based on both relatively complete and well described remains are Acrocanthosaurus (of whom we still lack a good version, with the better ones being still the Kaiyodo and the Battat) and Concavenator (which at least has decent versions).

[Shonisaurus]

I congratulate you, you have bought the latest figures that are in fashion in the toy market, the tethyshadros the dinosaur couple is a complete beauty, the Rebor ekrixinatosaurus is beautiful, it is true that it is a fantastic figure since practically nothing is known about that carnivorous theropod and it is not scientific at all but it consoles me that it is the ekrixinatosaurus, like the gorilla Z of Rebor in its exclusive painting version of the magnificent company bigbadtoystore makes one be consoled that it is the gigantophithecus when both prehistoric animals shine due to its absence in the rest of the toy market. On the other hand, the BoTM wendiceratops is an extremely tempting figure.


The carcharodontosaurus from GR Toys is a fantastic figure with a touch of paint that very few companies in the dinosaur toy market can match and that lives up to the great artists of figure repaint figures.

Prehistoric trees are really cool.

I'm glad for you.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts, everyone!

Heh, wasn't expecting to see a Carcharodontosaurus here. Is that 1:30 scale you mention a result of a recalculation? It's supposed to be at 1:35 scale.
I particularly like it and the Wild Past Tethyshadros. And these 2 should be to scale.

Weelll, just because I want people to try foods other than hamburgers doesn't mean I don't sometimes eat a burger myself! The scale estimate assumes that the skull is 1.6 meters long. It could actually be at a slightly larger scale for the smaller length estimates; it's a whopping 5.2 cm long. There aren't many companies making actual 1:35 figures; 1:30 is the new standard and it just goes by the name "1:35," just like 1:35 used to be the standard and went by the name "1:40." It's annoying, but seems to result from a general bias in favor of larger figures on the part of most buyers.

I recently sold my CollectA Carcharodontosaurus, though honestly I was fond of it despite its flaws, but objectively all the versions of this genus that are released this year are dramatic improvements. I no longer have this genus in my collection, so I'm considering to have it back again with this GR one (the PNSO one is very nice too). If you could and if you had some time, would you be able to post a comparison pic of the GR Carcharodontosaurus along with Dino Hazard's Irritator and Vitae's Tiantaiosaurus? I would really appreciate it, as they are some figures from my wishlist that I would be interested in getting, but seeing them together would surely be helpful 

Your wish is my command! If the arrangements look a little strange, it's because I was trying to get them all in the same plane without having them fall over. The Tiantaisaurus and Irritator no longer stand freely due to an unseasonal heat wave that struck before I could get the air conditioner installed for the summer.




It would never have occurred to me to put these in the same shot, given the different scales, time intervals, continents, and clades!

Lovely acquisitions, well the Tethyshadros, Carcharodontosaurus and lovely 2-dimensional metal flora and fauna are anyway.

I kinda agree that those giant Carcharodontosaurids look the same. It's also why Tyrannotitan is very low on my wish list because whilst it would be new, it would be the same again. Despite the lips, I think I will choose PNSO for Carcharadontosaurus, both because it's a better size and because of good ol' Everything Dinosaur.

That's as good a reason as any to go for the PNSO. I think it's probably closer to my scale preference, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy two of this genus in the same year. And yeah, I actively hope there is never a Tyrannotitan because it would be quite pointless. But the name makes my eyes roll back in my head, which is usually a good indication that a toy is inevitable.

Some real eye catchers there. Really enjoyable descriptions as usual too. I'm really torn between both the new PNSO and GR Toys, but I think the GR Toys is winning me over, particularly this blue variant, despite preferring 1:35 when the option is available (which I'm guessing the PNSO one is?).

Honestly I do find most carcharodontosaurs pretty similar as well, but I think that's due to the fragmentary nature of many of them unfortunately, and the way they are frequently restored. Had we had more remains it's possible they could have more to differentiate them, then initially appears. But considering many of their lifestyles are similar too, and that body plan they shared was also successful for millions of years, on two separate continents, I guess their anatomy being similar isn't entirely a bad thing either. Within the Charcharodontosauridae itself though, only Acrocanthosaurus and Concavenator really stand out to me, one having the large neural spines, that probably supported a hump of tissue, and the much smaller Concavenator, which also has those puzzling tall hip vertebrae. Acrocanthosaurus and Conconcavenator also have much more complete cranial remains to work with compared with their relatives as well, other then Carcharodontosaurus. Also it is quite nice to see how impressively large that Sarcosuchus is. It is not dwarfed by any means at all, despite the difference in scale.

I too hope there will be an Ekrixinatosaurus proper someday. And as much as I love Carnotaurus itself, I have to agree. They deserve a break for once, and a chance to let some of their cousins take the reigns to fame for once. Skorpiovenator, the recently described Spectrovenator, and many others like Aucasaurus, and Abelisaurus itself would be nice to see for once, and though much more fragmentary, Rugops and Rajasaurus have interesting skulls at least. Rugops even co-existed with Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus! Missing diorama potential right there.

Really nice to see you got the Tethyshadros pair as well now. I just saw that those are in stock now at Dan's Dinosaurs, so I'll need to get to ordering them soon. I really need more ornithopods in my collection too, and these are a great choice. Small, and have relatively complete remains.

Thanks! On carcharodontosaurids, they do seem to have found a general body plan that worked for them.

As for Carnotaurus, it's a genuinely weird looking animal and I get why it's made so often, but yeah, how many do we need?

The carcharodontosaurs make me think of cats, basically identical under the skin.

Yup. I've taught mammalogy, and while I'll quiz students on gray fox vs. red fox skulls, I wouldn't dream of it for lynx vs. bobcat or tiger vs. lion.

Sadly, Carcharodontosaurinae are quite incomplete, and it doesn't help that companies do not research before sculpting (Collecta Mapusaurus, in example, has a completely wrong skull, Mapusaurus is known basically from its discovery for having a more rounded snout than other Carcharodontosauridae). Carcharodontosaurus itself is an animal that should not have been made in figure form, at least not with the frequency it appears: a few years ago at least we could say it had a fairly complete skull, but Ibrahim et al. 2020 shows that the skull is waaaay worse than Sereno pretends (and you can rearrange the bits to have it look more similar to Giganotosaurus, too). That the other remains have been reduced to dust doesn't help, either.
The only Carcharodontosauridae based on both relatively complete and well described remains are Acrocanthosaurus (of whom we still lack a good version, with the better ones being still the Kaiyodo and the Battat) and Concavenator (which at least has decent versions).

Well, I'll just say that it sounds like both CollectA and Paul Sereno are behaving true to form.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reference list on the first page will be updated presently.

[Concavenator]

@Halichoeres Thank you so much... BTW, how do you arrange your collection? It would be interesting to know, specially due to it being that inmense. I personally try to group the figures by brands, which lends to figures of very different scales being displayed next to each other, as well as taxa from different times and places (not that it bugs me either) being grouped together. Though with newer companies that are appearing, displaying them all by the same brand isn't that easy anymore (and because I have little space) so I need some mixing here and there, which could lead to situations like the pic with those 3. But those are currently among the best theropod figures that I can think of, I would say.

And yes, carcharodontosaurids look similar, but I mostly find tyrannosaurids harder to distinguish.

Regarding actual 1:35 scale figures, I think the only rigurous companies in that aspect are Eofauna and Wild Past.

[thedeadlymoose]

Your wish is my command! If the arrangements look a little strange, it's because I was trying to get them all in the same plane without having them fall over. The Tiantaisaurus and Irritator no longer stand freely due to an unseasonal heat wave that struck before I could get the air conditioner installed for the summer.

For what it's worth! My Tiantai(o?)sauruses fell to a similar fate, but I was easily able to use hot water to bend their legs into a corrected position. They revert within hours or days, though. 

I found that I can keep them upright indefinitely at a particular tilt, perched with leading foot on the slightly raised edge of a particular shoebox: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B081GXSHPC/ When I take them off the box, they stand regularly (for a while).

This is a very silly personal solution -- it's likely easier to use an action figure holder. But nevertheless. The takeaway is that you can probably use a temporary fix and turn that into a permanent one.

Apologies if any of this is obvious, as you're a veteran member! I just love this figure more than anything and want to talk about it.

[Newt]

Yup. I've taught mammalogy, and while I'll quiz students on gray fox vs. red fox skulls, I wouldn't dream of it for lynx vs. bobcat or tiger vs. lion.

It was very thoughtful of the foxes to use their first initials for the shape of their cranial crests - V for Vulpes and U for Urocyon. And they say genera are a human construct imposed on nature! Cats, of course, are far too selfish to be so helpful.


Anyhow, it's always enjoyable to live vicariously through your mighty collection, and to read your thoughts on figures.

[Halichoeres]

T @thedeadlymoose thanks very much! No need to apologize for a helpful suggestion; sometimes the response of specific figures to things like hot water and hair dryers is idiosyncratic. I might try a little prop akin to what you've used. And I agree, the Tiantai(o)saurus is a really great figure.

@Concavenator I sort them by approximate scale first (in 12 or so scale categories ranging from around 10:1 to about 1:80, and then arrange them more or less chronologically. When I first started collecting, I tried to sort them by formation, but there are really only about six units where you can do that satisfactorily, and three of them are in the Late Cretaceous of North America, so I abandoned that pretty quickly. Most of my dinosaurs and other terrestrial animals are in boxes, because I moved three times in 2018-2019, and due to a combination of damage and abandonment, I now have three fewer bookcases. I have all my aquatics on display, but for the most part the landlubber shelves only have things acquired since my last move. I have figures from more than 90 companies, so displaying that way is not really an option!

Agreed, although EoFauna's Giganotosaurus was somewhat too large, they and Wild Past are the only companies that seem to be even close.

@Newt yes, very accommodating of the foxes! I've been looking for Fs and Ls on cat skulls for years, but in vain. And thanks very much!

[Bowhead Whale]

Carcharodontosaurids mostly look the same to me. If I just had their skeletons laid out before me, I don't think I could tell you which was which for a million dollars.

Sadly, Carcharodontosaurinae are quite incomplete, and it doesn't help that companies do not research before sculpting (Collecta Mapusaurus, in example, has a completely wrong skull, Mapusaurus is known basically from its discovery for having a more rounded snout than other Carcharodontosauridae). Carcharodontosaurus itself is an animal that should not have been made in figure form, at least not with the frequency it appears: a few years ago at least we could say it had a fairly complete skull, but Ibrahim et al. 2020 shows that the skull is waaaay worse than Sereno pretends (and you can rearrange the bits to have it look more similar to Giganotosaurus, too). That the other remains have been reduced to dust doesn't help, either.
The only Carcharodontosauridae based on both relatively complete and well described remains are Acrocanthosaurus (of whom we still lack a good version, with the better ones being still the Kaiyodo and the Battat) and Concavenator (which at least has decent versions).

It's somehow true, but then again...

Imagine if we waited to know exactly how Iguanodon walked to make Iguanodon figures. The 1978 AAA Iguanodon would not exist, the Soma 1987 Glow-in-the-Dark Iguanodon would not exist, the Larami Iguanodon would not exist, the Starlux Iguanodon would not exist... and we would not have the inaccurate, but still beautiful Iguanodon statues in the gardens of Crystal Palace in England. All those Iguanodon replicas, despite their lack of accuracy, remain interesting, because they clearly show the evolution of Paleaonthology. They show that Iguanodons were thought to be elephant-like large lizards before complete skelettons were discovered in Belgium. And the standing, long-mouthed vintage Iguanodon toys show that during a whole century, Iguanodons were thought to walk upright and to have a long, cheekless mouth.

The same thing happened with Spinosaurus. Spinosaurus toys were, in the past, represented with an Allosaurus-like head and feet with curved claws before complete skulls and feet of the animal were discovered, showing the fish-eating animal it actually was. But if we waited to have the complete skull and feet, the starlux Spinosaurus and the 1986 Dor Mei Spinosaurus would never have been made. And a lot of people of my generation would have never knew the existence of Spinosaurus.

It's the same thing, I think, with the Carcharodontosaurus. Maybe we will find a complete skull only in 100 years. Would we wait 100 years to have replicas of Carcharodontosaurus? I'm not so sure. And if we discover the missing pieces of the skull someday, well, we will have the evolution of our vision of Carcharodontosaurus in our hands.

[Halichoeres]

@Bowhead Whale I generally agree that it's at least sometimes worth making figures of species that are not known from good remains, although I think there are not likely to be changes in our conception of dinosaurs as profound as what we saw from the 19th century to today. In general, my order of priority is:

1. Species that have never been made and whose anatomy is well known.
2. Species that have been made poorly or a long time ago with less information, whose anatomy is now well known.
3. Species that have never been made and whose anatomy is poorly known.
4. Species that have been made poorly or a long time ago with less information, whose anatomy is poorly known.
.
,
,
1,000,000. Species that have lots of good figures already.

Pertinent to this discussion, I met up with a friend today who is one of the authors on a forthcoming manuscript describing a new genus of carcharodontosaurid, and he agreed with me that apart from occasional oddities of the neural spines, all carcharodontosaurs look pretty much the same. I have to say I felt vindicated.

[triceratops83]

Hey Halichoeres, when you have visitors looking over your collection, what draws their attention most - are they annoyingly preoccupied chiefly in the Theropods, or do they take a more curious interest in something else?

[Halichoeres]

@triceratops83 Well, on this thread I notice that posts with theropods generate a lot more discussion. I guess this might be partly because there are more candidates for 'best figure' for theropod genera than for, well, anything else, so people will debate my choices and sometimes get me to reconsider them. But in real life, visitors to my home tend to notice the fish. This is one of the first things you see when you walk in:

Spoiler

[close]

I also have some pretty large and arresting sauropods. Some of my friends and acquaintances are paleontologists or biologists, and they will naturally notice their own study organisms. I remember a guy who studies Silurian stratigraphy being just enthralled by my trilobites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now, tracheophytes of the (mostly) Jurassic! All of these are part of the "prehistorical plants" set by Berliner Zinnfiguren, a subset of the flora included in their "dinosaur fight" set. Altogether, the "prehistorical plants" set includes 4×Matonidium, 3×Cycadeoidea/Nilssonia/Onychiopsis, 2×conifer, and 1×Ginkgo. It doesn't include the Williamsonia trees, but that's okay because those have very retro little pterosaurs attached to them. The plants aren't 100% accurate, but they hold up a lot better than the dinosaurs. Like most of Berliner's figures, they're nominally 30mm (~1:60) scale, like old war miniatures. The dinosaurs might actually be around that scale, but the plants are either much larger or much smaller, maybe to create the illusion of perspective when creating a diorama with them. Or maybe just to make them fit in a reasonably sized box--a mature tree at 1:60 is pretty large, after all.



Matonidium
Scale: 1:20
Lower Jurassic - "middle" Cretaceous
Of all the plants in this set, this one probably is worst-served by being rendered in flat metal. The actual plant had a slender stem, and then palmate fronds growing in a plane roughly perpendicular to the stem, making a nice little umbrella-like form. You don't really get that impression from looking at these; I think a Kaiyodo or Ikimon figure with separate stem and frond would be the ideal format for an organism with this growth form. This is part of the Matoniaceae, a mostly extinct fern clade, although some relatives persist on a few islands like Borneo and New Guinea.


Left:
Nilssonia
Scale: 1:40 - 1:65, but see below
Upper Permian - Upper Cretaceous
A form genus of leaves belonging to cycads or cycad-like plants.

Middle:
Onychiopsis
Scale: 1:10
Upper Jurassic - "middle" Cretaceous
A delicate Mesozoic fern. Like all true ferns, part of the clade Polypodiopsida, one of my favorites to say aloud, with the cadence of "olly olly oxen free!"

Right:
Cycadeoidea
Scale: 1:25
Upper Triassic - "middle" Cretaceous
A bennettitalean, and perhaps the extinct plant most frequently made into a model.


In case there were any doubt about identities, the name of each genus is inscribed on the upper surface of the base, along with the name "Scholtz," perhaps the engraver? If I had the right tools these three could be separated, but they aren't on a sprue that would make it easy. So I'll probably keep them together as a unit. They're made at slightly different scales, but can kind of work together at around 1:10 scale if we regard the Cycadeoidea as a smaller specimen, and the Nilssonia as a seedling. That actually works for the Nilssonia, because a mature specimen would have had a woody trunk like any other self-respecting cycad. The density of leaves is a little bit much for a seedling, but hey, beggars can't be choosers when it comes to prehistoric plants. Except for Cycadeoidea, which has somehow been made by at least four companies over the years!


So this plant assemblage could plausibly exist in the Late Jurassic or the Early Cretaceous, a versatile bunch temporally (although I couldn't begin to tell you their geographic distributions across that interval). At some point I'll try to get these painted and incorporate them into my ~1:10 display.



Ginkgo
Scale: 1:80 - 1:200
Upper Triassic - present
This is substantially larger than the one from the Schmalkalder set, so works better for my purposes.


The ginkgo, but not the others, is also available as a pre-painted model, so I sprang for it. My paint job surely won't look this nice.


I'm beginning to assemble the rudiments of a Mesozoic forest. I'm so glad Berliner and Schmalkalder are still making these, they've been a huge boon to my plant collection. My hunt for the Brumm flat metal plants continues!

[triceratops83]

So a healthy mix of interest then. The only comment people make when they see my collection is "Oh cool... dinosaurs."

I'm loving all the plants you're accumulating. It must be at this point one of the most extensive collections on the forum. I'm really hoping for an Araucaria and some tree ferns from Collecta next year.

[SBell]

So a healthy mix of interest then. The only comment people make when they see my collection is "Oh cool... dinosaurs."

I'm loving all the plants you're accumulating. It must be at this point one of the most extensive collections on the forum. I'm really hoping for an Araucaria and some tree ferns from Collecta next year.

The only comment I've ever gotten--because it's the only person I've invited to my house--was "you've got a problem"

[Faelrin]

@Halichoeres One that's an amazing fish display. Love the bases too. Two, I appreciate seeing more of these little(?) plant metal things. Lots of interesting flora I'm getting introduced to for the first time. Three, I may have asked this before, but who made that adorable Psittacosaurus family? I had no idea there were so many figures for Cycadeoidea out there though. I wonder why?