Leyster's Collection (updated 29/03/24)

[Leyster]

@Concavenator if I recall correctly, Wild Past's Majungasaurus was sculpted by forum member @spinosaurus1 , which directly based it on Franoys skeletal. But I might be wrong. It looks like that skeletal, tho.

@Halichoeres it's one of the rare cases when I prefer a sightly less accurate figure due to its artistic value, but you're right, revising Sinosauropteryx would be great.

Also, thank you both for reminding me I've got a thread I'm supposed to update...

Binomial name: Helicoprion sp. Karpinsky, 1899. Traits to distinguish the various species are in the tooth whorl, and in the PNSO model it's too small to expect them to be represented properly.
Classification: Holocephali->Paraselachimorpha->Eugeneodontida->Edestoidea->Helicoprionidae
Time: Artinskian-Roadian (early Permian)
Formation: basically cosmopolitan, mostly Phosphoria Formation (present day USA) for H.davisii and Divya Formation (Russia) for H.bessonowi
Manifacturer and date of release: PNSO, 2021
Sculptor: somebody in the atelier of Zhao Chuang
Scale: up to 1:56 for the IMNH 49382 specimen (largest specimen, with a 56 cm whorl). Helicoprion is one of the rare prehistoric taxa which are often underestimated. Understandable, since it was scarily huge.

I have some issues with this model's anatomy and proportions, but it looks really great and it's good to finally have this taxon in my collection.

[Concavenator]

@Concavenator if I recall correctly, Wild Past's Majungasaurus was sculpted by forum member @spinosaurus1 , which directly based it on Franoys skeletal. But I might be wrong. It looks like that skeletal, tho.

Yes, I believe he sculpted it, and he did a splendid job with the sculpt. Regarding the skeletal, do you mean these?:

https://www.deviantart.com/franoys/art/Majungasaurus-crenatissimus-skeletals-762566962

The proportions look less exaggerated than on Hartman's 2019 version:

https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/majungasaurus

Though I'm curious as to why you said you think the "sausage" look is probably inaccurate. Have you got any references on this? I'm curious about this.

And on to the PNSO Helicoprion, it may have flaws accuracy-wise but at least someone gave a try at this very interesting genus. I didn't previously know what size Helicoprion was, but I would have expected it to be 3 m long at most. Apparently it was between 6-9 m, so quite a bit bigger than I expected!

[Leyster]

@Concavenator the difference in proportions is due to how the elements were scaled: as you can see, the skull and the axial skeleton came from two different individuals, and they were compared using the caudal centra, because the differencies in vertebrae that led to the sausage Majungasaurus are considered ontogenetic. Also note that this restoration is indipendently backed by Grillo and Delcourt (2016), which is the best study on abelisaur proportions around, truly a monumental work (you may have heard of it 'cause it was the study which made Pycnonemosaurus the biggest abelisaur).

About Helicoprion... well, consider that the most reliable skeletal of the biggest specimen results in an animal more than 11 meters long.

[Concavenator]

@Concavenator the difference in proportions is due to how the elements were scaled: as you can see, the skull and the axial skeleton came from two different individuals, and they were compared using the caudal centra, because the differencies in vertebrae that led to the sausage Majungasaurus are considered ontogenetic. Also note that this restoration is indipendently backed by Grillo and Delcourt (2016), which is the best study on abelisaur proportions around, truly a monumental work (you may have heard of it 'cause it was the study which made Pycnonemosaurus the biggest abelisaur).

About Helicoprion... well, consider that the most reliable skeletal of the biggest specimen results in an animal more than 11 meters long.

Thank you for the info. Hadn't thought about the possibility of remains from different growth stages. And I heard about Pycnonemosaurus being the largest abelisaurid, but I didn't know what paper was behind that claim.

And regarding Helicoprion, I'm surprised to see it could have been that large

[Leyster]

@Concavenator shocking, isn't it?

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, I would have made some slightly different choices too, but I think they did a nice job on this one overall and I'm also glad to have it.

[Leyster]

I'm back!

Binomial name: Anhanguera blittersdorffi* Campos & Kellner, 1985
Classification: Pterosauria->Macronychoptera->Novialoidea->Breviquartossa->Pterodactylomorpha->Caelidracones->Pterodactyloidea->Lophocratia->Eupterodactyloidea->Ornithocheiroidea->Pteranodontoidea->Ornithocheiromorpha->Lanceodontia->Anhangueria->Anhangueridae->Anhanguerinae
Time: Albian (Early Cretaceous)
Formation: Romualdo Formation (present day Brazil)
Manifacturer and date of release: Kaiyodo, 2001
Sculptor: Takashi Kinoshita
Scale: 1:25

*not sure if the Kaiyodo size allows to distinguish the two species, so I went with the type one. Might as well be A. piscator (Kellner & Tomida, 2000), tho.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Hello L @Leyster I quite like that Anhanguera myself, though I'm pretending it's 1:30 scale, doing the same with the Safari Beipiaosaurus mini. Nice to have smaller animals as small figures anyway imo.

[Leyster]

@Gothmog the Baryonyx yes, the fact that they offer small animals at small sizes is one of the winning point of Kaiyodos from me, being fascinated since young age by the size charts in dinosaur books.

Binomial name: Struthiomimus altus (Lambe, 1902)
Classification: Dinosauria->Theropoda->Neotheropoda->Averostra->Tetanurae->Coelurosauria->Tyrannoraptora->Maniraptoromorpha->Neocoelurosauria->Maniraptoriformes->Ornithomimosauria->Ornithomimidae
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Oldman Formation (present day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Collecta, 2016
Sculptor: Matt Geiger
Scale: 1:30 for AMNH 5375

Finally an ornithomimosaur in my collection. I still have to find a Deinocheirus which satisfies me.

[SidB]

A good choice, L @Leyster , there are all too few of these and their close allies around. I ended getting several of them for my dioramas. I do think that Carnegie Safari and CollectA were  on the right track when they combined two or more of certain very small dinosaurs on a single base, aesthetically, though maybe they were a hard sell to anyone except collectors.

[Shonisaurus]

Nice photograph of Collecta's struthiomimus with that increase in size in the photo it looks splendid. Hopefully more dinosaurs of the ornithomimid family are made, they are still very little represented, except for companies like Mattel to give an example.

[Leyster]

S @SidB a pity that the only two Collecta sets released were Koreanoceratops and Hypsilophodon, those models were really interesting.

@Shonisaurus I agree, there should be more ornithomimosaurs

Binomial name: Xenacanthus cf. decheni Beyrich, 1848*
Classification: Elasmobranchii->Xenacanthimorpha->Xenacanthidae
Time: Asselian (Early Permian), but as genus it's really long lived, from Devonian (or Carboniferous?) to Triassic
Formation: Prosecne Formation, but as genus more or less cosmopolitan
Manifacturer and date of release: Kaiyodo, 2003
Sculptor: Eiichiro Matsumoto
Scale: 1:13 fide @Halichoeres , since measurements proved to be hard to find

*unsure about the species, it's based on some illustrations I found

[Concavenator]

That Struthiomimus is afaik the only ornithomimid figure available from major companies (except for the upcoming Kaiyodo Ornithomimus). Ornithomimosaurs are incredibly overlooked, particularly ornithomimids.

And I agree, I still have to see a definitive Deinocheirus from anyone.

[Leyster]

@Concavenator I mean, I like the Safari, but I'm afraid it's smaller than 1:40

Meanwhile, I just discovered that there are Xenacanthus remains from Chinle Formation (even if I'm unsure about the level), which means this comparison is not impossible:

[Leyster]

Today is my birthday, and this year I treated myself with a special gift, thanks to @brettnj . Never tought I'd own one of those, still awesome after almost 30 years.

Binomial name: Styracosaurus albertensis Lambe 1913
Classification: Dinosauria->Ornithischia->Genasauria->Neornithischia->Marginocephalia->Ceratopsia->Neoceratopsia->Coronosauria->Ceratopsoidea->Ceratopsidae->Centrosaurinae
Time: Campanian (Late Cretaceous)
Formation: Upper Dinosaur Park Formation (present day Canada)
Manifacturer and date of release: Battat, 1994
Sculptor: Greg Wenzel
Scale: 1:31 based on AMNH 5372, on which the model is based on.

[SidB]

Cool, L @Leyster . I've picked up three of these little gems over the years. One oddity that I've noticed is that one has correctly three painted nails (only) on the forelimbs, the other two, five. I wonder if the former is actually a later factory release towards the end of its production run?

[Shonisaurus]

Thanks for sharing this photo I mistakenly thought that great styracosaurus was a sculpture by Dan Lorusso and in fact it's sculptor is Greg Wenzel. Magnificent styracosaurus is perhaps as good as its PNSO counterpart or that of other brands, an aspect that I have already pointed out in other threads. It's good to visit your thread always learn new things.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for the shoutout! The 1:13 figure is based on some of the larger articulated skeletons, but it was a long-lived genus known mostly from spines and teeth. Some specimens would make the Kaiyodo Xenacanthus more like 1:15, others would make it more like 1:8 or 1:10. It's a versatile figure, as your Coelophysis photo demonstrates.

I wish Kaiyodo would make more pterosaurs like that Anhanguera. It's been at least 15 years since they made any genus other than Pteranodon or Quetzalcoatlus. A Capsule Q pterosaur set would really hit the spot. As for the species, since A. piscator was published in 2000 and the figure was made in 2001, it's probably based on blittersdorffi. Their Axelrodichthys also predates the shift of the huge A. lavocati from Mawsonia into the genus Axelrodichthys, so can only represent A. araripensis!

[Leyster]

Thanks for the shoutout! The 1:13 figure is based on some of the larger articulated skeletons, but it was a long-lived genus known mostly from spines and teeth. Some specimens would make the Kaiyodo Xenacanthus more like 1:15, others would make it more like 1:8 or 1:10. It's a versatile figure, as your Coelophysis photo demonstrates.

Very interesting read! I also totaly agree about it's versatility, it's crazy to think how you could display the same model (unless there was some serious variation between species I'm unaware of) alongside Dimetrodon or Coelophysis.

I wish Kaiyodo would make more pterosaurs like that Anhanguera. It's been at least 15 years since they made any genus other than Pteranodon or Quetzalcoatlus. A Capsule Q pterosaur set would really hit the spot. As for the species, since A. piscator was published in 2000 and the figure was made in 2001, it's probably based on blittersdorffi. Their Axelrodichthys also predates the shift of the huge A. lavocati from Mawsonia into the genus Axelrodichthys, so can only represent A. araripensis!

Damn, you're totally right, I hadn't thought checking the release date. I'll edit the post, then. Axelrodichthys is another Kaiyodo I'm looking forward to acquire, so thanks in advance for the info!


Binomial name: Cladoselache fyleri (Newberry, 1889)
Classification: Holocephali->Symmoriiformes->Cladoselachidae
Time: Famennian (late Devonian)
Formation: Cleveland Shale (present-day USA)
Manifacturer and date of release: Kaiyodo, 2001
Sculptor: Eiichiro Matsumoto
Scale: up to 1:28 for a largeish specimen, most were smaller tho.


So pretty! I kinda wanted to photograph it and Xenacanthus next to the Requins books by Beneteau and Cuny, which kindled my interest in acquiring these figures, but I quickly realized that it's a big book that totally dwarfs the two Kaiyodos.

[Halichoeres]

Huh! I don't have that book, maybe I should look into it.

I do have that Cladoselache, so glad for the existence of the Dinotales line.