The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Faelrin]

@SBell Yes there was. That's why I think a new accurate one would be great.



And I also forgot to mention earlier, that the other mass produced option I'm aware of, or in other words Rebor's corpse, is essentially incomplete/headless if one hasn't acquired their Acrocanthosaurus as well, which is now out of stock everywhere as far as I've found. The Tenontosaurus corpse is still around in some places, and recently just became available on Happy Hen Toys.

[Concavenator]

@Halichoeres Thank you for the information and the measurements, very helpful as always.

What you say about tyrannosaurid digits and titanosaur osteoderms makes sense, I was just thinking of the possibility of all the taxa from their respective clades (Tyrannosauridae and Titanosauria, in this case) to possess those traits I mentioned by phylogenetic bracketing, but didn't consider the interspecific variation.

When it comes to the PNSO Acro, a shame about the slightly big head, but good to know the tail might be alright. I don't think this is a deal breaker (yes, the Corythosaurus' case is more noticeable, and the fact that its limbs are too thin doesn't help, either).
On to GR Toys, just by seeing their Carcharodontosaurus and Dicraeosaurus I really thought they were going to be one of the best companies around! These latest releases almost look like they're made by a different company, I'd say.

I'm also interested in a good Tenontosaurus. Maybe there will soon be an All Yesterdays figure of it?

[Leyster]

@Halichoeres @Concavenator : femur lenght in Currie & Carpenter is probably too big. If you scale this element from Harris (1998), which describes the only Acrocanthosaurus specimen with a complete femur, you get something like 120 cm (same lenght you see in mounts and reported in the supplementary files of Benson et al. 2014). Same thing for the skull, both Currie & Carpenter (2000) and Eddy & Clarke (2011) report a lenght of 129 cm (dunno why is 123 in the table of Currie & Clarke, it might be a typo since Eddy & Clarke also say 129). So the skull/femur ratio is more like 105-110%, as in the PNSO model.

[Halichoeres]

@Faelrin @SBell I'm certainly aware of both CollectA's and Rebor's Tenontosaurus, and I own CollectA's version. I should have included an adjective there, like maybe "good." CollectA's is pretty lackluster, and Rebor's packaging the head of theirs separately is so cynical that I refuse on principle to try to get it. I'm aware of DinoToyCollector's digital version too, but I just don't have the wherewithal to chase down all the 3d prints of dinosaurs available so I'm leaving that door closed except for fish. Since CollectA's Tenontosaurus was released, there have been 7 Acrocanthosaurus toys, not counting skeletons or repaints (i.e., Battat's or Papo's second version). Granted, not all have been good, but the imbalance of effort is really annoying. When I actually sit and look at numbers like that, I sometimes want to swear off buying theropods altogether, because every time I buy one I contribute to that imbalance--after all, I have bought three Acros in the time since the last time I bought a Tenontosaurus.

@Halichoeres @Concavenator : femur lenght in Currie & Carpenter is probably too big. If you scale this element from Harris (1998), which describes the only Acrocanthosaurus specimen with a complete femur, you get something like 120 cm (same lenght you see in mounts and reported in the supplementary files of Benson et al. 2014). Same thing for the skull, both Currie & Carpenter (2000) and Eddy & Clarke (2011) report a lenght of 129 cm (dunno why is 123 in the table of Currie & Clarke, it might be a typo since Eddy & Clarke also say 129). So the skull/femur ratio is more like 105-110%, as in the PNSO model.

Good to know, thanks! I will return to trying not to think about theropods then.

When it comes to the PNSO Acro, a shame about the slightly big head, but good to know the tail might be alright. I don't think this is a deal breaker (yes, the Corythosaurus' case is more noticeable, and the fact that its limbs are too thin doesn't help, either).
On to GR Toys, just by seeing their Carcharodontosaurus and Dicraeosaurus I really thought they were going to be one of the best companies around! These latest releases almost look like they're made by a different company, I'd say.

I'm also interested in a good Tenontosaurus. Maybe there will soon be an All Yesterdays figure of it?

Honestly, I hope there are no more Acros in the near future, I think we're good on that front. As for GR Toys, their Dicraeosaurus did have warning signs (such as the feet), but I overlooked them because it had been nearly forty years since somebody had made that genus.

An All Yesterdays Tenontosaurus would be great; I have no idea what to expect of that line! The prototype sculpt of the Therizinosaurus looked pretty cool, though.

I'd been slacking over the last few updates on updating the reference list on page 1, but it should now reflect all recent changes.

[Faelrin]

Thanks for the updates to the op. Much appreciated.

I was scrolling through the list of figures when this caught my eye:

Eucladoceros (Kabaya, sk)

I had no idea there was a figure of this animal out there. One of my favorites that I've longed for a figure of. I tried doing a search but nothing came up unfortunately. Perhaps I should also check the unique species reference thread.

Something also came to mind. Would any of the recent Eikoh and Kaiyodo figures be fit for the list (as far as Cenozoic animals go, mostly)?

Eikoh has Arsinoitherium (I believe Safari's is probably better, but has been retired for quite some time), Dinornis, Gigantopithecus, Meiolania (edit: I think Kaiyodo's is still good, but another option doesn't hurt, especially with the former retired), Synthetoceras. Kaiyodo has Hydrodamalis (Stellar's Sea Cow), Ornithomimus, Platybelodon (Eikoh did too, but I think Kaiyodo's has the better presentation), Thylacosmilus, and Urile (Spectacled cormorant). Takara Tomy also did a Dinornis figure this year, but I think Eikoh's is better.

[SBell]

Thanks for the updates to the op. Much appreciated.

I was scrolling through the list of figures when this caught my eye:

Eucladoceros (Kabaya, sk)

I had no idea there was a figure of this animal out there. One of my favorites that I've longed for a figure of. I tried doing a search but nothing came up unfortunately. Perhaps I should also check the unique species reference thread.

The SK indicates that it's a skull or maybe skeleton. So not really a figure of the animal

[Faelrin]

@SBell Oh thanks for that info. A shame. Hopefully there will be a proper figure of it some day.

[BlueKrono]

Oh dear... I hate to say it, but it looks like someone turned out the lights. I think it's more than just the black background; those pictures are really quite dark.

[Halichoeres]

@Faelrin the only Eucladoceros toy I know of is from Kabaya's Hone Hone Zaurus line (a sort of cartoony dinosaur-themed building toy): https://www.dinotoymuseum.com/rm13/rm12606.html
So it's not exactly an elegant representation. But it is technically a toy, so I included it for the sake of completeness. They've made a few other odddballs, like Eotitanosuchus and Estemmenosuchus.

The Eikoh figures are in people's hands now, aren't they? In most cases there are already figures I think are nicer, but I'd say they win for Synthetoceras and Dinornis, for example. I'll go through them and update, thanks for the reminder. Same for the Kaiyodo Thylacosmilus, although I don't plan to add Urile or Hydrodamalis because they went extinct after 1500 CE.

Oh dear... I hate to say it, but it looks like someone turned out the lights. I think it's more than just the black background; those pictures are really quite dark.

Hmm, they look okay on my desktop monitor, but on a phone I could see them showing up pretty dark. I might have overcompensated for the dark background by dialing down the exposure too much. Thanks for the note.

[Leyster]

Good to know, thanks! I will return to trying not to think about theropods then.

Glad to help not thinking about theropods 

[ceratopsian]

Oh dear... I hate to say it, but it looks like someone turned out the lights. I think it's more than just the black background; those pictures are really quite dark.

Hmm, they look okay on my desktop monitor, but on a phone I could see them showing up pretty dark. I might have overcompensated for the dark background by dialing down the exposure too much. Thanks for the note.

In my experience, we should never underestimate the visual difference between viewing on a desktop monitor and a phone.  I often find that what looks quite jewel-like and pleasing on my monitor looks very dark and dull on a phone.  (I like black backgrounds, and every time the discrepancy surprises me.)

[Faelrin]

Thanks for that information about that figure. At least someone either went out of their way to learn about it or remembered it existed, even if the product is a chibi skeleton. Not one I'd typically add to my collection, but I appreciate its existence nonetheless.

I did forget you excluded anything that went extinct after 1500 CE. Probably much easier to manage considering how many of those would be attributed to Yowie, if not some others here and there. I do something similar for my collection with some exceptions (Thylacine, and that Kaiyodo sea cow, and some extant fauna, such as stuff that co-existed with Pleistocene megafauna, or deep sea animals like Coelacanth, Nautilus, etc). I usually draw the line for anything that went extinct after Pleistocene megafauna did though.

[Halichoeres]

Arthropods of the Silurian (and Devonian)! All of these are from the Oumcraft Life... game, designed and painted by Oammararak, and released in painted versions earlier this year.


Arctinurus
Scale: 1:20
Late Silurian
A pancake-sized trilobite, which makes me want to make trilobite-shaped pancakes. Maybe I'm just hungry. Anyway, this relatively large animal has been found mostly in Upstate New York, and I'm pretty sure I've seen fossils of it at the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca. Like other large marine animals, it was afflicted with hitchhikers, and fossils frequently have shell-forming worms, bryozoans, and even brachiopods attached on both the top and bottom. According to this study, that implies two things: it probably didn't molt frequently as an adult, and it probably didn't burrow or hang out in sediment while alive. Very cool what you can tell from a few fossils.

edit: I remembered right! Here's a photo from my visit:



Being chased by the state fossil of New York.


Ainiktozoon
Scale: 1:12
Late Silurian
This rather chunky fellow was originally described as a possible chordate, but some better-preserved specimens with some organic content suggest it was instead an arthropod with a giant carapace. There was a pair of compound eyes at the front. This figure seems to show a single one, like a motorcycle headlight, but to be fair they were pretty closely spaced.


All the other Silurian animals I have at a similar scale are also from Oumcraft, which probably isn't super useful to readers of this thread as a size reference, so here's the much later Ichthyostega by Kaiyodo.


Kalbarria
Scale: 1:5
Early Silurian
One of a group of very generic arthropods that might have given rise to the mandibulates (insects and other crustaceans, millipedes and centipedes, and others). Unusually, it was found in freshwater deposits in Australia, although most of its relatives were marine. Some of its relatives are a good match for some Paleozoic trace fossils, so this might have also been one of the first animals to crawl out of the water.


Crotalocephalus
Scale: 1:6
Early to Late Devonian
This is actually a Devonian animal, but was included in the Silurian section of the game, presumably for balance. After all, the Silurian was very short, and anyway the distinction between late Silurian and early Devonian faunas is very fuzzy. This trilobite's name means "castanet-head;" herp enthusiasts might recognize the first half as the genus name for most rattlesnakes. I doubt it rattled, but the segmented ornamentation does recall a rattlesnake tail.


Again, nothing Silurian from other companies at this scale, so the Yowie Groenlandaspis (Late Devonian) is pressed into service as size reference once more.

[Faelrin]

I really like the colors O @Oammararak has given these particular critters. Pretty nice seeing how they size up with the already pretty small Kaiyodo figures.

[Shonisaurus]

The Yowie Groenlandaspis is extremely attractive. It is the most interesting figure that you show in your photographs, the others are also extremely curious. Thanks for sharing.

[Halichoeres]

Thank you both! I'm continually amazed at the detail in these tiny figures.

I've updated the OP with these new additions, and I updated my last post with a photo I took of an Arctinurus fossil!

[Concavenator]

These figures by Oammararak somehow remind me of the BotM clade-based lines and how much they can boom the diversity of taxa in figure form of a particular group, which is very welcome for groups as overlooked as prehistoric invertebrates.

[Halichoeres]

These figures by Oammararak somehow remind me of the BotM clade-based lines and how much they can boom the diversity of taxa in figure form of a particular group, which is very welcome for groups as overlooked as prehistoric invertebrates.

Yeah, first to make an alvarezsaurid! Dromaeosaurs had pretty spotty coverage before, too. I do still kind of wish the ceratopsian series had included a few more of the basal taxa, but hey, maybe someday.

And now, echinoderms of the Ordovician! These are all from the Life... game by Oammararak, and mostly inspired by the Tumblr blog "Palaeopedia."


Balacrinus
Scale: 1:6
Late Ordovician
Another attractive crinoid from the Oumcraft line. It makes a person want to have a whole field of them, but I don't really have room for that. The only note I have on this one is that it has too few arms. It has six, while Balacrinus had ten (most echinoderms are pentamerous).


With Schmalkalder's weird little flat trilobite (Illaenus).


Enoploura
Scale: 1:2 - 1:3
Middle - Late Ordovician
The same picture from a couple of weeks ago, but this time attached to the correct genus name. It still looks like a placoderm, but the shell is calcium carbonate (rather than calcium phosphate as in a placoderm), and it has the characteristic madreporite and ossicles of an echinoderm, just in a fantastically bizarre arrangement.


Cothurnocystis
Scale: 1:2 - 1:3
Early - Late Ordovician
It's not absolutely certain that Cothurnocystis was an echinoderm, but there are few other animal groups that give the finger to symmetry as emphatically as this. It looks like the world's worst meat cleaver. I guess Francis Bather thought it looked like a boot, because he named it "boot-bladder."


Isorophus
Scale: 1:2 - 1:3
Middle - Late Ordovician
One of the edrioasteroids, a group of Paleozoic echinoderms with offset pentaradial symmetry (except for the madreporite). They kind of look like a skinny sea star relaxing on a beanbag chair (again, except for the madreporite).


By happenstance, all these Ordovician weirdoes are to the same scale.

[Faelrin]

Okay now that I finally have mine in hand, I am absolutely blown away with how she managed to paint all these so well. I mean I was impressed before, don't get me wrong, but these are smaller still then what I had initially thought! Love the colors on some of these as well, especially the purple Balacrinus.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Never seen so many different extinct echinoderms in one place before. The game of life must be (in numbers if not space of course) be making a decent percentage of your collection now?