Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Concavenator]

R @Remko and @suspsy :

Check this post and also this one out to see what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I've been well aware of both of those posts, what with having been following Scott Hartman's blog. The chimera accusation has never, ever been conclusively demonstrated.

Indeed, but even if it's not demonstrated, that doubt isn't there with other specimens of other species. Even considering the neotype as a single individual, this is what we have of it anyways:



(By SpinoInWonderland)

We for a fact don't know the shape of the sail, there is 0 evidence supporting the M shape everyone depicts it with. If you read Hartman's posts you know this already.

[Sim]

The shape of the sail on Spinosaurus's back being unknown does leave its appearance uncertain.  But there's also the fact that among "Spinosaurus" remains there are two different skull types, one gracile and the other (which is the more often used one) robust.  It's not clear if the difference between them is due to age or species and if it's due to species which belongs to Spinosaurus.  The idea that Sigilmassasaurus is a synonym of Spinosaurus is not well-supported at all and which remains could belong to it and which to Spinosaurus is mostly unknown.  So to me Spinosaurus's appearance is still mostly unknown.

As for colourations of figures, the 2022 Safari Albertosaurus and Cryolophosaurus still have that yellow that has been used so much on Safari figures and which looks forced rather than natural as a result of how often it's been used, to me.

[Concavenator]

I would not call Spinosaurus fragmentary anymore either. There's more fossil material for it than there is for Brachiosaurus.

"13 days after this post, a new paper proposing a new reconstruction of Spinosaurus came out, whereas Brachiosaurus remained the same..."

[Faelrin]

Honestly I don't think Brachiosaurus altithorax has much more material over Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Both are incomplete, and missing key material that would give them a more complete picture of their body shape, but I do think as of this new paper, Spinosaurus might have the slight edge, not that this is a race or anything.

Here's the skeletal over on wikipedia showing the material for Brachiosaurus:



Here's the newest reconstruction of Spinosaurus (and Suchomimus with it) from the most recent paper on them:

[suspsy]

I would not call Spinosaurus fragmentary anymore either. There's more fossil material for it than there is for Brachiosaurus.

"13 days after this post, a new paper proposing a new reconstruction of Spinosaurus came out, whereas Brachiosaurus remained the same..."

New reconstruction? The main point of the Sereno/Henderson paper is that Spinosaurus wasn't an aquatic hunter. The arms and some of the other body parts have been slightly resized, but overall, it's not a radical alteration at all. Most people wouldn't notice those changes at all unless they were pointed out. And the rounded sail shape is just as speculative as the M-shape. On that note, I don't know why you're harping on that when I never made a case for the M-shape. I actually like the rounded shape better.

[Concavenator]

@Faelrin yep, I know Brachiosaurus doesn't have what one would call good remains either, my post was slightly ironic.

When it comes to Spinosaurus, if you look at that skeletal, one would initially think it has decent remains, actually, I posted this early this year:

Spoiler

I thought Spinosaurus is more fragmentary than it really is, but then I looked for skeletals and found this one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dinosaurs/comments/m9cahe/spinosaurus_skeletal_by_miyess/

I think that, at this point, it's known from fairly adequate remains, even if some were destroyed it's not like those parts were never found. In any case, Spinosaurus no longer has a fragmentary status, and regardless of Ibrahim saying "it will have an exciting 2022", I highly doubt the general picture of the creature will change wildly. Looking at the skeletal, the most obvious part that's missing are the forelimbs, but I would be surprised if those were very different from any other spinosaurids. Perhaps they have found those, and while it would still be a relevant finding, it would clearly not have the same level of impact the 2014 and 2020 discoveries had. My best bet is they've found a complete sail/ hump so finally its shape is known. In fact, if this upcoming discovery affects its anatomy, I can't imagine it being anything different than the sail shape. Perhaps the shape will be helpful in understanding its function.

[close]

But then I made some research and found out about Hartman's posts I have already mentioned several times. Won't be mentioning that again, but yeah, I think his concerns are well-grounded. One thing's for sure, he knows much more than I do. The previous post by @Sim explains some of those points. So I think it just depends on if you don't agree with the conclusions by Hartman, or if you do agree with them, then you'd think the inference is safe enough in order to claim it has adequate remains. In my case I have doubts, and when you have doubts about a species' look then it usually means we don't have a solid image of it. I wish more remains of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus were found so we can finally have a solid image of it like many other dinosaurs, and while I like it as an animal, at the same time I realize that our current understanding of it is not necessarily accurate.

And onto Brachiosaurus, while it may or may not have better remains than Spinosaurus based on the skeletals you used, the inference from Giraffatitan brancai might be safer than Spinosaurus' as the latter's family's best known members from the fossil record are Suchomimus and Baryonyx which don't belong to the same subfamily. Other than those 2, the rest of members are quite fragmentary, so we don't have a Spinosaurinae known from good remains we can confidently base what isn't known of Spinosaurus on.

@suspsy of course it is a new reconstruction, the skeletal used is different from the one used by Ibrahim et al. (2020) in the paper that announced the tail morphology, with the different sail shape being the most notorious change. As you say, there's no actual evidence supporting one shape or the other, that's because we don't know the real shape. But neither that, nor the fact that the reconstruction itself was not the focus of the paper, stops it from being a new reconstruction.

[suspsy]

You can describe it however you like, but that doesn't change the simple fact that there's really nothing significantly different between Sereno's Spinosaurus and Ibrahim's other than the sail shape. It still has the same skull, same neck, same large arms, same puny hind legs, same fancy tail, same overall body plan.

[Faelrin]

@5aurophaganax Yeah I'm familiar his take on it all. Honestly I think he brings up interesting points, but hard to say which option is better until there's more data either way. I don't lean one way or the other at the moment as a result of it. Though certainly fragmentary, or perhaps even partial, I do think at the very least specimen FSAC-KK 11888 does bring some interesting stuff to the table, regardless if it is Spinosaurus or not, until we get lucky with another specimen someday. The back half of it is pretty situated, minus the spine above the hips, but again, the rest is incomplete, and will be a mystery until more is hopefully recovered someday. It was definitely an interesting animal regardless, and at this point, most modern Spinosaurus figures are whatever this individual animal was (much like how PNSO's Parasaurolophus is specifically based on the holotype specimen of Parasaurolophus walkeri, ROM 768).

You do make a good point about Giraffatitan for Brachiosaurus though. Not something I took into account for my earlier post. I was mostly just going off of them by themselves, but yes that does change things up a bit, in favor for Brachiosaurus.

I'll be honest though the last time I delved into my research project, it did get a bit confusing on what specimens were Spinosaurus aegyptiacus what with the whole potential other species, S. maroccanus, which may or may not be a nomen dubium, or synonym for S. aegyptiacus, never mind the possible mess of Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis and Oxalaia quilombensis which may or may not be synonymous as well. Too much back and forth on these things. Granted I haven't dived deep into the new paper yet as far as what material they are using in their new reconstruction short of the holotype and neotype specimens to see if that changes anything again.

In fact I started working on it again just today after quite the break from it, and honestly I'm still not sure how to approach all of it? Keep them separate or merge them all under S. aegyptiacus?

[Eatmycar]

I don't like PNSO for a few reasons, namely support rods. But I will give them this:

Andrea was a very, very bold and daring sculpt. Did it have its issues? Yes, a few people noted issues with bones and so on, and I'm not going to get into those. However, it was a huge step in a different direction than yet another brown or gray theropod mid-stride with an articulated jaw. Many of the theropods seem interchangeable to me, but Andrea? Nah, that one is very distinct.

I think it's a shame that PNSO won't take more risks in posture/coloration. At least get some stronger material to keep those weak legs up.

[ceratopsian]

PNSO is no worse on the "weak legs" front than other toy companies - indeed in my own personal experience they are far better (assuming I discount a couple of their cheap mini theropods from a few years back).  I have many, many more issues with Safari and CollectA bipeds not standing on arrival, or gradually collapsing down or to the side, than I've ever had with PNSO models.  The only PNSO model I've had with standing issues due to soft plastic is the Corythosaurus.  But PNSO took note of that and have not repeated their mistake with skinny thin legs on a quadruped.  Personally I'd rather have an unobtrusive support rod as a back-up than a figure with no support that never stands at all.  None of my PNSO models with stands has needed that stand to stay upright.

[SidB]

Exactly my experience to a 'T', @ceratopsian .

[Dusty Wren]

Yeah, same here. I've had to remove most of my bipedal Safari figures from my display, since none of them stand anymore. The few that are left are those that can balance on their tails or forelimbs. Meanwhile, all my PNSO bipeds are doing fine.

PVC figures are always going to be susceptible to warping, no matter who makes them. In my experience, PNSO is handling this issue better than most companies.

[Concavenator]

@Faelrin who knows, maybe more Spinosaurus remains are found sooner than expected. After all, in a period of 6 years (2014-2020) there have been 2 discoveries that involved new material for it (or so we think, the taxonomy of North African spinosaurines is rather fuzzy).

And yeah, inference plays a very important role too. It's also why we can safely reconstruct basically any ceratopsid we have a well-preserved skull of, because the postcrania among them is super similar. You could argue that Diabloceratops is more fragmentary than Spinosaurus based on the apparent quantity of remains (going by the rigorous Spino skeletal used in the new paper), but we still have a more solid picture of Diabloceratops than we do of Spinosaurus (even considering all the referred material does belong to it, at the very least we don't know the sail shape).

...

Onto stability, I'll never understand why people criticize PNSO for including those support rods. They are at least including something in order to fix the stability issues, not everyone does that. You may like those rods or not but I don't think we should criticize PNSO for not caring about stability when they are literally trying to prevent those issues by including them.

Pretty much every single bipedal PVC figure will have stability issues at some point, the argument that "some figures always stand" is simply unreal, warping due to temperatures or transport exists and it directly affecfs stability. Naturally companies initially design the figures in a way that would initially stand, what happens afterwards can be affected by so many factors... Knowing that, including something to ensure the stability is definitely the way to go.

[Faelrin]

I also prefer PNSO's approach over say on CollectA's older figures with permanent bases (that were bland), which didn't always work. Some of the figures still warped and sagged. PNSO's approach focuses on providing support for the heaviest part of the figure which help prevent it from sagging over time.

I think only a couple of my Safari Ltd theropods had issues with stability over time. The feathered T. rex right off the bat, and the Deinonychus which had warped feet when it arrived. My Carnotaurus, Citipati, Deinocheirus, Yutyrannus, and I think the most recent Baryonyx had no issues for me. I think the Dilophosaurus used the tail as support so I don't think it fits with the rest. Those are like the only ones I have not counting older releases and Carnegie Collection stuff.

[Lynx]

Some of PNSO's support rods, (such as the yutyrannus) are hard to tell where it is to be precisely placed, and I have no idea if I am doing something wrong, but if I look at the figure funny, it falls over. Only had one safari theropod fall over, the Citipati, and even then it balances better than PNSOs Yutyrannus.

All my carnegie and safari bipeds (I turned the carnegie giga into a biped, it stands very well, actually) have stood the test of time, my oldest being the Safari Baryonyx (yes I only started collecting em in 2021) which has had zero trouble standing since I bought it, and even can handle some shaking.

[Lynx]

Also I must say, I feel Oxalaia is too fragmentary to just go up and turn it into Spinosaurus. Until we have a more complete picture of it, imo it's not invalid just yet.

[Concavenator]

@Lynx According to Ibrahim et al. (2020) Oxalaia quilombensis is a synonym of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Here's the paper: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/bb37aebe-f1bd-3964-adfe-fcbba2824a44/

[Lynx]

@Lynx According to Ibrahim et al. (2020) Oxalaia quilombensis is a synonym of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Here's the paper: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/bb37aebe-f1bd-3964-adfe-fcbba2824a44/

Afaik that paper is still heavily debated. Most sources I'm reading from dub it it's own animal atm.

[SidB]

Some of PNSO's support rods, (such as the yutyrannus) are hard to tell where it is to be precisely placed, and I have no idea if I am doing something wrong, but if I look at the figure funny, it falls over. Only had one safari theropod fall over, the Citipati, and even then it balances better than PNSOs Yutyrannus.

All my carnegie and safari bipeds (I turned the carnegie giga into a biped, it stands very well, actually) have stood the test of time, my oldest being the Safari Baryonyx (yes I only started collecting em in 2021) which has had zero trouble standing since I bought it, and even can handle some shaking.

One thing that I've successfully tried with PNSO is cutting down a support rod and re-rounding the cut edge with a file to get it to support the animal more strategically, so to speak. It had been a bit too long to really work in any position that I could find.

[Lynx]

Durability matters more than accuracy IMO

The PNSO Deinocherius is really nice, but it can't survive a fall from a shelf. This, I would get the CollectA Deinocherius instead.

What's the point of having a nice looking model if it likely won't hold up over time, such as moving, a couple topples, or getting bonked by another figure?

Now I'm sure barely anyone will agree with this, but I prefer Schleich over PNSO.

They're in completely different classes, but the question I ask before I buy a figure is, "Will it stand the test of time?"

PNSO may look 10x nicer and be arguably a better model, but I can't make memories with that. It just sits there as I travel around with Safari LTD, Schleich, and Papo models.

Maybe it's because I am a kid and don't appreciate the beauty of it staring at me from a shelf top, but if I saw a Schleich Spinosaurus and a PNSO Spinosaurus in the store, I would buy the Schleich without hesitation.


(Don't take this as me hating PNSO, I love the brand, but vastly prefer Schleich with little competition)