CollectA: New for 2023

[JimoAi]

But why the shastasaurus is SO SMALL?? I don't much mind if there is a difference in size between the figures of edmontosaurus and parasaurolophus, for example ...

... but why make the stegouros and protoceratops, one of the smallest, the size of the triceratops or even larger??!!

... and why make one of the hugest marine reptiles that SMALL??? At this path, they will make a shonisaurus the size of the ammonites ...

Yes I'm disappointed too, they don't have to make it 1/35 if it makes it way too big, but at least make it bigger than... what he is supposed to be bigger...

It actually DOES fit in that scale if it represents the type species S. pacificus, which is smaller than other species, which may or may not actually belong to Shastasaurus.

To be fair I'm displaying mine as cymbolspondylus

[suspsy]

I don't mind the Shastasaurus' size. It scales pretty well with CollectA's other two ichthyosaurs. Also, ichthyosaurs just aren't as charismatic as mosasaurs and plesiosaurs, so perhaps there was a concern that a Deluxe-sized version wouldn't sell well enough.

Besides, it's not like we haven't already seen plenty of gargantuan prehistoric animals rendered at a small scale. Look at the Safari Patagotitan.

[bmathison1972]

Everyone is talking about Shastasaurus' size; I am surprised how small the Hadrosaurus is!

[Dusty Wren]

Everyone is talking about Shastasaurus' size; I am surprised how small the Hadrosaurus is!

I sort of expected that, considering how small the Kamuysaurus is. It's a big change from last year's Edmontosaurus, though.

[TheCambrianCrusader]

I wonder how big the Anomalocaris is gonna be

[suspsy]

I wonder how big the Anomalocaris is gonna be

It's a little over 13 cm long.

[Loon]

Anyone know which species the Mosasaurus and Shastasaurus represent? I'm guessing hoffmanii and pacificus, but I've never been good at this kind of thing.

[suspsy]

It's supposed to be Shastasaurus sikanniensis, but there are suspicions that it could be an entirely new genus altogether.

The Mosasaurus is hoffmanni.

[bmathison1972]

It's supposed to be Shastasaurus sikanniensis, but there are suspicions that it could be an entirely new genus altogether.

The Mosasaurus is hoffmanni.

I am not questioning this statement, but curious of the claim the Shastasaurus represents S. sikanniensis. The initial official release by CollectA made no indication of species. I can't access CollectA's website from my job (but I'll check when I get home tonight). At gross examination, S. pacificus seems to make more sense based on the length of the rostrum.

[Sim]

If I'm remembering right, according to Mark Witton, sikanniensis should be a species of Shonisaurus.  And that's what the latest paper on it suggests.

[bmathison1972]

It's supposed to be Shastasaurus sikanniensis, but there are suspicions that it could be an entirely new genus altogether.

The Mosasaurus is hoffmanni.

I am not questioning this statement, but curious of the claim the Shastasaurus represents S. sikanniensis. The initial official release by CollectA made no indication of species. I can't access CollectA's website from my job (but I'll check when I get home tonight). At gross examination, S. pacificus seems to make more sense based on the length of the rostrum.

I am home now, and CollectA's website does not indicate a species, nor does their Facebook page, Dan's Dinosaurs, or Minizoo.

[suspsy]

Ah, but Shastasaurus sikanniensis is specifically mentioned in the introduction of CollectA's physical catalogue, a copy of which was mailed to me along with the 2023 toys.

That's good enough for me.

[bmathison1972]

Ah, but Shastasaurus sikanniensis is specifically mentioned in the introduction of CollectA's physical catalogue, a copy of which was mailed to me along with the 2023 toys.

That's good enough for me.

Thanks. I checked and the catalogue is online. It reads: 'Joining the dinosaurs in this range will be a replica of Shastasaurus, a primitive ichthyosaur from the Late Triassic. Several species have been described, including Shastasaurus sikanniensis, which, with an estimated length of over 20 meters is one of the largest ichthyosaurs known to science'

I read this as a 'fun fact' rather than a declaration that it is what the figure was intended to be.

I will database mine as S. pacificus, given the taxonomic uncertanties of S. sikanniensis.

[suspsy]

I'm not at all convinced it was intended to be S. pacificus. For starters, it doesn't strongly resemble the few restorations I've been able to find on Google. This one, for instance, has a much smaller head than the toy.



Moreover, S. pacificus isn't a particularly large or exciting ichthyosaur. Seems odd that CollectA would have chosen to make it over say, Cymbospondylus or Shonisaurus. I really do think it's supposed to be sikanniensis.

[Prehistory Resurrection]

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

To be fair I'm displaying mine as cymbolspondylus

Moreover, S. pacificus isn't a particularly large or exciting ichthyosaur. Seems odd that CollectA would have chosen to make it over say, Cymbospondylus or Shonisaurus. I really do think it's supposed to be sikanniensis.

I do like the idea of using it as Cymbospondylus as well!

[dragon53]

[Fenestra]

Stegouros looks great.
I think the paint jobs on all the 2023 figures until now are done perfectly.
CollectA is upping their game.

[Lynx]

None of the releases stand out to me, just not my thing. The hadrosaurs feel far too similar to previous releases for me to really care.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

They are nice, but I can't find one I'm really excited in adding to my collection this year, I had the same issue last year as well.