Which Mesozoic dinosaurs have good figures and which don't, according to Sim

[Concavenator]

S @SidB nope, the problem of the bathtub skull is not it being bigger or smaller than it should be.

Yeah, the problem with the "bathtub skull" is merely the shape.

Excluding the Eofauna Giganotosaurus because of it having the wrong skull shape but leaving the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus and the Battat Dilophosaurus (!!), both with inaccurate skulls, is another proof of subjectivity.

With Dilophosaurus again, the only figure currently available that considers the most recent reconstruction is CollectA's. Since apparently you consider skull shape very important (which is not unreasonable) and is a criterion you used for excluding figures, then I would expect the other Dilophosaurus figures to not be included, especially the old Battat and the Papo (with that impossible pose as well). Also, you mention Haolonggood's not yet released (nor finished) figure but exclude the also not yet released (but finished) Cyberzoic version. But then again, the upcoming Creative Beast Allosaurus are included.

A case could be made for the PNSO and the Carnegie Carnotaurus being excluded too, if scientific accuracy is the main criterion. Neither get the integument right, especially the PNSO one with its oversized scales. Plus, both are too lanky, so that's some proportion-messing there. As of right now, the only "accurate" Carnotaurus figure(s) will the be the ones by Creative Beast.

Also, considering the likes of Eofauna's Giganotosaurus being excluded because of the wrong skull shape (leaving aside the actual efforts in accurately reconstructing the rest of the animal), figures like the Papo Chilesaurus (with its impossible pose) feel totally out of place here. And yeah, Mattel figures too. No disrespect to Mattel figures/fans but it's obvious scientific accuracy is not relevant to them, and so they shouldn't be considered as "approximations", on the basis that they're not serious reconstructions to begin with. Not to mention there's always going to be intrinsic anatomical inaccuracies as a result of articulated figure nature. But in this case, it's still possible to do an outstanding job with accuracy and offer really good representations of animals even as multiarticulated figures, like Creative Beast does. So including Creative Beast in this case is a good decision, including Mattel, not so.

I think changing the name of the thread of the title was a good decision, but as @Flaffy mentioned, not sure it will serve as the go-to refence you probably intended it to be, @Sim . I mean, we appreciate you expressing your opinion (and we know you have knowledge on paleontology), but subjectivity is apparent as several of us have noted. This list would look different depending on who you ask.

[Bread]

What about CollectA's Struthiomimus? Although I agree that this genus and other members of its group need better (& more) figures, I find the CollectA variant serves its purpose for now.

[Sim]

Eofauna confirmed the length of their Giganotosaurus's skull is the same as the length of the accurate, revised skull, yet they used the elongated skull.  As was noted on this forum the Eofauna Giganotosaurus's skull is the elongated skull shrunk to the length of the accurate skull.  Since actual bones are being shrunk compared to the rest of the animal, I feel it's too much divergence for it to be considered a good representation.

The reason the Creative Beast Dilophosaurus wasn't in the list is because I forgot about it, sorry about that, it's in the list now.  Same for the Creative Beast Qianzhousaurus.  I'm not sure the Papo Dilophosaurus's pose is impossible, same for the Papo Chilesaurus.  I think some Mattel figures, like the HC Metriacanthosaurus and the Pachyrhinosaurus, can be good reconstructions...

What about CollectA's Struthiomimus? Although I agree that this genus and other members of its group need better (& more) figures, I find the CollectA variant serves its purpose for now.

CollectA's Struthiomimus represents an unnamed species.  I'm going to add unnamed species to the list next.

[Faelrin]

Eofauna confirmed the length of their Giganotosaurus's skull is the same as the length of the accurate, revised skull, yet they used the elongated skull.

@Sim As far as the revised skull dimensions was that pre Meraxes or post Meraxes paper? The only one I'm aware of based on the dimensions given in the Meraxes paper is the 2023 PNSO Giganotosaurus (edit: maybe Rebor's upcoming one as well). I'm not sure how much different the Meraxes paper estimate is, then the previous one, but it's worth mentioning. I know I posted the measurements they gave for Giganotosaurus skull in the paper in this thread, just in case the paper isn't accessible for any reason.

[Sim]

@Faelrin, it was before the Meraxes paper.  People were already predicting the accurate proportions of Giganotosaurus's skull with relatives like Acrocanthosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus helping.

I've added unnamed species to the list!  I've also updated the original post.

[Eatmycar]

Thoughts:

When it comes to Mattel, I think some of the designs are MUCH better than others when it comes to paleoaccuracy. Let's take the Metriacanthosaurus for instance. The original design for that is based on concept art created for the film by a paleoartist, Julius Csotonyi.

The color palette is different from his original artwork, but I simply don't think it's fair to compare it to something like the average Mattel figure. Just blindly wiping away a whole toy company's product seems quite dismissive. I totally get (and agree with) ignoring any film designs though.

[Sim]

I've added Oviraptorosauria to the list!

[Sim]

After considering it, I've removed from the list the figures that aren't released yet.  I had added them because in the past I was criticised for not including unreleased figures, but thinking about it now it didn't make sense to include them then and it doesn't make sense to include them now.

[Sim]

I've added Dromaeosauridae to the list and added a few more animals to Misc. Theropoda.

[Concavenator]

@Sim You should include Austroraptor, Buitreraptor, Halszkaraptor, Natovenator and Pyroraptor in Dromaeosauridae. They're not eudromaeosaurs, but they're still members of the family Dromaeosauridae (Lee et al., 2022). Also, I noticed you forgot Microraptor.

You could also add Megaraptor to Tyrannosauroidea, according to Naish & Cau 2022 and Novas et al. 2014.

[Sim]

Thanks for your comment!  Microraptor is in the list, you must have missed it.  I've moved Pyroraptor into Dromaeosauridae, but I feel the classification of the unenlagiines, halszkaraptorines and Megaraptor are too uncertain to place them where you said, for alternative placements of those animals see The Theropod Database: https://theropoddatabase.com/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html

[Sim]

I've added Troodontidae to the list!  This is the worst-represented group so far, in my opinion.  It's particularly bad considering how many members known from good remains there are.  I hope this changes soon!

[Chasmosaurus]

David Silvas made a Stenonychosaurus for beast of mesozoic collection.

[Sim]

I've now added the Creative Beast Stenonychosaurus.  I've also added Archaeopterygidae and Basal Avialae to the list!

[Concavenator]

I wouldn't really count the PNSO Anchiornis as a "good" figure, accuracy-wise. The proportions are rather cartoony, something akin to the Velociraptor by Superreal. As a caricature it would work, though. The one that really is a brilliant Anchiornis figure was the one by Takara Tomy, which sadly is very difficult to track.

Another good Archaeopteryx figure is the one by Favorite.

EDIT - Also, I'd say the PNSO Daspletosaurus represents D. wilsoni.

[Sim]

Thanks for reminding me of the Favorite Archaeopteryx, it's on the list now.  I think the PNSO Daspletosaurus is D. torosus, based on its smaller teeth and the depth of the head.

I've added Enantiornithes to the list, there was a lot of them to go through!  Something I'm pleased about is that doing this project is helping me learn about dinosaurs I didn't know about.

[Sim]

I've added basal Euornithes to the list.  This is the worst-represented group so far, there are no good figures for this group.  And it's a theropod group!  I've also added a couple of animals to Misc. Theropoda.  Xiaotingia is very interesting, I've read it only needs a few steps in a phylogenetic analysis to place as a dromaeosaurid.  It could be a Jurassic dromaeosaurid!

[Dinoguy2]

Just caught that you have the PNSO Confusciusornis marked as blue. I don't think it's that great - wrong wing shape/size, inaccurate tail fan, crest not supported by evidence afaik, probably wrong color. The genus is so well known I hope somebody eventually makes a good representation of it.

Edit: Also, as much as I love the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus, I don't think it can be considered accurate by modern standards, especially as it was released before the discovery of the more complete skeleton showing the shape of the skull and the long neck feathers.

[Sim]

You're right about the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus, Dinoguy2, thinking about it now it's as inaccurate as the Carnegie Microraptor.  I've removed it from the list.

On the Confuciusornis Wikipedia page there is a photo of an unusual Confuciusornis specimen that has a crest preserved.  Since other specimens lack it, I wonder if whether a crest was present depends on species.  The specimen with a crest also differs in colouration to other specimens.  What is inaccurate about the PNSO Confuciusornis's tail fan?   Its wings do look to have an incorrect shape, I wonder if it could be possible for a species of Confuciusornis to have that wing shape though?


I've added one more species to Basal Euornithes and with that I've finished Theropoda!

[Dinoguy2]

You're right about the Carnegie Beipiaosaurus, Dinoguy2, thinking about it now it's as inaccurate as the Carnegie Microraptor.  I've removed it from the list.

On the Confuciusornis Wikipedia page there is a photo of an unusual Confuciusornis specimen that has a crest preserved.  Since other specimens lack it, I wonder if whether a crest was present depends on species.  The specimen with a crest also differs in colouration to other specimens.  What is inaccurate about the PNSO Confuciusornis's tail fan?   Its wings do look to have an incorrect shape, I wonder if it could be possible for a species of Confuciusornis to have that wing shape though?


I've added one more species to Basal Euornithes and with that I've finished Theropoda!

I don't know of any Confuciusornis specimens with wings that short and rounded. The longest primaries are over 3x the length of the hand in pretty much every specimen I've seen, but maybe there are some uncommon specimens with something different. This is a reconstruction of the wing which looks very different from the PNSO model. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=5156344_pone.0167284.g006.jpg

As for the crest, the one in that specimen does look legit (many supposed "crests" are just preservation artifacts, this has been claimed for Microraptor and Anchiornis crests) but also looks quite different from what's in the model, more like a triangular long thin point.

With regards to the tail fan, it didn't exist - "The rest of the tail around the pygostyle was covered in short, non-aerodynamic feather tufts similar to the contour feathers of the body, rather than the familiar feather fan of modern bird tails."

All in all, these hardly look like the same species.