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

[Lynx]

Is the head also too small on Paul's skeletal with everything accounted? It seems a lot smaller than the other skeletals mentioned in the various posts above.

[Leyster]

It might be based on a juvenile specimen, Pinacosaurus has a lot of juveniles. But, as I said, since Paul doesn't state his sources, it's kinda hard to say.

[Sim]

Thanks for your thoughts, Concavenator!

I've now added the CollectA Brontosaurus and Safari Shunosaurus.  I've also removed the Safari Nigersaurus, I hadn't noticed how inaccurate its feet are.  I still intend to have it in my collection though!  I've also removed the Papo Dilophosaurus.

- I would remove the PNSO Tuojiangosaurus. I can see why someone might find it appealing, but it has several flaws. Its proportions are outdated (reminiscent of pre-Sophie Stegosaurus reconstructions), you can check Hartman's 2013 skeletal for comparison to see what I mean. The shape of the plates is wrong as well, Tuojiangosaurus has straight dorsal plates, whereas in the PNSO model, those are pointing backwards. On another hand, stegosaurs only had claws on the 2 innermost digits, the PNSO figure has claws on the innermost 3 instead. Of course, it suffers from oversized scales too. In my opinion, I don't think it's fair to leave the CollectA Brontosaurus out but include this PNSO Tuojiangosaurus.

I only found a 2015 Hartman skeletal of Tuojiangosaurus.  In it it seems to have claws on three fingers?  In any case after doing more comparison, the plates of the PNSO Tuojiangosaurus don't look much like those of the real animal, so I've removed it from the list.  I intend to keep the one I have in my collection for now, but I very much want a good Tuojiangosaurus, I'm hoping for one from Haolonggood, Safari or CollectA!  All three have made excellent stegosaurians!

It's not just that no existing figure gets the integument right (again, except the upcoming Creative Beast, but unreleased figures aren't featured on the list), but a lot of Carnotaurus reconstructions depict it with legs that are too long, which happens when said reconstructions are based on Xenotarsosaurus. The Favorite, Carnegie and PNSO Carnotaurus all suffer from this, so I would at least remove those 3 (plus the PNSO one has oversized scales, too). The Safari, CollectA and Haolonggood versions are imperfect, but at least their legs look closer to Aucasaurus', so based on that I can see why they could remain. When it comes to Safari's and CollectA's Carnotaurus, it's understood they didn't get the integument right as its description came later, but in paleontology this can't be avoided, sometimes reconstructions simply turn outdated. Just like the BotM Eotyrannus is now outdated, for example, despite being a beautiful figure (just like the Carnegie Carnotaurus and Amargasaurus, for example).

I've now removed the Favorite, Carnegie and PNSO Carnotaurus.  I must have been too generous when I did Carnotaurus's entry.  I've also removed the Wild Safari Carnotaurus as it has feature scales where Carnotaurus had a cornified cover, absence of which in other figures can be explained as simply being too small to be visible at the scale the figures are in.  But there's no other way to explain it on the Wild Safari figure, in that area it's just wrong.
As a side note, I agree the Carnegie Amargasaurus is beautiful, same with PNSO's adult one.  And same also for the Carnegie Giganotosaurus!  I'm happy to have the PNSO 2023 Giganotosaurus as otherwise I would be wanting the Carnegie version.  But for Amargasaurus there isn't an accurate version yet.

- I don't agree with some of the color codes. For instance, you seemingly consider Olorotitan doesn't have good remains. I know its head crest wasn't preserved intactly, but based on the rigorous skeletals I've seen (like olofmoleman's or GetAwayTrike's), to me it looks fairly obvious that its head crest's shape was the one we believe it had. Otherwise, the rest of it is fairly complete. It's also noteworthy due to its very long neck. If you still consider it doesn't have good remains, fine then, but in that case, Dilophosaurus and Spinosaurus should be changed to green, too. We don't know the actual shape of Dilophosaurus' crests either, nor do we know the sail shape of Spinosaurus. In the case of the latter, add all the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of the neotype being a chimera, the unclear taxonomy of African spinosaurids, and so on. So just for the list to be consistent, I think either Olorotitan should be changed to blue, or Dilophosaurus and Spinosaurus changed to green. Particularly I don't agree with Spinosaurus having good remains.

I looked at the Olorotitan skull fossil a long time ago now, but I seem to remember that the crest was all broken up and scattered, with pieces missing, so I doubt the true shape can be confidently guessed, contrary to what has been claimed.  I can't check the paper it was in currently, but I've seen different reconstructions of Olorotitan's crest.  Even the two reconstructions you mentioned have each given the crest a different shape.  So which one would be correct, then?  As for the neck, when it's enveloped in the soft tissue of recent ornithopod reconstructions I don't think it's slightly longer length would be noticeable.  So the way I see it, Olorotitan isn't known from particularly good remains.
The crest shape of Dilophosaurus isn't known, you're right, but I think what is known of it on the whole is distinctly unique, so I only just give it the good remains category, same with Cryolophosaurus.
As for Spinosaurus...  I don't have a reason to distrust the neotype being one specimen, it follows a pattern of surprising but not unrealistic specimens being called chimeras by some scientists, as happened to Achillobator (the "unusual" pelvis later being discovered in Utahraptor too), Austroraptor, Halszkaraptor, Rahonavis...  It's true that the sail shape of Spinosaurus isn't known and the African spinosaurines have unclear identities, but I think the neotype and holotype of Spinosaurus show animals with distinctive traits that are different to any other known animal and out of all the fossil remains of African spinosaurines we can make a good guess about what these animals looked like, the only very unclear aspect being the sail shape, but it's still known Spinosaurus has a sail unlike any other known animal.  Plus, the neotype's feet and tail are unique to it.

[Concavenator]

@Sim No problem, glad I could help!

You're right, the two reconstructions of Olorotitan's crest I mentioned are so similar that I hadn't noticed they aren't exactly the same. The rest of it is well-preserved though. It's the same situation with Dilophosaurus, pretty much all the skeleton is known (check GetAwayTrike's composite skeletal), but it's missing that important part (the crests). I can now see why you excluded Olorotitan from the "good remains" category, but you did that based on the lack of a well-preserved crest. At the same time, Dilophosaurus suffers from the same issue yet you consider it has good remains.

Again, I have a similar issue with Spinosaurus, even assuming the neotype represents a single specimen. As with Dilophosaurus, we have enough of it to know that it had a distinctive appearance, but not enough that we can accurately reconstruct it (unlike some other genuinely weird dinosaurs like Deinocheirus or Yi). Spinosaurus' sail is obviously a very (if not the most) important feature of the animal, and the fact that we don't know how it was shaped is enough to remove it from the "good remains" category if you ask me. Because the sail was so big, different reconstructions of it could alter the appearance of the animal in a more relevant way than different head crest reconstructions for Olorotitan and Dilophosaurus (just look how visually different reconstructions of Spinosaurus that use the M sail shape vs the rounded one are). Even believing that, using a composite skeletal (like miyess'), we have a decent idea of what the animal looked like nonetheless (assuming it represents Spinosaurus to begin with and not a different genus), that's also true for Olorotitan. Its head crest may not be totally known, but otherwise it has good remains, plus it's still a hadrosaurid and we have a very good knowledge about them. That said, rather than giving Olorotitan the "good remains" category, personally I think it would make more sense to change Dilophosaurus and Spinosaurus to green, because I agree with an unknown crest/sail shape being a relatively big deal.

I have a similar issue with Jakapil that I do with Spinosaurus too. Based on the preserved remains, we think it might have a distinctive appearance, but it actually is pretty fragmentary. Including it in the "good remains" category depends on what would you define as such. If for you that includes both animals with really good remains (like Sinosauropteryx) and distinctive yet fragmentary ones (like Spinosaurus), then I would say it makes sense. Personally, I think it would be more reasonable to consider as animals with good remains those that, with the available material, can be reconstructed in an accurate way (with no relevant parts missing), regardless of we believing they had a distinctive look or not.

[Halichoeres]

So I'm looking at your sauropodomorph list, and it seems you're excluding any taxon lacking a fairly complete skull. I think that's a pretty good criterion for something like marginocephalians and most theropods, considering that the skull will be large relative to the body and less likely to be transported away by a river, for example. But is it possible that's a sort of unfair penalty for sauropods? Their skulls are pretty small; the only parts more likely to be lost are the feet and maybe the tail tips. There is of course some variation in skull shape, but it's comparatively minor compared to either ornithischians or theropods. And that variation seems to have a pretty strong phylogenetic signal, so it can be predicted with a decent amount of confidence if a relative's skull is preserved. Moreover, the skull, by virtue of its smallness, contributes less to the overall impression of the animal's appearance than it does in other groups. All that is to say is that it might be reasonable to include sauropods whose limb/tail/torso/neck proportions are well known, but whose heads are missing.

[Faelrin]

@Concavenator Why do you think the Spinosaurus neotype material is not from a single specimen?

[Concavenator]

@Faelrin Scott Hartman expressed doubts about that in this article. It's a very interesting read!

Also:

There was some discussion of this in another thread, but we don't even know that the neotype should be considered Spinosaurus at all (I personally find the case weak, partly based on comments from a UChicago paleontologist I talked to about it several years ago).

So if other paleontologists aside from Ibrahim have doubts on the matter, then I'm assuming the knowledge on Spinosaurus is not very solid. That doesn't happen with other dinosaurs that are also rather unusual (like Deinocheirus and Yi as I previously mentioned).

[Faelrin]

@Concavenator Ah I see what you mean now. I did read his posts on this subject some time ago, but of course like most things, my memory is pretty bad at times. At least the back half (legs, pelvis, and tail) was all from one specimen, rather it truly belonged to Spinosaurus or another related animal.

Hopefully more material is found some day to help clear the waters. I mean if Deinocheirus of all things had better luck, to have not one, but two reasonably complete specimens pop up, then hopefully Spinosaurus as well.

[Sim]

I've added the Haolonggood Daspletosaurus and updated the PNSO Daspletosaurus to being a D. wilsoni.  I haven't got to Ampelosaurus yet!

[Chasmosaurus]

Do you noticed that jobaria from collecta and Dreadnoughtus from mattel also have wrong feets.

[Sim]

@Chasmosaurus, I hadn't noticed, thanks for pointing those things out!  I've removed them from the list.  It reminds me of S @SidB's wish for a new CollectA Jobaria.  I think CollectA would make a much better figure of it now.

@Halichoeres, I've been excluding sauropodomorphs which lack good skull remains, with exceptions made if a close relative can be used to confidently predict the skull.  I think this can be done less often than you do, for example the three species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus are supposedly all closely related yet each has a quite different skull!  If there are any sauropodomorphs you think I should include even if they lack good skull remains, let me know and I'll consider it.

[Sim]

Okay, I've changed Olorotitan to be in blue now (= known from good remains).  I think the different ways Spinosaurus's sail can be reconstructed are equivalent to the different ways the crests of Dilophosaurus and Olorotitan can be reconstructed.  Jakapil does have a distinctive appearance.  No other animal looks like it.  If we treat "with good remains" as only applying to animals with no relevant parts missing, I think almost all ankylosaurians would not be known from good remains then, even if their skull is well known since the armour configuration for the rest of the body is not completely known for most if not all ankylosaurians.

[Sim]

I've added Crichtonpelta to the list.  I hadn't included it initially as it's not known if it had a tail club knob, but the postcranial armour configuration is unknown in so many ankylosaurians that on reflection it doesn't make sense to exclude Crichtonpelta.

[Sim]

I've now finished Macronaria and with that I've done all Mesozoic dinosaur groups!

[Sim]

I've looked at the Schleich Tarbosaurus some more since getting it and I've concluded it's not too bad after all.  It's actually very good in my opinion.  So I've added it to the list.

[Georassic]

Thanks for doing this, @Sim. This is a great resource! I generally avoid figures of animals known from fragmentary remains, or whose appearance is largely inferred or speculative. Going through your list, I added half a dozen figures to my wish list because they're better-known than I knew.

[Sim]

I'm happy you've found the list useful @Georassic!  I ended up getting quite a few figures as a result of making the list and re-evaluating those species.  And I'm happy with my new acquisitions!

[Halichoeres]

@Halichoeres, I've been excluding sauropodomorphs which lack good skull remains, with exceptions made if a close relative can be used to confidently predict the skull.  I think this can be done less often than you do, for example the three species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus are supposedly all closely related yet each has a quite different skull!  If there are any sauropodomorphs you think I should include even if they lack good skull remains, let me know and I'll consider it.

Well, I was thinking more among macronarians. For example, I think Patagotitan and Opisthocoelicaudia can be described as having good remains, despite lacking skulls. Nobody thinks Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus are monophyletic, or even each other's closest relatives, so it's really just a matter of waiting until they're systematically reevaluated, which will include many of those species getting new genus names. If I come up with other examples, I'll post them here.

[Concavenator]

@Sim some more thoughts I have:

- I wouldn't say Irritator has good remains. It has the most complete skull of any spinosaurid found to date, and it preserves just a bit of postcranial elements, but notice how different skeletals show noticeably different depictions of it. Just to give a few examples, take a look at SirBlameson's, VimMemoriaeUniversum's, Paleogalli's, Liam Power's and SassyPaleoNerd's skeletals. How long were its hindlimbs? Did it have a Spinosaurus-like tail too? How long was its neck? Irritator is a spinosaurine, so by phylogenetic bracketing it might be tempting to assume it had short legs and also a paddle-like tail, but I'm not convinced in this case. Spinosaurus is clearly both the biggest spinosaurid that we know of and also the biggest spinosaurine that we know of. Usually, when a certain animal is fairly larger than its relatives it has different proportions, so who's to say that's not the case here, too? And you know, aside from that, Spinosaurus could simply have been a particularly specialised animal. So it having a different morphology would make sense from an ecological perspective. It also doesn't help that Spinosaurus is the most well-known spinosaurine (which, by itself, leaves to be desired when fossil completeness is concerned, again, ignoring taxonomic issues). If a more average-sized spinosaurine like Ichthyovenator had good remains it would be helpful to infer from. Like Irritator, the most relevant part we have of Bistahieversor is the skull, but unlike Irritator, I'd say inference is much safer in Bistahieversor's case than in Irritator's, since tyrannosauroids are better known than spinosaurines.

- What's wrong with the CollectA 2020 Allosaurus? I'd say it's pretty good. It even has the enlarged thumbclaws, which both PNSO's and Safari's versions failed to capture. And lips, too, which again, the PNSO lacks. To me it doesn't look like it has enlarged feet, either, as some people claim. Its hindlimbs could use to be a bit more robust, but that's really the only issue I see, and I wouldn't say that's a big deal. I would add it to the list.

- I would say the only good Mapusaurus figure is PNSO's. We don't have much material for Mapusaurus, but what we do have suggests it had a boxier skull than other carcharodontosaurids, and relatively tall neural spines. None of those CollectA figures on the list have their skull as boxy as Gunnar Bivens' 2021 skeletal, or as PNSO's version, for that matter:

Spoiler

[close]

Based on that alone, I would exclude them. To me it looks like their neural spines aren't as tall as they should be, either. So I would exclude those 2 CollectA versions and just leave the PNSO there.

- The Papo Chilesaurus has a silly fantasy pose and to me it looks like it also has pronated hands, at least the one that's not touching the ground:

Spoiler

[close]

- I would also remove Schleich's and PNSO's Tarbosaurus from the list. In Schleich's case, the arms are waay oversized (Tarbosaurus had the proportionally shortest arms of any tyrannosaurid), they look as long as a Daspletosaurus' (if not even more so!). Another issue is the oversized feet (if the Safari Acrocanthosaurus and Ceratosaurus were excluded because of this very issue, this one should be excluded as well). There's also those spikes on its back as an artistic liberty, but it's not a very appropriate one considering it's a coelurosaur.

In PNSO's case, the skull shape simply doesn't match Tarbosaurus', being triangular instead. Take a look at these reconstructions' skulls:

Spoiler

Skeletal by Batavotyrannus.



By Franoys.

[close]

Funnily enough, Schleich's skull is closer to those than PNSO's. But it messes up the arms, which the PNSO gets right.

- I would remove the PNSO Yutyrannus as well. L @Leyster 's review points out its issues: head too small, skull shape not matching, feathering not totally accurate to the fossil evidence and of course it lacks lips too. Yutyrannus sure does have a big skull!

Spoiler

[close]

So a figure not capturing this detail is kind of a big deal imo, like a Mamenchisaurus figure not having a very long neck would as well.

I bought the PNSO Yutyrannus last year because I didn't like the scaly head on Safari's, but ended up selling it. Now I plan to get the BotM one instead, which is great, as usual with Creative Beast stuff (no, I don't mind its nature as an action figure). Sure, it's bigger and more expensive than I'd like, but it's also among my favorite dinosaur genera, so I'm willing to go the extra mile for this genus.

- I would remove the PNSO Torvosaurus. It has an inaccurate skull. @Flaffy explained it in detail in their post.

- Haolonggood's and Papo's Pentaceratops aren't that good as depictions of the animal. In Haolonggood's case, the parietal embayment isn't nearly as deep as it should be. Some people just think that giving a ceratopsid a tall frill instantly makes it become a Pentaceratops, when, if they don't pay attention to this detail, their depiction resembles Anchiceratops instead:

Spoiler

Illustration by Ville Sinkkonen

[close]

Creative Beast got that detail right, Favorite too, and guess who else? Schleich, Papo AND Mattel!!  If these companies got that right, it's shocking Haolonggood didn't. Of course, the unreleased Battat figure got that detail right, too.

On top of that, Pentaceratops has a particularly compact torso, which neither Haolonggood's or Papo's versions reflect:

Spoiler

Skeletal by Gregory S. Paul.



Couldn't find the author, sorry.

[close]

Another aspect Haolonggood didn't capture is the very tall dorsal spines Pentaceratops had, having a generic ceratopsid body instead. And these are not the only inaccuracies Haolonggood's and Papo's versions have. The Papo has inaccurate manus (has 4 claws when it should have 3 + 2 clawless digits). And as usual with Haolonggood's ceratopsids, their Pentaceratops' hindlimbs are overmuscled. There's also the crocodilian scutes on its back which, while by itself is not necessarily an inaccuracy, is still a weird artistic liberty. I could see myself getting the Haolonggood Pentaceratops at some point though, due to the lack of options (the BotM is not one in this case, and Favorite's is rare). It's a genus I like and I'm fond of Haolonggood's version as a figure, but for the moment, I'd rather wait and see if anyone else (PNSO, basically, since Safari no longer makes ceratopsids) releases a more accurate version (or a nice Anchiceratops, for that matter).

As always, hoping you find this post useful.

[Chasmosaurus]

I've now finished Macronaria and with that I've done all Mesozoic dinosaur groups!

Thank you ,for yor work. I found this list very interesting.
What do you think of Argentinosaurus there is a good figure of it from collecta.
And I've checked Alamosaurus and Ampelosaurus from collecta. The front feet have several claws.
Just like MOJO's Mamenchisaurus youngi.
I hope you'll add other periods like the Paleozoic to this list.