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

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Great list! Now that pnso has revealed their saurophaganax, I think it definitely deserves to replace the Rebor one.

[Concavenator]

@Sim To add to my previous post, Torvosaurus gurneyi has pretty scrappy remains:



In particular, note how the lacrimals weren't preserved. So we can't know for sure if it looked like T. tanneri in this aspect. And this is a relevant aspect. For example, the different lacrimals is pretty much the only way to physically tell apart a Gorgosaurus from an Albertosaurus. And those 2 taxa are generally accepted as being their own different genus despite being very similar. So I think T. gurneyi should be changed to green.

I have another suggestion. What about creating a new color code (category) for those animals that, while being known from incomplete remains, still have their own identity? In my opinion, that would suit animals like Spinosaurus, Megaraptor, Cryolophosaurus and Jakapil very well. Personally, I find it a little odd to see said creatures in the same "good remains" category as others like Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Psittacosaurus, Edmontosaurus...

[Concavenator]

Also, I remember a post by L @Leyster in which they said there are doubts concerning Lurdusaurus' proportions. No wonder, the described remains are rather few:



Skeletal by ornithischophilia.

Preserved and illustrated (in its description) material in white, preserved but unfigured material in diagonal lines and unpreserved material in gray and black.

Even assuming the material represented in lines is accurate, we still don't know what the skull looked like, and also how long its tail was. Maybe it had a very long tail like Tenontosaurus, maybe not. So going off by this topic's rules, considering no noteworthy figure of it has been released, I think it should probably be removed.

I would also change Tianzhenosaurus to green. Turns out a fair amount of it has been found, but as I already pointed out, the description paper doesn't illustrate the remains, so, practically speaking, that's about the same as the remains not having been preserved at all, since we can't check the figure for accuracy. Furthermore, the authors in the description didn't even describe the tail club despite it being preserved as well. So for us, there's no way to depict Tianzhenosaurus as anything else than a generic ankylosaurine, which is exactly what Haolonggood did. And generic reconstructions of animals clearly don't belong to animals known from good remains. It's a generic depiction just as any of those non-Megaraptor megaraptorans are also generic depictions as a result of their remains being so bad, so they rely too heavily on inference.

On another hand, the PNSO Saurophaganax has already been released, so it can be added to the list.

P.S. Sorry for the double post.

[Federreptil]

This list is a great fun but in every perspective such a list must be totally subjective.

In my personal taste there is no place for a Schleich figure in the last five or ten years. Maybe Papo and Rebor are often very cinematic in their sculpts. If you not a very hard JP fan, some of the reconstructions are not longer state of the art.

What is with extinct brands? If only the available stock is relevant, you loose Battat. At the other hand Dinostoreus as an sisterlabel of Favorite is here missing. E. G. the Gallimimus herd as Mongolian dash is always impressive. Is the lack of feathers here a minus in the b-grade? The collecting item is no toy in a strict manner, but is the pricing of PNSO really still suitable for a toy? Is Favorite here counting without the older collecting models made of resin? How long must an item be out of stock before it will be deleted in this list.

I miss the Japanese Brands like Kaiyodo, Colorata and Yuyin with their collections. The best Coelophysis is still the one from Kaiyodo. Also there are impressive Pterodons and young Parasaurolophus figures. For a feathered T-Rex you will find also good examples.

What happened to the Dilophosaurus? There are models from Itoy and Papo and an old one from Favorite. But here no one is mentioned.

Now we had a theropod improvement with lips and all models without should have a downgrading. If you want to use the list for longer there will be always be improvements and shifting in the judgement of accuracy.

It will be much more complicating but actually an individual evaluation for each figure is additionally needed. The different interpretations of the various manufacturers have their strengths and weaknesses. In some cases, there are simply fantastic models that make every other manufacturer look weaker.

If it is to be about accurate models, surely even the 3D print models would have to go in here. After all, development there is even faster and more exciting. But I'm also stumped as to how to catalog what's on offer.

[Concavenator]

@Federreptil Yeah, Schleich and Papo stuff is not great nowadays. Rebor seems to be improving.

Concerning the list, @Sim uses scientific accuracy as a criterion. In Dilophosaurus' case, those figures you mention are outdated as a result of the 2020 reconstruction (well, the Papo was never really accurate to begin with, because of the pose of the tail and it leaning itself on a hand). So assuming they were OK for their time, they no longer represent what we believe the animal looked like. This happens very often with Spinosaurus too. And also happened to Deinocheirus.

@Sim also included (discontinued) Battat figures on the list. Regarding your comment about the evolution of figure manufacturing, older figures which hold up well in the scientific accuracy department are still on the list, which also explains why some Battat and Carnegie figures are there. Another example, the Haolonggood Carcharodontosaurus is obviously more refined than Safari's, but as you said, that doesn't mean it should replace the Safari figure on the list or that the Safari isn't also good on its own. And as you can see, both figures are on the list.

I think he's only including PVC figures, otherwise, the options would escape his reach. That doesn't mean there aren't great 3D prints available, and also resin figures for that matter, but for the sake of sanity, I understand why he's excluding those.

[Sim]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been busy with extant animal figures and on the Animal Toy Forum!  I'll respond to posts as I have time to.  I've added the PNSO Saurophaganax to the list!

I consider the skull being preserved important in determining if an animal is known from good remains or not since the head has a special place in connecting to a prehistoric animal.  If the head shape can be guessed with a high probability of being correct, such as basing on close relatives that show the head shape doesn't vary much then I can be lenient and allow certain species to be classed as having good remains.  In Irritator's case, an important part is present (the skull), while other important parts are absent.  So I consider it like Dilophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus and Jakapil in looking different to every other animal even though some important parts are unknown.

The newer CollectA Allosaurus has giant protruding product information on its chest that can be seen from any desirable point of view.

I've now removed the two CollectA Mapusaurus, gladly, as I find them unsightly.  I've removed the Papo Chilesaurus too.

The PNSO Tarbosaurus's head looks like the second reconstruction you posted.  The Schleich Tarbosaurus doesn't have too-big feet as far as I've seen.  Its arms are a little too long, but it's minor in my opinion and doesn't take away that the figure is a good reconstruction of the animal.  I've now changed one of the rules in the first post to say, "A figure will be considered good if it does a good job at looking like the real animal."  If the arms of the Schleich Tarbosaurus were to keep it off this list then the Papo Ceratosaurus would have to leave it too for the same reason.
I think there's nothing wrong with Tarbosaurus having feature scales on it dorsal surface, Albertosaurus is known to have them ventrally, and there is a staggering amount of time between Tarbosaurus and Yutyrannus which I think makes it possible Tarbo lacked feathers on its back.  If I'm not mistaken, study has suggested Coelophysis was feathered in order to survive in some of its range, while Ceratosaurus had large scales on its back (osteoderms).  So due to this as well I think it's within reason to give Tarbosaurus feature scales on its back.

I don't see a discrepancy between the skulls of Getawaytrike's Yutyrannus skeletals and that of the PNSO Yutyrannus.  I think small discrepancies are just a part of animal figures, not everyone should be expected to build a figure directly on top of an existing skeletal.  I wouldn't have thought the proportions of the PNSO Yutyrannus were not entirely right because the difference is minimal.  As I intended in the rule I modified, I will consider a figure good if it does a good job at looking like the real animal.

I don't agree with Flaffy's evaluation of the PNSO Torvosaurus.  I don't like the lower nostril position on dinosaurs but I accept that it can be plausible based on Witmer's study of nostril placement.  I think saying the nostril is on the lip isn't quite right.  The minimal lip the PNSO Torvosaurus has can smooth out the margin of the jaw, I recall that being done in the Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator official artwork.  I don't see any problem with the PNSO Torvo's snout shape or head shape.

I've seen at least one Pentaceratops specimen with a shallower dip at the top of the frill, consistent with Haolonggood's version.  The Papo Pentaceratops's dip looks the same as the Haolonggood's.  I think the compactness of the Haolonggood's Penta isn't inconsistent with the skeletals you posted.  Papo's Penta looks more elongate in that area but perhaps that is because of its pose?  However I hadn't noticed the Papo's inaccurate hands, that and its tiptoing (when quadrupedal) pose gets it off the list.  As for the tall spines, I am certain they are to help support the heavy head of the animal, based on extant animals that have this structure and it has been suggested for dinosaurs too.  With that in mind, Haolonggood's restoration looks plausible to me, with the spines being obscured by soft tissue.  The Papo Penta in contrast restores that area as more of a crest than I think the real animal would have.
I don't think we can know if Haolonggood's ceratopsids have overmuscled hindlimbs.

[Concavenator]

@Sim No worries, of course we respond whenever we're able to!

Dilophosaurus has much better remains than Irritator, it's basically complete except the crest shape remains unknown. To a lesser extent, I'd argue Cryolophosaurus is also better known than Irritator as well. Irritator's postcrania is pretty much in the air, so I wouldn't say it has "good remains", as if we had a clear picture of it (like we do for other dinosaurs), just because the skull is well-known. Again, I think a category intermediate between "good remains" (truly good remains, meaning we have a clear picture of the whole animal) and the really fragmentary would make for a more accurate list.

When it comes to that CollectA Allosaurus, it certainly suffers from ridiculously exaggerated trademark info, unfortunately, but the list takes scientific accuracy into consideration, and as annoying as that particular detail is, it doesn't interfere with accuracy. Just as the very crudely painted teeth on Safari's Shunosaurus don't detract from it being a good representation of the genus.

When it comes to those 2 Tarbosaurus figures:

- The BotM Tarbosaurus' skull looks like those 2 skeletals' I referenced, and the PNSO Tarbosaurus' skull looks different to the BotM's. Tarbosaurus' skull has a concavity on the nasal region that's absent on PNSO's take (even Schleich got this right!). The lacrimals should be a bit more noticeable too.

- Concerning the Schleich Tarbosaurus' arms, they could perhaps be okay for a Daspletosaurus, but again, Tarbosaurus has the proportionally shortest arms of any tyrannosaurid. So a Tarbosaurus figure with long arms doesn't look like a real Tarbosaurus. When it comes to its feet, they don't look much, if any, proportionally smaller to me than, say, the Safari Ceratosaurus', which was excluded for this reason. I think the Safari Ceratosaurus resembles a Ceratosaurus more than the Schleich Tarbosaurus resembles a Tarbosaurus.

- When it comes to Yutyrannus, it's sort of a similar issue I have with the PNSO Tarbosaurus. I found it surprising to realize that Yutyrannus has such a big skull, I hadn't noticed until L @Leyster pointed it out. So instead of being "that large, feathered tyrannosauroid" it should be "that large, BIG-headed, feathered tyrannosauroid". Of course the PNSO figure is feathered but it doesn't capture the particularly big skull, so I'd say that's some big deal. The Mamenchisaurus example I mentioned shows my point. When it comes to the skull, the nasal crest is too small compared to the real skull's, which in addition would be covered by keratin, making it even larger. To me it looks like the lacrimals' shape is wrong, too.

- When it comes to that rule "A figure will be considered good if it does a good job at looking like the real animal.", I think it's a bit unclear and subjective. For instance, I can look at PNSO's and CollectA's versions of Microraptor and realize that those figures are representing Microraptor without explicitly needing to confirm it, despite having inaccuracies. I mean, despite not being totally accurate, they sort of look like the animal they're trying to represent, and just for that I wouldn't call them good and include them on the list.

- About that Pentaceratops specimen you mentioned, is it SDMNH 43470 by any chance? In case it is, that's a referred Pentaceratops specimen, so it might or might not be Pentaceratops at all, and if it is, it might also be a new species. In case that's not the specimen you meant, which one is it?

Regarding the hindlimb musculature, compare Haolonggood's ceratopsid's to the more reasonable Eofauna's Triceratops' or PNSO's ceratopsid's to see what I mean. About the Haolonggood's Penta body being too elongated, you can check DinosDragons' review (minute 7:28) to see what I mean.

[Sim]

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.

Thanks Chasmosaurus!  I'm happy you've found this list interesting.  Some of the figures you suggested, e.g. CB Stenonychosaurus, Safari Dracorex, I gave attention to after you mentioned them and I bought them and am happy with them!
Does the CollectA Argentinosaurus have nostrils?  I've now removed the CollectA Ampelosaurus and Alamosaurus.  I think the Mojo Mamenchisaurus can stay though, since it's a basal sauropod it might still have had more claws on the digits than later sauropods.
Do you mean the Cenozoic, since there are no dinosaurs in the Paleozoic?  Or did you mean you'd like a list for Paleozoic animals?

[Halichoeres]

So this is the basic message I'm getting:

[Sim]

I've changed Torvosaurus gurneyi to green, I had underestimated how unknown parts of it are, so thanks for pointing it out.  As for creating a new category, I think I won't do it for two reasons as I intend the "good remains" category to mean a species is a good choice for making into a figure due to its appearance being farily well-known.  It's not meant to differentiate how well-known individual species are.  Also, if I was to create a new category for species that are quite incomplete almost all ankylosaurids and nodosaurids would go in that category due to their armour usually not being completely preserved.

[Sim]

After thinking about it more, I've combined the two species of Torvosaurus in one entry since externally I don't think one could really distinguish between the two species with the material there is of them.

[Sim]

P.S. Sorry for the double post.

No need to apologise, it's no problem!
Regarding Lurdusaurus, the preserved parts of it do give it a distinctive appearance and a good guess can be made for the missing parts, like for Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus.  On the Lurdusaurus Wikipedia page it says:

Lurdusaurus has a highly atypical body plan for an iguanodont, with a small skull, long neck, rotund torso, and powerful forelimbs and claws, somewhat reminiscent of a ground sloth. Its metacarpals (wrist bones) are fused and reinforced into a large block, and the thumb spike is remarkably enormous.

So I think like Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus, making it into a figure can be worthwhile.
Regarding Tianzhenosaurus, there are skeletons of it mounted, so Haolonggood might have referred to them for their figure.  In any case, I think accurate reference for this species exists because of the mounted skeletons.

[Concavenator]

Not sure I agree when it comes to Tianzhenosaurus. I'm aware there are mounted skeletons of it, but since the description was lacking graphic material, I'm assuming those skeletons simply depict it as a generic ankylosaurine. There is also a mounted skeleton of Saurophaganax at the OMNH, yet it's still a very poorly known taxon based on Allosaurus.

[Halichoeres]

Not sure I agree when it comes to Tianzhenosaurus. I'm aware there are mounted skeletons of it, but since the description was lacking graphic material, I'm assuming those skeletons simply depict it as a generic ankylosaurine. There is also a mounted skeleton of Saurophaganax at the OMNH, yet it's still a very poorly known taxon based on Allosaurus.

That depends, if they have the actual material on display in the museums but the authors of the description just didn't figure it, it could still serve as a reasonable reference. If instead the museum has a lot of plaster for missing elements, well, that's a different story.

[Sim]

Yes, @Concavenator is right, I'm only including PVC toys.  As for PNSO's prices, they do market their figures as for children.  If I'm remembering right though, Haolonggood and Creative Beast Studio have their figures labelled as for older people.  But they are still toys!  Something that can be enjoyed by adults can still be a toy.  PNSO's figures are toys, regardless of what their price is.

I don't consider the Kaiyodo figures toys.  And I think the Safari Coelophysis is better than Kaiyodo's.  I'm not including Safari's heavily feathered Tyrannosaurus as it has feathers over known scaly areas.

I don't consider lack of lips sufficient for preventing figures from being on the list.  3D printed figures I feel aren't toys.

[Concavenator]

To add to what @Sim said, AFAIK PNSO's figures are much more reasonably priced in China. I believe @Faras commented something about this at some point. I don't recall exactly how much cheaper, but I recall it's pretty significant. Probably a bit more expensive than what the average Safari figure costs to us, but not nearly as big of a difference as it appears when you compare both companies' prices on the western market ( @Faras also said Safari figures are more expensive there). PNSO's figures' prices are just inflated for us western collectors. Considering both companies' prices are relatively similar in their countries of origin (okay, maybe a bit higher for PNSO, but probably not that much), I don't think it's out of the question to directly compare both companies' figures.

[Sim]

Again, I think a category intermediate between "good remains" (truly good remains, meaning we have a clear picture of the whole animal) and the really fragmentary would make for a more accurate list.

I think there would be very few dinosaurs which we have a clear picture of the whole animal.  For many ankylosaurids for example the only well-preserved part is the skull.  I would also argue that Irritator and Cryolophosaurus and Dilophosaurus are all as well-known as each other as they all have a distinctive appearance but important parts of their anatomy isn't known.

I've now added the CollectA Allosaurus to the list.  Unlike in its DTB review I find it most looks like Allosaurus europaeus so that's what I've listed it under.  It might make sense for CollectA to make it that species as they made their Torvosaurus the apparently contemporary T. gurneyi.

I think the head of the PNSO Tarbosaurus is fine.  The lacrimals look consistent with the first skeletal you posted and the surface of the nasal looks fine when you consider it's covered in skin and keratin.  Also compare it with the first Tarbosaurus skeletal here, which does not show a concavity on the snout instead having that area covered in keratin: https://www.deviantart.com/franoys/art/Tarbosaurus-bataar-adults-skeletal-diagrams-752986965

The fact you didn't notice the supposed actual size of Yutyrannus's skull is telling that reconstructions like PNSO's aren't as bad as is being claimed.  The apparent discrepancy between the size of the skull and a leg bone was obtained by measuring those parts, before that no-one was complaining about the figure's accuracy.  Prehistoric animal figures are made by people and if the reconstruction comes very close to the real animal I'd say it's a success.  The PNSO Yutyrannus doesn't look different to a real one in my opinion, the differences apparently being very minor.  It's also worth considering that the feathering on the PNSO Yutyrannus's body is thicker than on the head, making the head look smaller.

- When it comes to that rule "A figure will be considered good if it does a good job at looking like the real animal.", I think it's a bit unclear and subjective. For instance, I can look at PNSO's and CollectA's versions of Microraptor and realize that those figures are representing Microraptor without explicitly needing to confirm it, despite having inaccuracies. I mean, despite not being totally accurate, they sort of look like the animal they're trying to represent, and just for that I wouldn't call them good and include them on the list.

The rule is subjective as what looks like the real animal is ultimately determined by my opinion, although I take the opinions of other people into consideration when deciding too.

I think the Pentaceratops specimen I was referring to is AMNH 1622.  I think the Haolonggood Pentaceratops is acceptable within what is known of the animal.

[Concavenator]

Not sure I agree with Dilophosaurus and Irritator being as well-known as each other. Dilophosaurus is pretty much complete except that the exact shape of the crests isn't known. Irritator on the other hand has a well-preserved skull but its postcrania is largely speculative. So the variation that could take place in Irritator's morphology due to new discoveries is greater than in the case of Dilophosaurus, which is just missing part of the crests.

It's true that I didn't notice the error in proportions in PNSO's figure until L @Leyster pointed that out, but admittedly I wasn't aware of Yutyrannus' actual (and interesting) proportions back then. Of course prehistoric animal models are made by people, but some get them right and others wrong, at least to some degree...

And thank you for the reference of that Pentaceratops specimen.

[Sim]

A major update!  I'm colour coding the figures to distinguish between small, medium and very large size.  It could be helpful for identifying figures in the size one wants (e.g. small figures of small animals, very large figures of very large animals).  I've only done Allosauroidea so far, so you can see how it looks.  The meaning of each colour is in the first post.  I'm also adding Kaiyodo figures as I go along.

[Faelrin]

I appreciate the change in color coding the figures by size. Thanks for adding Kaiyodo figures as well.