What is your least favorite dinosaur?

[marisaura]

- Pinacosaurus. I simply don't like it.

dang what did pinacosaurus ever do to you

[JimoAi]

Spino🐬ingsaurus

bro can't decide what it wants to be

[Lynx]

My two least favorites are
1. Pachycephalosaurus, I just have no interest tbh
2. Concavenator, used to be an old favorite but I am hardly fond of it anymore

[Lynx]

- Pinacosaurus. I simply don't like it.

dang what did pinacosaurus ever do to you

Tough world

[Sim]

@Concavenator

I also dislike fragmentary species that lack a true identity.  That said, I don't dislike Otodus megalodon.  I'm not quite sure why it gets disliked so much.  Similar to what you said though, I tend to not like prehistoric animals that are very similar to extant species.  For example, I love extant birds and snakes, but the fossil species often lack something to interest me.  However, I am interested in both extant and extinct crocodilians, I'm not sure why!

Tarbosaurus is my favourite tyrannosauroid, while Tyrannosaurus I find quite uninteresting.  So I don't like Tarbosaurus just because it's basically a second version of Tyrannosaurus.  I find it interesting on its own merits, including because it's part of the Nemegt Formation ecosystem.

I too find titanosaurians uninteresting.  Same for azhdarchids, the amount of attention they get even though most are very fragmentary is just too much.

I also tend to not like mammals, extinct or extant.

[Concavenator]

I edited my post to include several other animals.

@Faelrin

Well, we all like different things and that's fine! 

Like I said, I'm not very fond of Parasaurolophus because (apart from the fact that I'm not very fond of how it looks) it's basically taken as the universal hadrosaurid. I'm assuming that's a result of it appearing in the JP/JW franchise (which, BTW, I don't like), so if instead of Parasaurolophus the franchise featured, say, Corythosaurus or Saurolophus, either genus would have become the "hadrosaurid icon".

I also don't like it when, in a genus comprising > 1 species, one clearly overshadows the other/s in popularity. Especially so if that particular popular species looks somehow more flamboyant than the other one/s (which is probably the case here). This is also why I much prefer Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis over P. lakustai. Like, at this point, every single Parasaurolophus model is P. walkeri and every single Pachyrhinosaurus model is P. lakustai, and I'm tired of that.

I'd be glad if somebody released a figure of Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus even if just to break the P. walkeri rule lol. I probably wouldn't get it though, as I already ordered the Ancestors Tlatolophus, which is a very closely related taxon and I prefer that genus (plus I try to carefully administrate my space, even if I don't have space issues atm). I also don't mind that it's one of the theoretical "must-have" taxa in every dinosaur collection, just as I also have no interest in getting an Ankylosaurus, a Spinosaurus or a Giganotosaurus, for example, and I'm happy to have other more well-known animals instead, like Zuul, Suchomimus and Meraxes, respectively.

That said, Parasaurolophus is both an important taxon and an iconic animal known from good remains, and I understand and respect that other people love it, of course.

@Sim 

When it comes to Otodus megalodon, I'm not so sure it gets disliked that much, generally speaking. Rather than that, it just happens to be an extremely famous animal (as happens with Tyrannosaurus) and some people just happen to love it and others dislike it. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe it mostly gets disliked because it's classically been depicted as an oversized white shark, so on that sense, I get that it's perceived as pretty boring. It's also known from quite scrappy remains, so it's a little annoying that it gets all the attention it does, just because it's a ginormous predatory shark. So many other interesting fishes that could get that attention instead, and marine animals for that matter, and it would be more justified.

As for Tarbosaurus, that thought I mentioned is honestly what immediately comes into my mind when I think of it, same for Monolophosaurus lol. Not that I really believe Tarbosaurus is Tyrannosaurus 2.0 nor that Tyrannosaurus is inherently more interesting than Tarbosaurus. This is just my own, subjective opinion which is as fine as every other person's. Likewise, if somebody says Monolophosaurus is more interesting than Asfaltovenator (a theropod I like) I can also see why and I respect it, of course.

[Sim]

- Dunkleosteus. I'll say that I find it a bit more interesting after learning about its downsizing, but to me it's still boring. I don't like how it looks nor that it gets that much attention in comparison to other prehistoric fishes (except the aforementioned one).

Oh my gosh, yes, I too find Dunkleosteus boring.

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe it mostly gets disliked because it's classically been depicted as an oversized white shark, so on that sense, I get that it's perceived as pretty boring. It's also known from quite scrappy remains, so it's a little annoying that it gets all the attention it does, just because it's a ginormous predatory shark. So many other interesting fishes that could get that attention instead, and marine animals for that matter, and it would be more justified.

My unpopular opinion is that I feel there's nothing wrong or boring with megalodon being represented as basically a giant great white shark.  And its size makes it interesting.  I agree there are many prehistoric marine animals that are interesting and might be better choices to give attention to, but many prehistoric fish?  I think to most people prehistoric fish are mostly not interesting.  I can't think of many that could fill the role of megalodon, even if Dunkleosteus can be interesting.

This is just my own, subjective opinion which is as fine as every other person's.

Well, I'm just letting you know that I don't like Tarbosaurus because it's basically a second version of Tyrannosaurus.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it earlier, but I generally find hadrosauromorphs boring.  Their hands have lost the interesting thumb spikes of more basal forms, becoming boring, their tails are stiff and quite useless, they didn't have a strong bite... the result is just very boring to me.  I like some e.g. Parasaurolophus walkeri and Lambeosaurus lambei a bit because they're iconic... but besides that they are one of my least liked prehistoric animals.  I don't get their popularity.

[Stegotyranno420]

Tarbosaurus is intriguing due to its part in Mongolian ecosystem and the pride of the country. If it was also in NA then I would understand, but it was essentially an example of a similar animal in a different environment, and thats interesting.

How does Dunkleosteus downsizing make it interesting though. I dont understand how Dunkleosteus is oversaturated either.

[Concavenator]

I agree there are many prehistoric marine animals that are interesting and might be better choices to give attention to, but many prehistoric fish?  I think to most people prehistoric fish are mostly not interesting.  I can't think of many that could fill the role of megalodon, even if Dunkleosteus can be interesting.

I'm far from being knowledgeable on prehistoric fishes, but I think every single taxon I may stumble I may find more interesting for one reason or another.  Even if just by virtue of not being (usually) depicted as an oversized great white shark. Off the top of my head, Xiphactinus, Aquilolamna and of course, Tiktaalik are all way more interesting and valuable animals than Otodus megalodon in my opinion. Helicoprion, Titanichthys... etc. too.

As you say, none of these occupied the niche of Otodus megalodon, but instead they're all more unique in their lifestyles. Similarly, Zhuchengtyrannus and Tyrannotitan were also very big predators. And the taxa themselves are pretty superfluous.

How does Dunkleosteus downsizing make it interesting though. I dont understand how Dunkleosteus is oversaturated either.

Not that I'm a fan of it now, either, it's still boring to me. But at least I like it more now because one of the reasons it was so popular was because of its size, as is also the case with Ototus megalodon (and in general, with many prehistoric animals). As for being oversaturated or not, well, just ask the average prehistoric life fan to name 3 prehistoric fishes. They will undoubtedly mention "Megalodon" and Dunkleosteus, and they will most likely have no clue about what other fish to name. 

[Stegotyranno420]

Pretty sure most know Leedichthys, Onchopristis, Xiphactinus, Stethacanthus, Titanitchthys, right? And besides, it is not really popular to most people, unlike Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops. Only Paleopeople really know it.

Thought I'd contribute.

I find basal ornithschians REALLY boring BASED ON SKELETAL ELEMENTS.
But
They are always fun to experiment speculative and flashy designs with, and if I had to pick a dinosaur for a pet, realistically they would be best.

[Halichoeres]

I don't like seeing figures of Otodus because it's highly similar to modern pelagic sharks AND it's rather poorly known. Meanwhile, fishes with more interesting shapes unlike those of modern species, and with excellent remains, get completely ignored. I don't think the fact that it was large makes it interesting to represent in miniature form. Like, size is an ecologically relevant trait, but unless you have it displayed with something that very clearly conveys the scale, that's lost in a figure anyway. Differences in shape shine through regardless of scale.

[bmathison1972]

I don't have a least favorite anything. Ok. Not true. As a birder, I don't care for gulls LOL.

In terms of dinosaur figures, the group I am least interested in are large bipedal theropods.

[Sim]

I think what is interesting is subjective.  I find megalodon interesting, and I would be interested in having a large figure that roughly scales with other figures I have.

[postsaurischian]

 City doves.
 ..... but I even have a figure of this one .

[DinoFan2010]

- Pinacosaurus. I simply don't like it.

dang what did pinacosaurus ever do to you

Pinacosaurus has been found guilty of dozens of war crimes over the past decade.

[Lynx]

- Pinacosaurus. I simply don't like it.

dang what did pinacosaurus ever do to you

Pinacosaurus has been found guilty of dozens of war crimes over the past decade.

The face of a criminal

[ceratopsian]

By contrast @postsaurischian I love my pigeons that visit me in the mornings for their seed.  They might rank among my favourite dinosaurs.  Intelligent and beautiful (some of them at least!)

City doves.
 ..... but I even have a figure of this one .

[postsaurischian]

 I was just kidding a bit . Of course I'm interested in each and every of evolution's species.
 That's why I do not take this thread's title too seriously. Enjoy your pigeons!
 We have just one pair that's regularly returning to our garden, but they look and behave differently from the ones in the city.

By contrast @postsaurischian I love my pigeons that visit me in the mornings for their seed.  They might rank among my favourite dinosaurs.  Intelligent and beautiful (some of them at least!)

City doves.
 ..... but I even have a figure of this one .

Pinacosaurus has been found guilty of dozens of war crimes over the past decade.

    I don't understand this at all. Can someone enlighten me?
  I googled the subject and all I got is this picture . What is it with Pinacosaurus & war crimes?

[Halichoeres]

I think what is interesting is subjective.  I find megalodon interesting, and I would be interested in having a large figure that roughly scales with other figures I have.

Well, sure it's subjective. Nothing in this thread can be anything but. Lucky for you there are many meg figures to pick from!

[Stegotyranno420]

*