Should I pick this figure up?

[Tracewyrm!]

Hi, folks! I've been collecting on and off for a few years now but recently I've started sticking more to a specific scale (1:35-ish more or less). All the figures I display are just about in scale with each other, with some room for error, of course.

Recently, I've been having trouble deciding on whether I should pick up CollectA's Ruyangosaurus.
I love it as a figure, though I worry if it will fit in with the rest of my collection, being already quite saturated with large theropods that it might look awkward next to.

Does anyone have some advice? Is there some other species this figure could substitute as a 1:35 representation of? Is it still worth picking up with my collection in mind? Should I just wait for a sauropod that's closer to the scale I'm working off?

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Looking at the blog's review, and using the measurements they present, the figure from what I can tell represents a 29.5 m individual at approx 1:70 scale, so for 1:35 you would want an animal at about 14.75 m. Rapetosaurus from the Madagascan maeverano formation fits this size perfectly, at 15 m. Given wild past is working on a majungasaurus, I may just pick this one up myself as a complement.

[Halichoeres]

I got a scale estimate of 1:50 based on the tibia, so it's not even that far from 1:35 to begin with. I think it could work as any of several mid-sized titanosaurs.

[Fossilized-Rubber]

It doesn't seem that heavy so there should be no reason why you can't pick this figure up. Hope this helps.

[Federreptil]

If the Ruyangosaurus represent an adult animal the scale is nearly 1:100 as some other sauropods like Malawisaurus or Daxiatitan. So in your scale they could only be juveniles. If you want a huge titanosaurus in 1:35 it would be an more expensive operation like the Dreadnoughtus from MuSee Studio or the Patagotitan from Aldemar Pereira and you need a lot os space in the shelf. Or you have to choose the smaller members like the Ampelosaurus of Hoalonggood. But the Ruyangosaurus is a particularly beautiful modern interpretation for a titanosauropod and definitely an upgrade for any collection.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

If the Ruyangosaurus represent an adult animal the scale is nearly 1:100 as some other sauropods like Malawisaurus or Daxiatitan. So in your scale they could only be juveniles. If you want a huge titanosaurus in 1:35 it would be an more expensive operation like the Dreadnoughtus from MuSee Studio or the Patagotitan from Aldemar Pereira and you need a lot os space in the shelf. Or you have to choose the smaller members like the Ampelosaurus of Hoalonggood. But the Ruyangosaurus is a particularly beautiful modern interpretation for a titanosauropod and definitely an upgrade for any collection.

It definitely isn't 1:100, it's far too big for that. Ruyango's highest estimate was 29.5 m, so the figure should be 29.5 cm with tail extended if it was 1:100, but according to the blog it's almost 40 cm with the tail curved.

[Federreptil]

If the Ruyangosaurus represent an adult animal the scale is nearly 1:100 as some other sauropods like Malawisaurus or Daxiatitan. So in your scale they could only be juveniles. If you want a huge titanosaurus in 1:35 it would be an more expensive operation like the Dreadnoughtus from MuSee Studio or the Patagotitan from Aldemar Pereira and you need a lot os space in the shelf. Or you have to choose the smaller members like the Ampelosaurus of Hoalonggood. But the Ruyangosaurus is a particularly beautiful modern interpretation for a titanosauropod and definitely an upgrade for any collection.

It definitely isn't 1:100, it's far too big for that. Ruyango's highest estimate was 29.5 m, so the figure should be 29.5 cm with tail extended if it was 1:100, but according to the blog it's almost 40 cm with the tail curved.

I am happy to admit that I have not researched this in detail and rely too much on the manufacturer's information. Thank you for your precise information.

But even 1/70 is only half of the 1/35 we are looking for. When converting to other species or juveniles, which we have both suggested, the question of correct proportions remains. Shouldn't the head then be larger in relation to the body?

Another question that concerns me is the current trend in sauropod representation. About 10 years ago, the general consensus seemed to be that the necks were held very horizontally and even a Giraffatitan had a much shallower angle, but this still fitted when Apatosaurus and Diplodocus were working the branches underneath. Only the Jurassic Park fans still wanted the vertical necks. The new models now have much more vertical necks that reach far upwards again. This is quite attractive for dioramas when the necks protrude into the background.

The new titanosaurs in particular are trendsetters here. Here, too, I perhaps lack thorough research, but at the moment it seems to me that many reconstructions contain a lot of fantasy, because the finds are often very fragmentary and the desired size is calculated by comparison with smaller species. This also applies to the weight. I am used to see a large fluctuations here and some of it is probably also fueled by the desire to simply have the "biggest" one. This was already the driving force behind Andrew Canergie's Diplodocus when he sent the experts out on dinosaur expeditions for his museum.

So I wonder whether it is now also a trend that the newer sauropod representations are becoming more and more like mountains of flesh, with the base of the neck becoming wider and deeper. The extremely compact Isissaurus from "Prehistoric Planet" is the best example here. Nobody wants to see thick balloon bodies with pencil-thin necks and tails any more. But while some time ago the sauropods could even serve as an example of efficient lightweight construction, the new trend seems to be the massive mountain of meat.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

So I wonder whether it is now also a trend that the newer sauropod representations are becoming more and more like mountains of flesh, with the base of the neck becoming wider and deeper. The extremely compact Isissaurus from "Prehistoric Planet" is the best example here. Nobody wants to see thick balloon bodies with pencil-thin necks and tails any more. But while some time ago the sauropods could even serve as an example of efficient lightweight construction, the new trend seems to be the massive mountain of meat.

Most reconstructions I've seen lately don't seem all that exaggerated, you have to keep in mind that Titanosauria had ridiculously huge neck vertebrae.

[Federreptil]

So I wonder whether it is now also a trend that the newer sauropod representations are becoming more and more like mountains of flesh, with the base of the neck becoming wider and deeper. The extremely compact Isissaurus from "Prehistoric Planet" is the best example here. Nobody wants to see thick balloon bodies with pencil-thin necks and tails any more. But while some time ago the sauropods could even serve as an example of efficient lightweight construction, the new trend seems to be the massive mountain of meat.

Most reconstructions I've seen lately don't seem all that exaggerated, you have to keep in mind that Titanosauria had ridiculously huge neck vertebrae.

If you look to your example of the Argentinosausus the neck is a transfer from another species. If the white bones are the known elements it is always the same story. High, length and weight are just a calculation on an estimation. And the huge neck of the Isissaurus in Prehistoric Planet is proved by three single cervical vertebrae. This is no clear evidence to modulate such a huge meat mountain.
Maybe all reconstructions take the neck from the Futalognkosaurus because this seems the most complete finding.
The four known skulls are all from smaller species of Titanosaurs and some with shorter necks. The variation between the Titanosaurs is much wider than other clades. New discoveries will maybe change here our understanding.

So I think, most of the actual reconstructions are filled with a speculation in actual taste. This is only my mind game keeping in mind how often the interpretation of the same found bones has changed in the past. This is no negation of the actual and so necessary reconstructions which I admire. I need this reconstructions because I like this speculations so much. Dioramas don't work without this and go so much further if it comes to the estimated behaviors. But our view of dinosaurs is often also a cultural convention as a scientific proof.

[Federreptil]

Does anyone have some advice? Is there some other species this figure could substitute as a 1:35 representation of? Is it still worth picking up with my collection in mind? Should I just wait for a sauropod that's closer to the scale I'm working off?

Maybe wait for Samuel the new Alamosaurus from PNSO. The Holotype USNM 15560 is for a Titanosaur with nearly 30 m length not the biggest. This size should the new model takes in a scale nearly 1/35 or 1/40.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Does anyone have some advice? Is there some other species this figure could substitute as a 1:35 representation of? Is it still worth picking up with my collection in mind? Should I just wait for a sauropod that's closer to the scale I'm working off?

Maybe wait for Samuel the new Alamosaurus from PNSO. The Holotype USNM 15560 is for a Titanosaur with nearly 30 m length not the biggest. This size should the new model takes in a scale nearly 1/35 or 1/40.

It's def not 1:35 for the holotype, the length they give of 41.5 cm puts it closer to 1:72. It does still match some of the smaller specimens tho, but something closer to 15 m. HLG's upcoming figure however, should be much closer to 1:35.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Hi, folks! I've been collecting on and off for a few years now but recently I've started sticking more to a specific scale (1:35-ish more or less). All the figures I display are just about in scale with each other, with some room for error, of course.

Recently, I've been having trouble deciding on whether I should pick up CollectA's Ruyangosaurus.
I love it as a figure, though I worry if it will fit in with the rest of my collection, being already quite saturated with large theropods that it might look awkward next to.

Does anyone have some advice? Is there some other species this figure could substitute as a 1:35 representation of? Is it still worth picking up with my collection in mind? Should I just wait for a sauropod that's closer to the scale I'm working off?

But yes to answer your question, it fits Rapetosaurus in size and proportions very well.

[Flaffy]

If you look to your example of the Argentinosausus the neck is a transfer from another species. If the white bones are the known elements it is always the same story. High, length and weight are just a calculation on an estimation. And the huge neck of the Isissaurus in Prehistoric Planet is proved by three single cervical vertebrae. This is no clear evidence to modulate such a huge meat mountain.
Maybe all reconstructions take the neck from the Futalognkosaurus because this seems the most complete finding.
The four known skulls are all from smaller species of Titanosaurs and some with shorter necks. The variation between the Titanosaurs is much wider than other clades. New discoveries will maybe change here our understanding.

So I think, most of the actual reconstructions are filled with a speculation in actual taste. This is only my mind game keeping in mind how often the interpretation of the same found bones has changed in the past. This is no negation of the actual and so necessary reconstructions which I admire. I need this reconstructions because I like this speculations so much. Dioramas don't work without this and go so much further if it comes to the estimated behaviors. But our view of dinosaurs is often also a cultural convention as a scientific proof.

We have a good number of both titanosaur neck vertebrae and skulls at this point to be able to make approximations to anatomical features common across the titanosaur family tree.

It's true that there are reconstructions that overestimate the amount of soft tissue on the neck (imo PNSO went a bit overboard on their Alamosaurus too). I believe Eofauna explained the apparent "thinness" of their Diplodocus's neck when the figure was revealed, which is a noticeable difference compared to the overly robust Safari Diplodocus. However, that doesn't mean that Titanosaurs had thin necks. Titanosaurs generally had more robust necks than other sauropods, only rivalled by the likes of Apatosaurines. Eofauna's artwork are a good example of more conservative reconstructions, yet still clearly demonstrates the difference in neck thickness between other sauropods versus Titanosaurs.
Link to image: https://twitter.com/Eofauna/status/1316715102654140416

While I am unable to name all the isolated cervical vertebrae recovered from various species of Titanosaurs, good cervical remains have been recovered from the aformentioned Futalognkosaurus, along with e.g. Alamosaurus, Ruyangosaurus, Patagotitan and possibly more that I can't remember from the top of my head. All of which point to massive neck vertebrae that would've supported large amounts of tissue.






The statement that we only have 4 titanosaur skulls is untrue. While that might've held some ground 10-20 years ago, in 2023 we have recovered far more specimens, as such have a much better understanding of titanosaur cranial anatomy. Case in point, just a couple days ago a new species with an articulate skull was described - Inawentu oslatus. It is true that there is an inherent sense of speculation when it comes to reconstructing species without recovered skulls, that I agree with.

[SidB]

Thank's, @Flaffy , for that update.

[Federreptil]

If you look to your example of the Argentinosausus the neck is a transfer from another species. If the white bones are the known elements it is always the same story. High, length and weight are just a calculation on an estimation. And the huge neck of the Isissaurus in Prehistoric Planet is proved by three single cervical vertebrae. This is no clear evidence to modulate such a huge meat mountain.
Maybe all reconstructions take the neck from the Futalognkosaurus because this seems the most complete finding.
The four known skulls are all from smaller species of Titanosaurs and some with shorter necks. The variation between the Titanosaurs is much wider than other clades. New discoveries will maybe change here our understanding.

So I think, most of the actual reconstructions are filled with a speculation in actual taste. This is only my mind game keeping in mind how often the interpretation of the same found bones has changed in the past. This is no negation of the actual and so necessary reconstructions which I admire. I need this reconstructions because I like this speculations so much. Dioramas don't work without this and go so much further if it comes to the estimated behaviors. But our view of dinosaurs is often also a cultural convention as a scientific proof.

We have a good number of both titanosaur neck vertebrae and skulls at this point to be able to make approximations to anatomical features common across the titanosaur family tree.

It's true that there are reconstructions that overestimate the amount of soft tissue on the neck (imo PNSO went a bit overboard on their Alamosaurus too). I believe Eofauna explained the apparent "thinness" of their Diplodocus's neck when the figure was revealed, which is a noticeable difference compared to the overly robust Safari Diplodocus. However, that doesn't mean that Titanosaurs had thin necks. Titanosaurs generally had more robust necks than other sauropods, only rivalled by the likes of Apatosaurines. Eofauna's artwork are a good example of more conservative reconstructions, yet still clearly demonstrates the difference in neck thickness between other sauropods versus Titanosaurs.
Link to image: https://twitter.com/Eofauna/status/1316715102654140416

While I am unable to name all the isolated cervical vertebrae recovered from various species of Titanosaurs, good cervical remains have been recovered from the aformentioned Futalognkosaurus, along with e.g. Alamosaurus, Ruyangosaurus, Patagotitan and possibly more that I can't remember from the top of my head. All of which point to massive neck vertebrae that would've supported large amounts of tissue.






The statement that we only have 4 titanosaur skulls is untrue. While that might've held some ground 10-20 years ago, in 2023 we have recovered far more specimens, as such have a much better understanding of titanosaur cranial anatomy. Case in point, just a couple days ago a new species with an articulate skull was described - Inawentu oslatus. It is true that there is an inherent sense of speculation when it comes to reconstructing species without recovered skulls, that I agree with.

Thanks too for the update. My informations are apparently not up to date. But I'm not totally wrong with my feeling that an overestimate of soft neck tissue in some reconstructions is an actual trend for some manufactures and Prehistoric Planet, which is rightly so praised for so many breathtaking moments.

[Tracewyrm!]

Hello, everyone! May not have directly replied to any of the messages in time, but I really appreciated all the feedback! It was all very informative! I will be picking up the Ruyangosaurus sooner or later (if nothing else, to keep the similarly sized PNSO Alamosaurus company).

I guess this thread is good a place as any to bring up my occasional collecting questions, in regard to whether I might want to pick up a specific figure or not.

A couple days ago, this online shop I visit brought on a few Safari figures I don't see too often. There was even a carnegie Brachiosaurus, the one with the red back, but it appears that somebody snatched it before I could get to it  ..

Now, a lot of these figures are ones I already have or ones I'm not particularly interested in for one reason or another, but there's this specific figure that picqued my interest. The "Pterosaur", pretty sure supposed to be a figure of Anhaguera. The only place I had even seen that figure before was the review on the blog.
Even when looking it up directly, I find very few reviews and images of it, so seeing it up intrigued me a little bit.

Is this figure usually available? It looks good either way, though I may want to give it extra priority if this is a figure I'm unlikely to find so easily in the future.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Is this figure usually available? It looks good either way, though I may want to give it extra priority if this is a figure I'm unlikely to find so easily in the future.

Hi! I've seen it in shops earlier this year so I imagine it's fairly well available. The last place I remember was the MoR but I believe there have been other places.

[Halichoeres]

Widely available, and modeled after a pterosaur that still lacks a name!

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Widely available, and modeled after a pterosaur that still lacks a name!

I feel like I've been waiting my entire life for that darned thing to get named lol.

[Halichoeres]

Widely available, and modeled after a pterosaur that still lacks a name!

I feel like I've been waiting my entire life for that darned thing to get named lol.

Certainly most of your life!