Accurate Torvosaurus figure

[Sim]

I'm continuing the discussion on representing Torvosaurus accurately from here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=11241.msg366516;topicseen#new

I think PNSO is the only one that have depicted Torvo accurately to the general public.

M @Manospundylus gigas, I've compared the PNSO Torvosaurus to the up-to-date and outdated Torvosaurus skulls you provided, below.



As can be seen the PNSO Torvosaurus's snout is shorter than a real Torvosaurus's, and deeper as well at the front of the snout and back of the maxilla.  Notice how the new skull's premaxillary teeth would be under skin when placed under the PNSO figure's head, and that the premaxillary teeth of the PNSO figure are not attached to anything when the new skull is placed under the PNSO.  And you're right, the PNSO Torvosaurus has some teeth too many at the back of the upper jaw, those too would not be supported by anything when placing the new skull under the PNSO.
The PNSO Torvosaurus's head looks like it's based on the outdated skull in the image above or something similar.  The depth of the skull matches, the chin matches and the PNSO figure also has the nasal crest, which is made-up as no megalosaurid has the upper nasal preserved.

Adding lips would still show a clear ~ between the maxilla and jugal, unlike the drawing where the lips start from the lowestt point of the jugal (impossible).

If that's true then the PNSO Torvosaurus does what you're saying is impossible.

I would like to point out that Fred's torvo very much does match the new material, and tbh I feel that pnso's is still too bulky and the head is still somewhat off even keeping the new material in mind.

I agree.  And it's from 2017, not the "early 10's".  I've compared it to the Elvis Torvosaurus specimen below.  It matches well as far as I can see.
  Image source
  (Image source)

I think a very good Torvosaurus figure doesn't exist currently.  I like the PNSO figure but I'm glad I was finally able to see why it didn't look right to me.  I hope very much that a company will produce an accurate Torvosaurus figure.

[marisaura]

as someone who has the collecta version, i pulled it out to compare it to the material you're showing in the post, and it actually looks significantly more accurate to it than the PNSO, at least to the untrained eye. it has a longer, narrower head that matches up pretty closely to the "now" skull, and has a more gracile postcranial build that resembles the 2017 reconstruction. it has other issues - the material is pliable and rubbery and it has some unsightly seam lines around the neck - but accuracy-wise it looks to be the best torvosaurus on the market right now unless i'm missing something obvious.

[Manospundylus gigas]

I'm continuing the discussion on representing Torvosaurus accurately from here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=11241.msg366516;topicseen#new

I think PNSO is the only one that have depicted Torvo accurately to the general public.

M @Manospundylus gigas, I've compared the PNSO Torvosaurus to the up-to-date and outdated Torvosaurus skulls you provided, below.



As can be seen the PNSO Torvosaurus's snout is shorter than a real Torvosaurus's, and deeper as well at the front of the snout and back of the maxilla.  Notice how the new skull's premaxillary teeth would be under skin when placed under the PNSO figure's head, and that the premaxillary teeth of the PNSO figure are not attached to anything when the new skull is placed under the PNSO.  And you're right, the PNSO Torvosaurus has some teeth too many at the back of the upper jaw, those too would not be supported by anything when placing the new skull under the PNSO.
The PNSO Torvosaurus's head looks like it's based on the outdated skull in the image above or something similar.  The depth of the skull matches, the chin matches and the PNSO figure also has the nasal crest, which is made-up as no megalosaurid has the upper nasal preserved.

Adding lips would still show a clear ~ between the maxilla and jugal, unlike the drawing where the lips start from the lowestt point of the jugal (impossible).

If that's true then the PNSO Torvosaurus does what you're saying is impossible.

I would like to point out that Fred's torvo very much does match the new material, and tbh I feel that pnso's is still too bulky and the head is still somewhat off even keeping the new material in mind.

I agree.  And it's from 2017, not the "early 10's".  I've compared it to the Elvis Torvosaurus specimen below.  It matches well as far as I can see.
  Image source
  (Image source)

I think a very good Torvosaurus figure doesn't exist currently.  I like the PNSO figure but I'm glad I was finally able to see why it didn't look right to me.  I hope very much that a company will produce an accurate Torvosaurus figure.

I didnt said PNSO is perfect, just that it is currently the most accurate in my opinion, because the head is clearly not based on the old reconstruction unlike most of the others. It obviusly has its flaws like the alveoli position, the deep of the maxilla, the jugal size and curvature, and yes the lips it has start from the jugal.

Freds ilustration, yes it is from 17, I was referring to early 10's as for the aesthetics. But all the mistakes you (correctly) mentioned about PNSO head sculpt, Freds one has them all, more and worse, maxilla is way deeper than that of pnso and jugal shape not correct. It is clearly based on the old outdated skull, simply because at that time (2017) was the only one avaliable, Elvis wasnt prepared yet and the accurate updated skull was revealed like 2 years later. 

For the body proportions it works the same way, that ilustartion is prior to Elvis, the body is clearly oversized to the head (or the head undersized compared to the body), againg he couldnt be aware of that. And the legs are too long, mainly the metatarsals, but also the tibia. Look where the ventral part of the torso is, at the level of the knee, this is because they have really long vertical ribs and flat torsos, the gastralia is as low as the distal end of the femora. Also Elvis lower legs may be oversized because they are scaled cast, only the femoras were preserved. Dry Mesa specimens, the big ones, ~9,2m, have tibias of 720mm and matatarsal III of 350mm, shorter than those of a 8,4m long Allosaurus for example.

Currently is like that, but take a look at this upcomig Torvo figure, for me its head is the best one, most accurate and correct, but is not in the market yet, and maybe it could never arrive. Sadly the figure itself has some flaws like the long legs (again) and is too oversized for a 1:35, representing a 12m long along the centra, when the actual biggest specimens like Elvis and Edmarka are in 10,5m range. But at least the head body ratio is correct.

[triceratops83]

I'd really like to see Doug Watson do one for Safari. THAT would be the ultimate Torvosaurus.

[marisaura]

i drew up a comparison between the torvosaurus skull in the OP, the head of the collecta figure, and the head of the PNSO:

[Manospundylus gigas]

i drew up a comparison between the torvosaurus skull in the OP, the head of the collecta figure, and the head of the PNSO:

Great, it's very helpful.
We can see that collecta has a narrower maxilla, probably the anteorbital fenestra is more accurate in that model, while in PNSO the ascending process is more vertical, forming a greater angle with the ventral margin, so in that aspect collecta is closer to the real fossil. The ventral part of the jugal process is correctly angled in collecta and is too straight in pnso. Also the ridges on nasals in PNSO makes the maxilla appear taller than it really is. The aveoli count and place are way better in collecta than in PNSO.
Meanwhile from the lacrimal to quadratojugal PNSO is clearly way better and more accurate. Note the jugal in collecta has its lowest point as soon as the very beggining of the orbital fenestra, while in the actual fossil and pnso is at the middle of temporal fenestra. Also the lacrimals anteorbital ramus in collecta is incorrectly vertical, at 90º, when in the real and PNSO it is cranio-caudally angled, at ~120º (PNSO looks less angled than it should too ~110º).
The dentary of collecta is incorrect in having too many alveoli and placed too posteriorly, while PNSO is correct in that regard.

Overall I choose PNSO over collecta, and the whole body-head proportions is way better in PNSO, collecta being a chimera with megalosaurus and allosaurus body parts. But theres no doubt that from premaxilla till the posterior part of anteorbital fenestra collecta is way better.

[Bread]

I definitely find the shortening of the crest and addition of lips helps PNSO's. This was done by dinosaur_models_artworks:

[Sim]

I didnt said PNSO is perfect, just that it is currently the most accurate in my opinion, because the head is clearly not based on the old reconstruction unlike most of the others.

I've done a comparison of the three Torvosaurus reconstructions to Elvis, which can be seen below.

  CollectA Torvosaurus photo by @Gwangi

I think you're right about Fred's Torvosaurus being based on pre-Elvis material.  I can now see that its head does have all the inaccuracies of the PNSO version, although I don't agree its worse than PNSO's, I think its the lips that make it look different to PNSO's.  The legs and feet of Fred's do look too big, and Fred's also lacks the distinctive curvature of the back over the pelvis, PNSO's captures these features accurately.

CollectA's Torvosaurus has good proportions generally, but its head looks too small and the dentary teeth extend too far back as you said (I've never seen lower jaw teeth extend past upper jaw teeth proximally in a real dinosaur specimen).  Also, its dorsal spines look too big to be realistic, they would be enormous on a real Torvosaurus!

PNSO's Torvosaurus looks flawless to me postcranially, its the head that looks really inaccurate to me.  I strongly believe its head was based on an old reconstruction, it looks identical to one of them.  And if its head wasn't based on Elvis's, which it isn't, then what would it be based on?  The only alternative is one of the old reconstructions.

One comment on the CollectA Torvosaurus is that unlike all the others it is intended to represent Torvosaurus gurneyi, so I'm not sure there's anything inaccurate about it except for the dentary teeth extending too far back.

I'll look into the Dinosaur Empire Torvosaurus later.

[Manospundylus gigas]

One comment on the CollectA Torvosaurus is that unlike all the others it is intended to represent Torvosaurus gurneyi, so I'm not sure there's anything inaccurate about it except for the dentary teeth extending too far back.

I'll look into the Dinosaur Empire Torvosaurus later.

I was just about to comment that maybe, and it could explain a few things, PNSO head could be based in Dry Mesa elements with gurneyi maxilla?, it certainly doesnt look as extreme as the real T. tanneri actually is. But the lacrimals anteorbital ramus is quite angled, a feature that was only obvious after Elvis, none of the previous recons showed this condition. Idk, maybe they just based it mainly on Elvis but couldnt reproduce it properly, and they left it looking like a intermediate, the teeth going that far posteriorly is a mistake whatever they were looking at. The body and scale is cleary based on Elvis, everything fits, from size to proportions to elements that only that specimen preserves.
I agree with you about all the other points.   

[Sim]

You're right that the lacrimal of the PNSO figure appears to be based on Elvis's and since the postcrania is as well, it does raise the question of why the rest of the head doesn't look like Elvis's?  At this point I think PNSO just made a mistake when sculpting the head and didn't reproduce Elvis's correctly.  Perhaps PNSO did use T. gurneyi's maxilla.

Currently is like that, but take a look at this upcomig Torvo figure, for me its head is the best one, most accurate and correct, but is not in the market yet, and maybe it could never arrive. Sadly the figure itself has some flaws like the long legs (again) and is too oversized for a 1:35, representing a 12m long along the centra, when the actual biggest specimens like Elvis and Edmarka are in 10,5m range. But at least the head body ratio is correct.

I've tried to compare the figure to Elvis below.



The figure's postcrania look accurate to me, the snout however looks a bit too short again.  I think it has the best head of all the Torvosaurus reconstructions in this thread, but we have yet to see an accurate Torvosaurus tanneri figure.  I think you're right that the Dinosaur Empire figure is larger than a 1:35 Torvosaurus.

[Manospundylus gigas]

You're right that the lacrimal of the PNSO figure appears to be based on Elvis's and since the postcrania is as well, it does raise the question of why the rest of the head doesn't look like Elvis's?  At this point I think PNSO just made a mistake when sculpting the head and didn't reproduce Elvis's correctly.  Perhaps PNSO did use T. gurneyi's maxilla.

Currently is like that, but take a look at this upcomig Torvo figure, for me its head is the best one, most accurate and correct, but is not in the market yet, and maybe it could never arrive. Sadly the figure itself has some flaws like the long legs (again) and is too oversized for a 1:35, representing a 12m long along the centra, when the actual biggest specimens like Elvis and Edmarka are in 10,5m range. But at least the head body ratio is correct.

I've tried to compare the figure to Elvis below.



The figure's postcrania look accurate to me, the snout however looks a bit too short again.  I think it has the best head of all the Torvosaurus reconstructions in this thread, but we have yet to see an accurate Torvosaurus tanneri figure.  I think you're right that the Dinosaur Empire figure is larger than a 1:35 Torvosaurus.

I absolutely agree. The first time I saw it I thought it was accurate, but now that you have mentioned it, it is incorrect in many points. As you said the snout is too short, I have noticed that the premaxilla+maxilla together are almost twice the lenght (~190%) from lacrimal to quadratojugal in Elvis, while in the dinosaur empire figure is just like 130% being generous. Also the jugal is still not curved enough. The postcrania I like it all except the lower legs: in Elvis the femur size, from femoral head to distal end, is as long as the whole tibia + tarsus + half the metatarsals, and in the figure the tibia itself is already as long as the femur.

"we have yet to see an accurate Torvosaurus tanneri figure" absolutely.

[Sim]

I was just looking on the Torvosaurus Wikipedia page and I read that over 10m length estimates for Torvosaurus tanneri have been made, including one based on a specific specimen that might or might not belong to T. tanneri.  I guess that's what the Dinosaur Empire Torvosaurus's size is based on, I don't know how reliable the over 10m estimates are though.

[Manospundylus gigas]

I was just looking on the Torvosaurus Wikipedia page and I read that over 10m length estimates for Torvosaurus tanneri have been made, including one based on a specific specimen that might or might not belong to T. tanneri.  I guess that's what the Dinosaur Empire Torvosaurus's size is based on, I don't know how reliable the over 10m estimates are though.

Yeah wikipedia is the least reliable source. Elvis or CMC VP15575 is the biggest T. tanneri about ~10,4m long. Then we have Edmarka specimens, that most propably are T. tanneri, of those, 3 are essentialy same size of Elvis, or slightly bigger, ~10,6m at much.
Over that mark are just wrong outdated estimates. 12m estimates were commonly seen a decade ago because they were scaling body size based on allosaurid proportions. And yeah if theres a 130cm long Allosaurus skull, that animal would have been around 13m, but like a T. bataar 135cm skull that belongs to a 10m individual, Torvos one is also elongated compared to body length.

Before Elvis was discovered, Torvo was based on Dry Mesa elements, those are: incomplete premaxilla, incomplete maxilla, jugal, lacrimal, quadrate, some few cervicals, dorsals and caudals, 2 or 3 tibie, 2 fibulae and like 10 metatarsals. All the material there was disarticulated, by the presence of 3 MT III there are 3 indivisuals represented in Dry Mesa (2 of same size, 1 slightly smaller), but the association of the bones was difficult. It was thougt that the skull bones were from different individuals, because the lacrimal and quadrate were very small compared to the jugal and maxilla (based on allosaurus skull proportions), the vertebra series were likely from the same individual, but from which one? the small one or one of the two bigs? So over 30 years they took that maxilla and jugal and scaled the animal based on Allosaurus maxilla and jugal sizes, hence the 12m results. In the early 90's many isolated bones were recovered from different quarries and they were referred to Edmarka rex, mainly because size. Those remains were isolated, not associated and from different places so a whole skeletal reconstruction was difficult. Those remains are: a jugal ~440mm(barely bigger than that of Dry Mesa), a massive (but short) pubis 860mm, a robust incomplete scapulacoracoid ~950mm, one caudal vertebra 140mm (Dry Mesa ~130mm) and several long ribs.
Then in 2000's gurneyi was discovered, a important find because it was a single associaed individual, and it demostarted that Torvo had a proportionally very elongated maxilla compared to limb bones, this specimen was found to be slightly bigger than the big Dry Mesa big 2, being in TL ~9,5m, so then Dry Mesa specimens were scaled down from 11m to ~9,3m. But gurneyi lacked most of the vertebral column, and none of the elements of Edmarka were found, so some of those specimens were still considered to be 12m individuals.
Finally Elvis was discovered, an associated and articulated skeleton, with cranial material, articulated presacral column, ilium, pubos, ischia and femora, sharing many elements with Edmarka individuals and allowing a direct comparison and a proper reconstruction. Its maxilla is the biggest one, and the pubis and ribs are roughly same size of Edmarka, as the vertebral column was almost complete (althoug the caudal series was missing) the length on the individual was easily measured at ~10,4m along the centra.
And... thats all folks! for now, the biggest remains belong to 10,5m specimens, or in other words, there are no bigger specimens than CMC VP15575 (Elvis), CPS 1002 (scapula), CPS 1001 (dorsal ribs) and CPS 1010 (pubis), all of those ~10,5m. 

[Sim]

That's very interesting, thanks M @Manospundylus gigas!

With how unique Torvosaurus tanneri turned out to be and how complete our knowledge is of this species now, I hope it's only a matter of time before a nice company makes an up-to-date figure of it.  It would certainly stand out among the large amount of allosauroid and tyrannosauroid figures.

Safari has never made a megalosaurid and I believe they could do T. tanneri justice.  Papo's recent Spinosaurus and Suchomimus are phenomenal, even if the former is outdated now, so if they reference the Elvis specimen I'm sure they could offer an equally good Torvosaurus.  I'm afraid they would reference an outdated Torvosaurus skeletal however, since those are still widely circulated.  I think Haolonggood could provide an accurate Torvosaurus, if they base it on Elvis of course.  I don't expect a new Torvosaurus from PNSO anytime soon, I think it's not a priority for them.

In case Safari or Haolonggood are interested in making Torvosaurus tanneri and would find this thread helpful, I'll "mention" @Doug Watson, S @Shane and V @vampiredesign.

[Sim]

I knew that Torvosaurus tanneri and Torvosaurus gurneyi were the same size, 10m long and that larger estimates for T. gurneyi were found to be exaggerations.  Looking recently on the Torvosaurus Wikipedia page, I noticed a user that has been changing lots of dinosaur length estimates has revised the length of T. tanneri to 9m and T. gurneyi to 10-11m.  I wonder what the true length of these animals were?  Anyone have an idea?

[Torvosaurus]

I knew that Torvosaurus tanneri and Torvosaurus gurneyi were the same size, 10m long and that larger estimates for T. gurneyi were found to be exaggerations.  Looking recently on the Torvosaurus Wikipedia page, I noticed a user that has been changing lots of dinosaur length estimates has revised the length of T. tanneri to 9m and T. gurneyi to 10-11m.  I wonder what the true length of these animals were?  Anyone have an idea?

In 10 million years, after the cockroaches inherit the earth, their Roachian paleontologists will stumble across our bones. They'll likely dig up a few hundred skeletons and find that humans were prominent in the past. They'll dig somebody up that is 6 feet 4 inches tall and decide that  is the maximum size for humans. But we know that there are a fair number of people taller than that and that humans over 7 feet are certainly possible. Robert Wadlow was 8 feet 11 inches tall, the tallest man known. However, those Roachian paleontologists won't know of him or Shaquille O'Neal or Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Yao Ming, so they assume that 6 feet 4 inches was as tall as a man can get because those are the largest bones they have recovered.

I'm a firm believer that most dinosaurs are of average size. I'm not even sure how many t-rex skeletons are around 11-12 meters, but I'd be willing to bet that was average and that there were definitely larger ones in the past. Same goes for Torvosaurus. Excluding juvenile dinosaurs, 9 to 11 meters is probably average for Torvosaurus. The odds that we have found and excavated a "Shaq"-sized skeleton is highly unlikely. It's also unlikely we have found the smallest adult size of a specific genus, as well.

So I tend to look at the adult stages (and lengths) of a dinosaur species as being average. Significantly larger or smaller dinosaurs aren't likely to have been discovered.

Torvo

[crazy8wizard]

Based on Bakker's "Edmarka rex"/Torvosaurus rex specimen, we probably have found a Shaq sized skeleton, since the size estimate it was given places it near 12 meters in length. Unfortunately the actual material is probably in his personal collection currently, so while it exists, it doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things until it gets described.

[Sim]

Based on Bakker's "Edmarka rex"/Torvosaurus rex specimen, we probably have found a Shaq sized skeleton, since the size estimate it was given places it near 12 meters in length. Unfortunately the actual material is probably in his personal collection currently, so while it exists, it doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things until it gets described.

Thanks!  I think that very large specimens like those of "Edmarka" and Saurophaganax belong to the same species as closely related, smaller specimens.  I find it unlikely larger species are only known from the largest remains, as well as that the more frequently found sizes probably represent the average size and so larger specimens would be expected to have existed.  With all that in mind, I think "Edmarka" and "Brontoraptor" are most likely giant specimens of Torvosaurus tanneri, as some have suggested.

[Elengassen]

Isn't it the case that some reptiles (e.g. crocodiles) grow continuously throughout their lives? If that was the case with non-avian theropods, a larger size could be more likely due to age than to that individual being larger than average.

[crazy8wizard]

Isn't it the case that some reptiles (e.g. crocodiles) grow continuously throughout their lives? If that was the case with non-avian theropods, a larger size could be more likely due to age than to that individual being larger than average.

Some dinosaurs do have known growth rates and go through fast growth spurts. Many grow continuously although not linearly, but logarithmically.