Concavenator’s Collection

[Stegotyranno420]

You are replacing the Carnegie one?

[Concavenator]

You are replacing the Carnegie one?

Yep, I sold it already. When I get a figure of a species I already had, I always sell off the one I previously had, no matter the figure or how much I like the species.

[Stegotyranno420]

You are replacing the Carnegie one?

Yep, I sold it already. When I get a figure of a species I already had, I always sell off the one I previously had, no matter the figure or how much I like the species.

Dedicated.

[Halichoeres]

I agree this figure is underrated. I think part of the reason is that it's small. It's about 1:35, which many people claim to want, but I think what that often means is they want it to be large. Concavenator was medium-sized, what're you gonna do?

What's your opinion of the Favorite Co. model? It has quills, which I'm personally highly skeptical of.

[Concavenator]

I agree this figure is underrated. I think part of the reason is that it's small. It's about 1:35, which many people claim to want, but I think what that often means is they want it to be large. Concavenator was medium-sized, what're you gonna do?

What's your opinion of the Favorite Co. model? It has quills, which I'm personally highly skeptical of.

You may be right about the size matter. An actual 1:35 collector shouldn't consider this Concavenator (or Safari's 2020 Dilophosaurus, for that matter) to be small, they should be happy with their sizes. If most people consider these figures to be small then it means most people don't really have a preference for 1:35 scale figures, but rather to bigger figures, generally speaking. It's all giggles when a 1:35 Edmontosaurus is concerned, but who would get a 1:35 Scutellosaurus? 

When it comes to Favorite's Concavenator, without having owned it, and just going by online pics/reviews, I think it's pretty good. It seems to be missing the scutes on the underside of the tail, though. When it comes to the arm quills, Ortega et al. 2010 mention:

Concavenator corcovatus is a primitive member of Carcharodontosauria, exhibiting two unusual features: [...] and a series of small bumps on the ulna. We think that these bumps are homologous to quill knobs present on some modern birds; the knobs are related to the insertion area of follicular ligaments that anchor the roots of the flight feathers (remiges) to the arm. We propose that Concavenator has integumentary follicular structures inserted on the ulna, as in modern birds.

So it seems some sort of structure was indeed present. On that front, depicting it with those quills would be preferable to ignoring those ulnar bumps. Ubirajara proved similar structures could've been present in Theropoda, so Concavenator might have had something similar. Since it's not clear what sort of structure was present, those ulnar bumps to me suggest Concavenator was probably feathered. As to its arms, quills could be a possibility, but who's to say it couldn't have had wings, either?! PNSO considered this possibility:

Ironically, as cursed as Papo's Concavenator is, they bothered to represent it with some spaghetti feathers, so [just on that particular aspect] it could be considered more accurate than the otherwise far, far superior versions by Carnegie and Safari! 

[Sim]

I doubt Concavenator had bare quills on its arms, they don't make sense to me.  I think it's more likely Concavenator had proper feathers instead, PNSO's rendition of Concavenator's arms as seen above looks like what I expect Concavenator had.  Its either that or being featherless IMO.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Well, there's Psittacosaurus, which, while not a theropod, has quills without being feathered! Still, I think feathered Concavenator is reasonable. We already know some non-avian theropods had wings, so perhaps Concavenator had wings too, as portrayed by PNSO. That, or feathers+quills, as Ubirajara shows, but I deem that as more unlikely, as those quills on Ubirajara aren't placed on its forelimbs. So maybe it had wings! Which would be surprising for an allosauroid, to say the least.  If Concavenator really was feathered, that would have important implications for the presence of feathers among Theropoda.

[Sim]

The filaments of Psittacosaurus were recently concluded to be scales, based on their interior.

[crazy8wizard]

The filaments of Psittacosaurus were recently concluded to be scales, based on their interior.

Aren't all feather quills modified scales?

[Sim]

I don't think that has been proven.  In any case, a difference between scales and feathers exists, and the filaments of Psittacosaurus contain pulp which shows they are scales.

[Turacoverdin]

I agree this figure is underrated. I think part of the reason is that it's small. It's about 1:35, which many people claim to want, but I think what that often means is they want it to be large. Concavenator was medium-sized, what're you gonna do?

You may be right about the size matter. An actual 1:35 collector shouldn't consider this Concavenator (or Safari's 2020 Dilophosaurus, for that matter) to be small, they should be happy with their sizes. If most people consider these figures to be small then it means most people don't really have a preference for 1:35 scale figures, but rather to bigger figures, generally speaking. It's all giggles when a 1:35 Edmontosaurus is concerned, but who would get a 1:35 Scutellosaurus? 

Funnily enough, your discussion here was what convinced me to get it a few days ago - arrived today, it's a lovely little figure. And yes, I'm probably one of the few people unhinged enough to be in the market for a 1:35 Scutellosaurus haha

I think your assessment of purported 1:35 collectors is probably correct, which is a real shame because displaying a wide range of taxa (in both size and taxonomy) only enhances the experience of collecting IMO. Makes it feel more like a museum display, or an actual zoological collection if you've got a vivid enough imagination lol. Part of the reason I favour 1:35 in particular is because, small discrepancy aside, it pairs really well with 1:32 extant animals like Britains. Comparing and contrasting them in hand is interesting and gives you a far greater appreciation for all of them than any 2D side profile can.

[Concavenator]

T @Turacoverdin Glad to hear you gave it a go and you're happy with it!  I guess strictly 1:35 collectors pass on most of Safari's figures, but this is one of the few Safaris to be in 1:35 AFAIK.

I like what you said about scale too. I've mostly been a non-scale oriented collector, but certainly having your figures (or most of them) around/in the same scale does make for a more attractive and natural display indeed. So I'm trying for my collection's figures to be in scale when possible (unless there are relevant differences in accuracy, case in which I'll favor accuracy, etc). Not that I'm gonna say no to some out-of-scale figure here and there, if I did, I probably would never get a figure of certain species (especially the smaller ones).

Do you only collect 1:35 figures?

And yeah, I would be in for a 1:35 Scutellosaurus too, but if this animal ever gets made, I guess it will be made at least at 1:18!

[Halichoeres]

Interesting. I remember the 2010 paper but I have never found their claim about the ulna convincing. I might well be wrong, maybe Concavenator had a set of display wings, but it's odd to me that nothing else in its phylogenetic neighborhood shows evidence of anything similar.

T @Turacoverdin I'm glad to hear you're pleased with the Safari! I agree that modern animals at the same scale are a great way to ground the mind's eye.

[Concavenator]

Interesting. I remember the 2010 paper but I have never found their claim about the ulna convincing. I might well be wrong, maybe Concavenator had a set of display wings, but it's odd to me that nothing else in its phylogenetic neighborhood shows evidence of anything similar.

It's certainly odd no other allosauroid shows something similar, but similarly, Sciurumimus could also be considered an oddity if we consider it to be a megalosauroid, no other member of the group shows evidence of feathers. So feathers may not have been restricted to Coelurosauria.

[Sim]

I hope I won't regret saying no large megalosauroid preserves any integument, so in theory any of them could be feathered too...  Except I think most of them weren't, as the expected replacement of feathers with scales corroborated by Carnotaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus would apply to them too.  I think it's possible, perhaps even likely, the smaller megalosauroids were feathered though, e.g. Eustreptospondylus.

It's a good point that no other allosauroid has evidence of wing feathers, not even any tyrannosauroid does and we know at least some members of that group had feathers.  I did see one of the palaeontologists that believes Concavenator has quill knobs say that the larger allosauroids such as Allosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus have reduced arms and so they are not expected to have wing feathers.  I wonder about Dilong though, its forelimbs look similar to Concavenator's, yet it doesn't have wing feathers either.  Also, I wouldn't call the forlimbs of Allosaurus or Yutyrannus "reduced", unless one means as not posessing the function of a wing and being specialised for predation...

[Concavenator]

Yeah, theoretically those large megalosauroids could be feathered too, but I personally doubt it. Even some big and derived coelurosaurians like tyrannosaurids are generally considered to be (mostly or totally scaly), then I would say the same could apply for large megalosauroids. The number of feathered coelurosaurians (with direct evidence, e.g. feathers being prederved in the fossil) is quite larger than the single feathered megalosauroid (if it's one to begin with) we know of.

If bigger allosauroids like Allosaurus/Acrocanthosaurus don't have ulnar bumps then I would also agree with them lacking wings. They would look so weird with wings too! 

There's recently been skin impressions on Allosaurus and there's no evidence for feathers. And I'm not aware of skin impressions having been found on any other allosauroid.

If a Concavenator (or another allosauroid) specimen is discovered with (preserved) feathers that would be an important discovery, and could open the possibility of other members possessing feathers as well. Since lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Quite honestly, barring the larger specimens, your average allosaurus would be well within the size range to possess some sort of feathers

[Halichoeres]

I choose to believe that the knobs on the ulna anchored spikes like on Batman's gauntlets.

[Leyster]

Interesting. I remember the 2010 paper but I have never found their claim about the ulna convincing. I might well be wrong, maybe Concavenator had a set of display wings, but it's odd to me that nothing else in its phylogenetic neighborhood shows evidence of anything similar.

Well, Cuesta's enormus (200 and more pages) work on Concavenator studied its myology, too, and concluded those were not muscle scars (the alternate explanation).
Yeah, theoretically those large megalosauroids could be feathered too, but I personally doubt it. Even some big and derived coelurosaurians like tyrannosaurids are generally considered to be (mostly or totally scaly),
It should however be noted that ulnar papillae do not always preserve/their absence doesn't mean an animal has no wing feathers. They are reported in just one of the Velociraptor specimens, they are absent in Zhenyuanlong despite its absolutely massive wings and they are not reported in Anzu despite its close relative Corythoraptor having them (yet no one suggests featherless Anzu).

There's recently been skin impressions on Allosaurus and there's no evidence for feathers.

A thing vey often forgotten when discussing this is that the feathered Yixian specimens are preserved in a waaay different environment (very fine volcanic ashes in a lacustrine habitat) than most dinosaur "mummies", which often came from very dry environments (and feathers are deleted by taphonomic processes before than scales) and the "skin impressions" are litterally skin impressions, as "what is left after skin is pressed against the sediment", instead of true fossilized skin. In this case, I think that even the "bubbles" on the skin of a dissecated bird (think of a grilled chicken) would look like "scales".
I'm not meaning that big theropods weren't scaly, just that the evidence for this is not as set in stone as some write it.

[Concavenator]

@DefinitelyNOTDilo Pretty sure something like feathering isn't something that's up for intraspecific variation.

@Halichoeres LOL, I guess Cuesta and colleagues would rather see that than nothing at all! 

L @Leyster Very interesting points! Good to remember that, save for particular cases in which feathers are literally preserved, the nature of theropod integument is not that clear, regardless of what some people claim. For instance, after the famous paper by Bell et al., 2017, it seems as though any depiction of a derived tyrannosauroid with feathers is just outdated... and that may not necessarily be the case. For instance, said paper assumes feathers and scales are mutually exclusive, which is false (living birds and Juravenator, for example, prove otherwise). I find the situation with derived tyrannosauroids to be particularly funny, because prior to that paper, a lot of tyrannosaurid depictions were feathered (and usually predominantly so), presumably because of the recent description of Yutyrannus. And then that paper dropped and all those feathered tyrannosauroids were now considered as "obsolete". As you, I'm not saying those tyrannosauroids were feathered, but I would also recommend thinking twice before claiming that such feathered depictions are "outdated" or "inaccurate". After all, tyrannosaurids are still big coelurosaurs just like therizinosaurians as Therizinosaurus, Nothronychus, etc. are as well.