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

[Sim]

The Battat Maiasaura has a single crest and isn't inaccurate in that area as far as I know.  Olorotitan's Maiasaura doesn't convince me with how the dorsal nasal bone projects outwards of the fleshy nostrils.

[Concavenator]

Here are other examples of an accurate Maiasaura:



Also by Olorotitan.



By El Reptileano.



By @spinosaurus1

As can be seen, Battat's doesn't have a crest across the eyebrows, it seems as if the hornlets are fused into a single structure. I'm not sure I'd call it accurate, then.

Oh and by the way, since reviews of HLG's Edmontosaurus are starting to come out, it would fit better as grey, as it is smaller than Safari's (coded as grey) Edmontosaurus:

[Sim]

Battat's Maiasaura doesn't have hornlets fused into a single structure, it simply has a crest where Maiasaura has a bony crest.  I'm not aware of anything that indicates that is inaccurate.  The extent of the fleshy crest in the "accurate" examples you showed is greater than the bony crest but I'm not aware of anything that suggests that is accurate.  I'm also highly skeptical the dorsal nasal protruded beyond the flesh nostrils as seen in most of the reconstructions you showed.  Additonally, the fleshy nostrils being connected to the crest is not something I know has definitely been concluded.

Thanks regarding the Edmontosaurus, Haolonggood's is smaller than I thought!

[Concavenator]

BTW, I think Safari's Concavenator would be better off as purple. Here it is compared to PNSO's Pachycephalosaurus (which appears as purple):

[Halichoeres]

BTW, I think Safari's Concavenator would be better off as purple. Here it is compared to PNSO's Pachycephalosaurus (which appears as purple):

For a moment I took that to mean that the toy itself should have been painted purple.


I'm also not understanding the problem with Battat's Maiasaura. Is it about the extent of the crest? It emphatically does not have hornlets (unlike their Ouranosaurus, which correctly does).

[Concavenator]

BTW, I think Safari's Concavenator would be better off as purple. Here it is compared to PNSO's Pachycephalosaurus (which appears as purple):

For a moment I took that to mean that the toy itself should have been painted purple.


I'm also not understanding the problem with Battat's Maiasaura. Is it about the extent of the crest? It emphatically does not have hornlets (unlike their Ouranosaurus, which correctly does).

Had it been painted purple, I am confident some people may have brought in the Barney comparison.  Jokes aside, if properly done, a purple dinosaur could be interesting. Too much brown already.

As for Battat's Maiasaura, thank you for confirming it does not have hornlets. I have read this quote you cited from Horner et al. 2004 again and I have come to the conclusion that the way the crest is handled on Battat's Maiasaura is not inaccurate:

"In Maiasaura...the caudal nasals [that is, the posterior part of the nasals] form a transversely oriented crest located dorsal to the orbit...the frontal makes a significant contribution to the crest."

However, a lot of modern depictions, like the ones I showed here, opt for a fleshy crest covering the nasals. Which I guess is equally fine until soft tissue from that area is discovered and proves otherwise.

[Sim]

Thanks for pointing out the WS Concavenator's colour in the list needed changing, I've made it purple now!  I've also expanded the ankylosaurid section with a new species + the Haolonggood Scolosaurus.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, a soft-tissue crest attached to the bony one is speculative but certainly plausible. I'm interested to see HLG's Maisaura in higher resolution to see how they handle the crest.

[Concavenator]

This may sound a bit funny, but is there really anything objectively wrong with Papo's Amargasaurus for it not being featured in the list?  It may be an ugly figure (... at least for me), but it does have complete neck sails as suggested by Cerda et al. 2022. For instance, Haolonggood's upcoming Amargasaurus will obviously be much prettier, but it will be less accurate as far as the neck sails are concerned as they won't be complete as seen in Papo's. And what about Battat's, too? Same as with Papo.

And what about Papo's Gorgosaurus? It may not be perfect, but I would say it's good enough to at least being considered "decent", if other imperfect figures like Papo's Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus and PNSO's Sinraptor are also in the list.

It would also be nice to differentiate between both Edmontosaurus species.

And thank you for your work on this list, it really serves as an interesting reference to have!

[Concavenator]

Also, Meng's Sinankylosaurus is now released, so it can be added to the list.

BTW, Fukuivenator has been recovered as the basalmost therizinosaurian by Hattori et al. 2021. And Fukuivenator does have very good remains, so this might not be an unstable classification.

Speaking of Fukuivenator, Favorite's is outdated as they represent it as a dromaeosaur, so I wouldn't consider it a good representation of the animal. However, Takara Tomy's is a good up-to-date depiction of it.

[Sim]

This may sound a bit funny, but is there really anything objectively wrong with Papo's Amargasaurus for it not being featured in the list?  It may be an ugly figure (... at least for me), but it does have complete neck sails as suggested by Cerda et al. 2022. For instance, Haolonggood's upcoming Amargasaurus will obviously be much prettier, but it will be less accurate as far as the neck sails are concerned as they won't be complete as seen in Papo's. And what about Battat's, too? Same as with Papo.

I think you're in the majority for thinking the Papo Amargasaurus is ugly!  I think it is too.  The Papo Amargasaurus's sail isn't accurate to that of the animal it represents.  It's missing a pair of neck spines and their height at different points don't match the real animal's.  Compare the two below:

  (Image source)
  (Image source)

The first neck spine of Amargasaurus should also be part of the sail, and it isn't on Papo's figure.  The Battat Amargasaurus makes the mistake of making the first neck spine paired instead of single.

And what about Papo's Gorgosaurus? It may not be perfect, but I would say it's good enough to at least being considered "decent", if other imperfect figures like Papo's Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus and PNSO's Sinraptor are also in the list.

I didn't include the Papo Gorgosaurus because of how its legs are splayed.  I don't believe the real animal would do that.  Do you still think I should include it?

It would also be nice to differentiate between both Edmontosaurus species.

I had them separate previously, but I later merged them into one entry as I thought the difference between them isn't noticeable.  I've gone back and done some studying and I've now separated them again.  Surprisingly the CollectA Edmontosaurus looks like it's E. annectens to me after comparing its head to the skulls of the two Edmonotosaurus species!  The Wild Safari 2020 Edmontosaurus definitely appears to be E. regalis in contrast, and I think it's an underrated figure!

And thank you for your work on this list, it really serves as an interesting reference to have!

Thanks @Concavenator!   I'm happy to hear you find it useful!  Also thanks for your comments, the list is better as a result!  I'll reply to your more recent post later!

[Concavenator]

@Sim Good catch concerning Amargasaurus! Yes, I knew the first neck spine is single (and that it was included in the sail), but I hadn't paid attention to the number of neck spines or how they vary in height.

By contrast, it seems Haolonggood gets the number of neck spines right, as well as their relative heights. It seems to have the single first neck spine too, although it is not part of the neck sail, and the neck sail isn't the way it is believed to have been, either, that is, fully covering the neck spines. I am curious, will you be including it on the list regardless?

AFAIK, those are the two only inaccuracies it will have, it appears to be an excellent depiction otherwise.

As for Papo's Gorgosaurus, yes, I would include it. I'm no biomechanic expert and I don't know if theropods could do that (please feel free to correct me, anyone), but I don't think as a detail that's too relevant or jarring. Also, Papo's Gorgosaurus is essentially designed by David Krentz, as Papo based their model on WWD's. So I think it is fairly good, as well as underrated. For instance, Showanna's Tyrannosaurus has been very well-received, in big part because Vlad Konstantinov sculpted it. A good sculptor (with scientific accuracy in mind) makes the difference.

Onto the pose, I think Papo's Acrocanthosaurus is a waay worse offender in that regard, there's no way an Acrocanthosaurus' hands were touching the ground unless the animal was dead!  Not to mention its arms are tremendously oversized too. 

I also think Safari's Edmontosaurus is underrated. Plus I'm not sure it can technically be called "outdated"... I mean, maybe it is, but the hoofed manus belongs to an E. annectens individual, which the figure doesn't represent. An E. regalis lacking the "hoof" would be equivalent to an E. annectens lacking the fleshy crest, and some people do prefer crestless E. annectens.

Oh and I would include W-Dragon's Tyrannosaurus (Stan) on the list as well. FWIW, I think there is more science to it than to Rebor's recent (and very popular) versions.

Also, what about GR Toys' Deinocheirus?

[Sim]

Also, Meng's Sinankylosaurus is now released, so it can be added to the list.

I've added it now.  What a strange release though, it's only known from a limb bone and I saw a study called it an indeterminate nomen dubium.  I think Meng would have been better off moving to another formation with better preserved specimens.

BTW, Fukuivenator has been recovered as the basalmost therizinosaurian by Hattori et al. 2021. And Fukuivenator does have very good remains, so this might not be an unstable classification.

It's true Fukuivenator has good remains.  However Mickey Mortimer found it to be an Ornitholestes relative, even with the new data:

Hattori et al. (2021) in their redescription added it to a later TWiG matrix and recovered it as the basalmost therizinosaurian, while adding it to Hartman et al.'s analysis using the new data results in it being sister to Ornitholestes with this pair sister to Maniraptoriformes.

From here: https://theropoddatabase.com/Coelurosauria.htm#Fukuivenatorparadoxus
I'm going to leave Fukuivenator in Misc. Theropoda for now and I hope more of an agreement on what it is comes.

Speaking of Fukuivenator, Favorite's is outdated as they represent it as a dromaeosaur, so I wouldn't consider it a good representation of the animal. However, Takara Tomy's is a good up-to-date depiction of it.

Favorite's Fukuivenator was based on the intial interpretation of the animal, which was as an Ornitholestes relative rather than a dromaeosaurid.  Since that classification still appears possible, I'll leave the Favorite figure.  Supporting this classification is that Fukuivenator has an enlarged second toe claw, like Ornitholestes.  I'm not going to include the Takara Tomy figures with the huge ball joints breaking up their sculpt.  Qualia's Fukuivenator makes it into the list though and it represents Fukuivenator as a therizinosaurian.

I'll reply to your most recent post later!

[Sim]

By contrast, it seems Haolonggood gets the number of neck spines right, as well as their relative heights. It seems to have the single first neck spine too, although it is not part of the neck sail, and the neck sail isn't the way it is believed to have been, either, that is, fully covering the neck spines. I am curious, will you be including it on the list regardless?

I'll decide whether to include the Haolonggood Amargasaurus after photos of the actual figure become available, but if I had to decide on it from only what we've seen of it I would say I wouldn't include it in the list.

As for Papo's Gorgosaurus, yes, I would include it. I'm no biomechanic expert and I don't know if theropods could do that (please feel free to correct me, anyone), but I don't think as a detail that's too relevant or jarring. Also, Papo's Gorgosaurus is essentially designed by David Krentz, as Papo based their model on WWD's. So I think it is fairly good, as well as underrated. For instance, Showanna's Tyrannosaurus has been very well-received, in big part because Vlad Konstantinov sculpted it. A good sculptor (with scientific accuracy in mind) makes the difference.

If I'm remembering right, Andrea Cau once made a blog post arguing that dinosaur upper legs should be entirely connected to the pelvis by flesh, as is the case in extant birds...  I'm not going to consider it definitely inaccurate if a representation isn't like that, but as far as I'm aware leg splaying is only possible in microraptorians among theropods, so I'm inclined to keep the Papo Gorgosaurus off the list.

I also think Safari's Edmontosaurus is underrated. Plus I'm not sure it can technically be called "outdated"... I mean, maybe it is, but the hoofed manus belongs to an E. annectens individual, which the figure doesn't represent. An E. regalis lacking the "hoof" would be equivalent to an E. annectens lacking the fleshy crest, and some people do prefer crestless E. annectens.

If E. regalis was ancestral to E. annectens, it probably had the hoofs too.  It's not parsimonious to have lost all your manual unguals and then later grow some back, especially when the two Edmontosaurus species had such similar biology.

Oh and I would include W-Dragon's Tyrannosaurus (Stan) on the list as well. FWIW, I think there is more science to it than to Rebor's recent (and very popular) versions.

Thanks, I've added the W-Dragon Tyrannosaurus to the list.

Also, what about GR Toys' Deinocheirus?

I would add it to the list if it didn't have teeth...

[DinoFan2010]

Does Lambeosaurus have a good figure?

[Sim]

Does Lambeosaurus have a good figure?

Lambeosaurus has two good figures: the PNSO and Qualia versions, which have very different sizes.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Indeed, the only taxon from that formation that has decent remains is Shantungosaurus.  They would've been better off going with Yixian or (Xiao/Shang) Shaximiao Formations (for example) if they wanted to stick to Chinese dinosaur species.

About Takara Tomy's Fukuivenator, I personally don't think the joints make the figure "not good". Along those lines, some people do find the seams on Creative Beast's figures to be distracting (and a dealbreaker), yet that has nothing to do with (most of the times) the figures being good representations of the creatures they're meant to depict. And as a depiction of Fukuivenator as a therizinosaur (backed by a paper), Takara Tomy does a good job.

Hopefully Haolonggod's Amargasaurus will have a complete neck sail with the first single neck spine being part of it. I'm not holding my breath, but I want to be proven wrong. I don't know how Haolonggood missed the neck sail being complete unless they did it deliberately as an artistic liberty.  But if true, bad choice for an artistic liberty, because it makes the figure less accurate. If the released version is unmodified, that is one stance where I seriously hope Haolonggood goes back and fixes it as they did with their Ouranosaurus. It is worthy of that treatment I would say.

If they don't fix it, I would probably still buy it eventually, but I would hold off on it for a while hoping a more accurate version comes from someone else. And I would commission a fix for the neck sail, which won't be affordable. So I'd rather not have to commission any fix, and Haolonggood corrects their version or anybody else releases an accurate Amargasaurus.  It would be a shame for it not to be modified, because the Amargasaurus looks great, it's just the neck sail holding it back. And if it wasn't by Haolonggood, I don't see anybody else releasing an accurate Amargasaurus. PNSO, perhaps, since they've been updating some of their older models?

Good point about E. regalis being considered the ancestor of E. annectens, I knew that, but I didn't think about that when making my point about the hooves.

Also, I didn't notice GR Toys' Deinocheirus has teeth! That's very odd, and reminds me of Papo's toothy toothless wing (Pteranodon). 

[Faelrin]

@Concavenator To be fair that Papo Pteranodon was based on the JPIII design by Stan Winston Studios (like many of their figures back then), but yeah, of course neither should have teeth. It's something the JW design corrected, but it looks far less appealing compared to the JPIII one.

I would hope they correct the Amargasaurus sail too, but based on what was shown of it so far, it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, especially if they give it gorgeous colorations on the sails. I mean it would still largely be aesthetically pleasing to me, even if it isn't completely right.

[Elengassen]

Does Lambeosaurus have a good figure?

Lambeosaurus has two good figures: the PNSO and Qualia versions, which have very different sizes.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but is there a reason the Invicta and Bullyland Lambeosaurus figures aren't on the list?

[Sim]

About Takara Tomy's Fukuivenator, I personally don't think the joints make the figure "not good". Along those lines, some people do find the seams on Creative Beast's figures to be distracting (and a dealbreaker), yet that has nothing to do with (most of the times) the figures being good representations of the creatures they're meant to depict. And as a depiction of Fukuivenator as a therizinosaur (backed by a paper), Takara Tomy does a good job.

I think seams are a necessary part of figures, while giant balls breaking up the sculpt of a figure aren't.  I get what you're saying, but I feel introducing large visible ball joints into the figure's form takes away from it being a good representation.

And if it wasn't by Haolonggood, I don't see anybody else releasing an accurate Amargasaurus. PNSO, perhaps, since they've been updating some of their older models?

Creative Beast Studio has said they intend to make an Amargasaurus for the next round of Cyberzoic figures.  I don't know how they will articulate its neck though, especially with the neck sail.  It will be very big too, I imagine.  Aside from that, I think an accurate Amargasaurus could come from PNSO, CollectA or Eofauna.

Also, I didn't notice GR Toys' Deinocheirus has teeth! That's very odd, and reminds me of Papo's toothy toothless wing (Pteranodon). 

Or Papo's Parasaurolophus having teeth inside its beak!

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but is there a reason the Invicta and Bullyland Lambeosaurus figures aren't on the list?

I don't think I would include unpainted figures in the list, aside from that the Invicta Lambeosaurus's tail looks a bit too flexible, as far as I know hadrosaurid tails were stiffened by ossified tendons.  The Bullyland Lambeosaurus's tail looks too small and it has strange projections on its hindlimbs.  It also has a duck-bill, it's now known hadrosaurid beaks didn't look like that.