The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Sim]

It's a little surprising to me that there aren't more figures of this animal--it's huge, well-preserved, and reasonably distinctive. But then again, there hasn't been a decent Shonisaurus in 20 years.

Good point about Shonisaurus, although it is a relatively recent discovery, the nearly complete specimen of Cymbospondylus petrinus was discovered over 100 years ago!  And there isn't a good figure of it still.   I have been using the large PNSO Himalayasaurus as a cymbospondylid-like ichthyosaur, but seeing an actual toy of Cymbospondylus in your post, even if it is of that quality, makes me realise I want a Cymbospondylus figure.  Very much.  I'll keep the PNSO Himalayasaurus but I want to have a Cymbospondylus figure too.

[Faelrin]

I think ichthyosaurs beyond Ichthyosaurus itself is pretty neglected. There have been a few other over the years, but mostly from CollectA and PNSO recently. Dinotoycollector currently has 33 figures within Ichthyosauria up there. Pales in comparison to the number of plesiosaur figures (actually I don't think mosasaurs have good rep either, aside from Mosasaurus and Tylosaurus, never mind any other marine reptiles).

[Primeval12]

Glad to help contribute to the collection and glad to see the Guaibasaurus arrive ok! Also some of those Triassic reptiles look quite cool. I may have to track them down...

[Concavenator]

Animal Planet's Atopodentatus somehow reminds me of PNSO's... 

At this point, I think we can only expect a good new Shonisaurus from CollectA. At least they made Temnodontosaurus, Excalibosaurus and Shastasaurus. And Shonisaurus is probably more famous than those genera, so it might have its chances.

BTW, do you plan on getting Haolonggood's Stegosaurus? I was wondering about that, since it's a different species to the Safari version you have.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for visiting, everyone!

It's a little surprising to me that there aren't more figures of this animal--it's huge, well-preserved, and reasonably distinctive. But then again, there hasn't been a decent Shonisaurus in 20 years.

Good point about Shonisaurus, although it is a relatively recent discovery, the nearly complete specimen of Cymbospondylus petrinus was discovered over 100 years ago!  And there isn't a good figure of it still.   I have been using the large PNSO Himalayasaurus as a cymbospondylid-like ichthyosaur, but seeing an actual toy of Cymbospondylus in your post, even if it is of that quality, makes me realise I want a Cymbospondylus figure.  Very much.  I'll keep the PNSO Himalayasaurus but I want to have a Cymbospondylus figure too.

Shonisaurus is only 50 years old, but I think it's more famous, by about 2:1 according to the number of search engine results. I'd be happy to see either get made in a respectable format!

I think ichthyosaurs beyond Ichthyosaurus itself is pretty neglected. There have been a few other over the years, but mostly from CollectA and PNSO recently. Dinotoycollector currently has 33 figures within Ichthyosauria up there. Pales in comparison to the number of plesiosaur figures (actually I don't think mosasaurs have good rep either, aside from Mosasaurus and Tylosaurus, never mind any other marine reptiles).

What I'd really like to see are some thalattosaurs. So weird-looking, but they never reached the size of a bus, so most people don't care about 'em!

Glad to help contribute to the collection and glad to see the Guaibasaurus arrive ok! Also some of those Triassic reptiles look quite cool. I may have to track them down...

I appreciate the assist! And its companion piece will turn up in the next update. As for these Triassic guys, be warned that the DeAgostini ones are not very durable. My Pistosaurus is desiccated and the rubber is starting to crack (I've had it about five years). Granted, it's on a pretty exposed shelf, but still. And for whatever reason these never appeared on DeAgostini's Italian site, I had to order them from French eBay. The Dinocephalosaurus should be more durable and several Chinese sellers offer it.

Animal Planet's Atopodentatus somehow reminds me of PNSO's... 

At this point, I think we can only expect a good new Shonisaurus from CollectA. At least they made Temnodontosaurus, Excalibosaurus and Shastasaurus. And Shonisaurus is probably more famous than those genera, so it might have its chances.

BTW, do you plan on getting Haolonggood's Stegosaurus? I was wondering about that, since it's a different species to the Safari version you have.

Ha yeah, it really does take after PNSO's Atopodentatus, or they're both based on the same artwork.

I do think I'll get HLG's Stegosaurus. S. ungulatus looks quite distinct from S. stenops. If you had two theropods or ceratopsians that looked that different, they'd probably be in separate genera!

[Primeval12]

I need to get that S. ungulatus considering there's one at the Peabody and I can take a photo like this one I did with the Poposaurus!

[Concavenator]

S. ungulatus looks quite distinct from S. stenops. If you had two theropods or ceratopsians that looked that different, they'd probably be in separate genera!

Definitely! I'd say S. stenops and S. ungulatus are easier to tell apart than Albertosaurus/Gorgosaurus, for example.

[Primeval12]

Question? Have you considered using the Kenner "hatchling" Lycaenops instead of the one in your collection? It looks more like an actual full-grown Lycaenops. The Adult just resembles a generic Gorgonopsid (I use it as the Primeval one).

[triceratops83]

I do think I'll get HLG's Stegosaurus. S. ungulatus looks quite distinct from S. stenops. If you had two theropods or ceratopsians that looked that different, they'd probably be in separate genera!

In the latest Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Gregory S Paul splits S. ungulatus into a different genus - he informally calls it Stegotitanus. It's weird what he chooses to lump or split.

[Flaffy]

I do think I'll get HLG's Stegosaurus. S. ungulatus looks quite distinct from S. stenops. If you had two theropods or ceratopsians that looked that different, they'd probably be in separate genera!

In the latest Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Gregory S Paul splits S. ungulatus into a different genus - he informally calls it Stegotitanus. It's weird what he chooses to lump or split.

I've heard that GSP has a habit of doing his own thing when it comes to phylogeny. Some of his proposals are certainly not widely accepted by the wider paleontological community.

[Halichoeres]

A taste of the Carboniferous, one of the most neglected periods of the Phanerozoic when it comes to figures.


3d printed Rhizodus
Scale: 1:35 - 1:45
Designer: Frans Mulkens (somnus on Thingiverse)
Early Carboniferous
Etymology: Gr. "root tooth"
Part of a group of freshwater fishes, related to tetrapods, that marauded the swamps and rivers of Carboniferous Earth. Think a cross between an eel and a crocodile, possibly 5 meters long. I've long wanted a figure of it, and @Primeval12 was kind enough to send this print along as a gift with our last trade. After trimming the supports, it looks like I was a bit too zealous around the anal fin, but in the end it looks pretty good, a slightly tattered vibe in keeping with its rough-and-tumble environment.


The Yowie Strepsodus (left) is the only toy rhizodont made up to now, but I'd guess the Play Visions Pholiderpeton/"Eogyrinus" is a more familiar reference.


CBG Mignot "large prehistoric tree," c.f. Calamites
Scale: 1:60 - 1:150
Released: ?
Carboniferous - Early Permian
Etymology: Gr. "reed stone"
People who are into paleobotany will be familiar with the idea of a form genus, a taxonomic name assigned to a plant part that may or may not pertain to other parts with other names. Calamites in the strict sense only refers to the internal casts of giant horsetail stems, but the name is informally used for the whole plant, even while other pieces might be more accurately called Annularia or Astromyelon. Anyway, this is a reasonable, if stylized, depiction of one of the big Paleozoic horsetails. I'd still like to get my hand on the full range of Brumm horsetail figures, but I'm certainly happy to have this one, which I only recently became aware of.


CBG Mignot "prehistoric tree"
Scale: ?
Released: ?
I'm less certain about the identity of this one. It looks like it could be an attempt to reconstruct one of the Paleozoic lycophytes, like Lepidodendron, but it's also possible they were going for something like a monkey-puzzle, one of the modern Araucaria species. If anybody happens to know, please share! This copy is missing a bit off the top, which is a shame, but it's out of production, so I don't think I'm likely to find a replacement.


With Safari's fern tree and Schmalkalder's Cordaites. It's interesting how many European manufacturers of pewter or lead figures made prehistoric plants, while they are so rare in other formats. CBG Minot is French, but I also have flat metal plants from three different German manufacturers.


Elonichthys peltigerus
Scale: 1:1
Sculptor and painter: Kieran Birchley (HellbenderMuseum on Etsy)
Released: 2024
Late Carboniferous
Etymology: Gr. "shielded Elon's fish"
I don't know who Elon is; I hunted down the 1848 description of the genus, and CG Giebel did not specify. This particular species is found in Mazon Creek in Illinois, USA. I have a replica that a local fossil hunter kindly cast from one of his specimens, although he asked me not to share photos. But I will say that this is an absolutely stunning sculpt, one of the most lifelike fish models in my collection. Great little representation of the ancient history of my region.


When I first placed it on its shelf, it toppled and was caught between the shelf and the door. It was...stressful. Luckily, when I opened the door, it fell onto bubble wrap that happened to be on a lower shelf. All is well.


Joining Tullimonstrum from the same formation.

Question? Have you considered using the Kenner "hatchling" Lycaenops instead of the one in your collection? It looks more like an actual full-grown Lycaenops. The Adult just resembles a generic Gorgonopsid (I use it as the Primeval one).

I hadn't really thought about it, no, but it's not a bad idea. I do prefer static figures to action figures, and at 1:5 the adult is larger than I'd prefer. I'll give it some though, thanks for the suggestion!

I do think I'll get HLG's Stegosaurus. S. ungulatus looks quite distinct from S. stenops. If you had two theropods or ceratopsians that looked that different, they'd probably be in separate genera!

In the latest Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Gregory S Paul splits S. ungulatus into a different genus - he informally calls it Stegotitanus. It's weird what he chooses to lump or split.

I've heard that GSP has a habit of doing his own thing when it comes to phylogeny. Some of his proposals are certainly not widely accepted by the wider paleontological community.

Yeah, great artist, decent human being as far as I can discern, but quite heterodox in terms of taxonomy. I haven't bought his new dinosaur book, but I bought the marine reptile and pterosaur ones, and so far I haven't noticed many attempts to meddle in established nomenclature.

[Primeval12]

I kinda had a feeling it'd break... LMK if you want a new one hahah. I can always print more :-)

I also love how the fallen fish looks like a floater in a tank haha

[triceratops83]

You have a knack for getting a hold of nice prehistoric plants - that Calamites in particular looks 3-D in that photo. That's a genus I'd really like CollectA to make.

[Concavenator]

I'd forgotten how weird Tullimonstrum is.  By contrast, if you told me Elonichthys is an extant fish species, I would believe it! Then again, I am no fish expert.

[Funk]

The Dino Riders Protoceratops almost holds up today. I'd say the entelodont of that line is the best ever.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for your comments, everyone! Page 1 reference list updated.

I kinda had a feeling it'd break... LMK if you want a new one hahah. I can always print more :-)

I also love how the fallen fish looks like a floater in a tank haha

Oh, no need. I did the breaking myself with my craft knife, and anyway, I like the character it gives him.

And I hadn't thought of the resemblance to a floater, but you're right! Belly up.

You have a knack for getting a hold of nice prehistoric plants - that Calamites in particular looks 3-D in that photo. That's a genus I'd really like CollectA to make.

Yeah, for being probably several decades old, it looks pretty good. They did the angles well to convey some depth. I would love a more voluminous CollectA version, though!

I'd forgotten how weird Tullimonstrum is.  By contrast, if you told me Elonichthys is an extant fish species, I would believe it! Then again, I am no fish expert.

Yeah, I could see that. It has a generally fishy shape, scales, fins. There are a few things that immediately scream "primitive" to me:

• The mouth extends well behind the eye. That's unusual in modern fish, although you still see it in things that have to open their mouths really wide, like anchovies and the aptly named largemouth bass. It's more common for the mouth to end before the eye or somewhere around the middle of the eye.
• The scales are diamond-shaped, which is now uncommon, although you still see it in gars and bichirs.
• Probably the most obvious clue is the tail, which has the vertebrae, and scales, extending all the way to the tip of the top lobe. Modern actinopterygians almost all have stubby final vertebrae, and the tail is completely made of fin rays. The exceptions are sturgeons and bowfins. They are also the only fish that still have fringing fulcra, the spiky overlapping scales along the upper edge of the caudal fin.
• The fins themselves are rigid, unable to generate the ripples that you see, when, for example, a goldfish is holding itself still in the water column. That required a bunch of muscles and tiny bones that these fish didn't have yet!

The Dino Riders Protoceratops almost holds up today. I'd say the entelodont of that line is the best ever.

Those are great toys, especially considering their vintage. I'm personally not much of an action figure collector, but I would be into those if I were. As a kid I remember seeing Dino Riders toys in stores and really wishing I could afford them!

[Concavenator]

I'd forgotten how weird Tullimonstrum is.  By contrast, if you told me Elonichthys is an extant fish species, I would believe it! Then again, I am no fish expert.

Yeah, I could see that. It has a generally fishy shape, scales, fins. There are a few things that immediately scream "primitive" to me:

• The mouth extends well behind the eye. That's unusual in modern fish, although you still see it in things that have to open their mouths really wide, like anchovies and the aptly named largemouth bass. It's more common for the mouth to end before the eye or somewhere around the middle of the eye.
• The scales are diamond-shaped, which is now uncommon, although you still see it in gars and bichirs.
• Probably the most obvious clue is the tail, which has the vertebrae, and scales, extending all the way to the tip of the top lobe. Modern actinopterygians almost all have stubby final vertebrae, and the tail is completely made of fin rays. The exceptions are sturgeons and bowfins. They are also the only fish that still have fringing fulcra, the spiky overlapping scales along the upper edge of the caudal fin.
• The fins themselves are rigid, unable to generate the ripples that you see, when, for example, a goldfish is holding itself still in the water column. That required a bunch of muscles and tiny bones that these fish didn't have yet!

I appreciate the mini ichthyo-lesson.  Been a while since I took my zoology classes, and they were mostly focused on general anatomy of extant osteichtyians and chondrichthyans ^* (rather than extinct ones  ), with a little bit of basic phylogeny and life cycles. In other classes I got to study several physiological aspects of fish, like gas exchange in gills, the rectal gland, etc., though.

^* Our professor didn't tell us not everyone currently agrees on chondrichthyains and sarcopteryans being considered fish, which is why I found it surprising when you mentioned that.

As for the Elonichthys model, I can see why you went for a resin piece. Good luck waiting for a mass-produced version, the big shark is getting all the attention instead (with the likes of Tiktaalik being ignored, at least as mass-produced figures are concerned!).

[Halichoeres]

Vertebrates of the Devonian!


3d printed Strunius
Scale: slightly more than life size
Designer: Martin Krehenbrink (MartinKJHB on Thingiverse)
Late Devonian
Etymology: I am guessing here, but the holotype was discovered in Bergisch Gladbach, so I think it might be named after the Strunde River. If any Germans want to correct me, I'd love to know for sure.
An onychodontiform sarcopterygian, making it a likely stem-coelacanth. This was part of an abortive painting party that I had with my friend and his young son, so I managed to prime it and get a streak of a dirty pink base coat on its belly before the kid's attention span moved us to other activities. I like hanging out with other people's kids for a while, but I am always glad to go home and not have any of my own waiting for me!


Like other onychodonts, it had nasty parasagittal teeth in its lower jaw, although the resolution of this print doesn't really show them.


The old Diramix Pituriaspis is not aging well.


Oumcraft Panderichthys
Scale: 1:35
Designer: Oammararak Suchimonsri
Late Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "[paleontologist Christian Heinrich] Pander's fish"
One of just a handful of Oumcraft miniatures that landed in the 1:35 - 1:40 range, although if the planned expansion ever releases, there could be a lot more. Replaces the TST Advance plush Panderichthys.


Can't escape Favorite's Dunkleosteus.


Oumcraft Cheirolepis
Scale: 1:17
Designer: Oammararak Suchimonsri
Mid - Late Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "hand scale"
I have a much larger, much fancier resin version of Cheirolepis, but this is a nice one to go along with figures of larger animals. One of the earliest actinopterygian fishes, you wouldn't have guessed at the time that they would eventually be half of all vertebrate species. This is very well done for the size.


Oumcraft Parameteoraspis
Scale: 1:20
Designer: Oammararak Suchimonsri
Early Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "alongside lofty shield;" it was originally named Meteoraspis, but that name was preoccupied by a trilobite. Arthopods, always beating everyone to the punch: Diceratops, Microceratops, Syntarsus...Anyway, this was one of the larger cephalaspidomorphs, with a comically broad head. Swung around by the tail, it would make a reasonable, if floppy-handled, pickaxe.


Both of these were sizeable fish, but not compared to the largest eurypterids.

Our professor didn't tell us not everyone currently agrees on chondrichthyains and sarcopteryans being considered fish, which is why I found it surprising when you mentioned that.

It's one of those things where 'fish' is going to have to mean different things in different contexts. It's an old word that has long been used to refer to aquatic things with vertebrae and fins, and scientists coming along and trying to restrict it to actinopterygians is never going to work except in very specific circumstances. Much easier, in my opinion, to just say tetrapods are also fish. Horrible abominations of fishdom, but fish nevertheless.

[bmathison1972]

I like hanging out with other people's kids for a while, but I am always glad to go home and not have any of my own waiting for me!

Children are like zoo animals. They can be entertaining in small doses for small periods of time, but you don't want them coming home with you.

It's one of those things where 'fish' is going to have to mean different things in different contexts. It's an old word that has long been used to refer to aquatic things with vertebrae and fins, and scientists coming along and trying to restrict it to actinopterygians is never going to work except in very specific circumstances. Much easier, in my opinion, to just say tetrapods are also fish. Horrible abominations of fishdom, but fish nevertheless.

One can argue an animal is only a highly derived member of its common ancestor. As such, humans are land-dwelling, atmospheric air-breathing, bipedal, hairy, milk-producing fish LOL 

When you started this thread, I think it was called 'fish, bugs, and weeds' or something similar. I always thought you did that as most vertebrates are just highly derived fish     

[Primeval12]

Ya no, kids are overwhelming haha I get it