CollectA: New for 2025

[Gwangi]

Excellent lineup so far this year! I can't remember the last time I wanted all the new released announced from CollectA. I'm still not in love with the Arctodus though. Triassic fauna, prehistoric invertebrates, and obscure ceratopsians without butt fuzz? CollectA's reading my mind! 

Same!!!! I have all four on my intended purchase list.

It cracks me up when a company releases an obscure Triassic animal like Ingentia and people are quick to jump on a miniscule issue like the placement of the dewclaw, something that in the final product will probably only be a couple millimeters. To me the Ingentia is the most exciting of their prehistoric lineup!!

It's even more amusing when you know for a fact that most if not all paleontologists seriously couldn't care less about such minutiae.

This has been my takeaway in the hobby as well. The amateurs are far more persnickety than the actual experts. I'll take an Ingentia with an inaccurate claw over no Ingentia, thank you very much! I would never have predicted an Ingentia from any company, ever.

[Sim]

It cracks me up when a company releases an obscure Triassic animal like Ingentia and people are quick to jump on a miniscule issue like the placement of the dewclaw, something that in the final product will probably only be a couple millimeters. To me the Ingentia is the most exciting of their prehistoric lineup!!

Different people have different standards and criteria for collecting, should be well established by now on this forum. Not sure why folks are still surprised by people pointing out inaccuracies when they are present?

Looking at it more closely, it seems the real issue is the sculptor adding an extra toe on the feet. The sculptor may have gotten confused when referencing the promotional material, which gives the impression of more digits than it actually has if not analysed closely.


Digit V should not be present according to preserved hindlimb elements close relatives. The figure has 5 toes when it should have 4. Good news is that fixing it should be simple for those who are savvy with customisation work. Simply remove the extra toe(s) and fill the cut surface with putty I imagine.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out an inaccuracy.  It's not like people are being told not to buy the figure.  However, looking at the images you posted to me it looks like the reconstruction artwork has five toes while the CollectA figure has four toes, missing digit 1?

[SidB]

Excellent lineup so far this year! I can't remember the last time I wanted all the new released announced from CollectA. I'm still not in love with the Arctodus though. Triassic fauna, prehistoric invertebrates, and obscure ceratopsians without butt fuzz? CollectA's reading my mind! 

Same!!!! I have all four on my intended purchase list.

It cracks me up when a company releases an obscure Triassic animal like Ingentia and people are quick to jump on a miniscule issue like the placement of the dewclaw, something that in the final product will probably only be a couple millimeters. To me the Ingentia is the most exciting of their prehistoric lineup!!

It's even more amusing when you know for a fact that most if not all paleontologists seriously couldn't care less about such minutiae.

This has been my takeaway in the hobby as well. The amateurs are far more persnickety than the actual experts. I'll take an Ingentia with an inaccurate claw over no Ingentia, thank you very much! I would never have predicted an Ingentia from any company, ever.

Excellent perspective. Minor errors, if indeed that should be habitually put in the context of the overall effort, rather than habitually highlighted at the expense of ignoring the overwhelmingly positive aspects of a figure. I'm certainly not advocating blind credulity, but simply agreeing with the general need for balance. This is a very welcome piece, no doubt at a reasonable and relatively modest price.

[Flaffy]

There's nothing wrong with pointing out an inaccuracy.  It's not like people are being told not to buy the figure.  However, looking at the images you posted to me it looks like the reconstruction artwork has five toes while the CollectA figure has four toes, missing digit 1?

I got confused by the promotional artwork too initially. Until I looked more closely, it turns out that what appears to be a miniscule Digit V is actually just an illusion from shading. Notice how there are no tarsal scutes running up the supposed fifth toe. Digit I is indeed present on the CollectA figure, and looks to possess an enlarged claw which is consistent with what we know of prosauropods of this nature.

I'm likely going to get the Ingentia eventually (maybe customed by Martin?), but it just doesn't blow me away like the eurypterid does.

[bmathison1972]

Excellent lineup so far this year! I can't remember the last time I wanted all the new released announced from CollectA. I'm still not in love with the Arctodus though. Triassic fauna, prehistoric invertebrates, and obscure ceratopsians without butt fuzz? CollectA's reading my mind! 

Same!!!! I have all four on my intended purchase list.

It cracks me up when a company releases an obscure Triassic animal like Ingentia and people are quick to jump on a miniscule issue like the placement of the dewclaw, something that in the final product will probably only be a couple millimeters. To me the Ingentia is the most exciting of their prehistoric lineup!!

It's even more amusing when you know for a fact that most if not all paleontologists seriously couldn't care less about such minutiae.

This has been my takeaway in the hobby as well. The amateurs are far more persnickety than the actual experts. I'll take an Ingentia with an inaccurate claw over no Ingentia, thank you very much! I would never have predicted an Ingentia from any company, ever.

That was the point I was trying to convey, and yes while it is ok to point out inaccuracies (even for dino reconstruction which are often still speculative), it does surprise me when one of the first responses to a cool obscure taxon is 'overall not too impressed'. And I don't mean to pick on Flaffy here, as several people often have similar responses.

But yes we all have our own criteria at the end of the day and why we choose to but what we do is ultimately up to us.

It's an interesting comment about the actual paleontologists that a seem to be less picky. While I am not a paleontologist, I am an accomplished professional scientist and I have overlooked a lot of errors to obtain cool taxa and generally consider myself accepting of errors, even when I point them out.

[Sim]

I got confused by the promotional artwork too initially. Until I looked more closely, it turns out that what appears to be a miniscule Digit V is actually just an illusion from shading. Notice how there are no tarsal scutes running up the supposed fifth toe. Digit I is indeed present on the CollectA figure, and looks to possess an enlarged claw which is consistent with what we know of prosauropods of this nature.

Yes, I zoomed in on the images and you're right!  It should be easy to "correct" the CollectA Ingentia, I think cutting the digit fives might be sufficient.  It's what I plan to do to the Papo gharial if I ever get my hands on one.

That was the point I was trying to convey, and yes while it is ok to point out inaccuracies (even for dino reconstruction which are often still speculative), it does surprise me when one of the first responses to a cool obscure taxon is 'overall not too impressed'. And I don't mean to pick on Flaffy here, as several people often have similar responses.

But yes we all have our own criteria at the end of the day and why we choose to but what we do is ultimately up to us.

I can only speak for myself, the reason I was disappointed by the Ingentia is that it's too fragmentary for me personally, the result of reconstructing it being quite generic, and I also find lessemsaurids uninteresting.  I do acknowledge that it is a nice choice, but it's not for me.

[bmathison1972]

I can only speak for myself, the reason I was disappointed by the Ingentia is that it's too fragmentary for me personally, the result of reconstructing it being quite generic, and I also find lessemsaurids uninteresting.  I do acknowledge that it is a nice choice, but it's not for me.

I understand the fragmentary issue. I held off for a long time about getting CollectA's Ceratosuchops, because I believe it's only known from a partial lower jawbone (?). That, and, well, I am generally not a fan of CollectA's theropods. But, it is such a beautiful sculpt, I ended up getting it afterall.

Funny though, one could argue we should be less critical of fragmentary species, since we really don't know what they looked like overall. It's much easier to be critical of something with a well-founded morphology. The only downfall is once more material is uncovered, figures quickly become obsolete LOL.   

[Sim]

B @bmathison1972, Ceratosuchops is known from a premaxilla (which perhaps suprisingly is the most variable part of spinosaurids) and the back of the head.  The latter preserves areas where there would be horns in life, which is captured in the CollectA figure.  If Riparovenator is a synonym of Ceratosuchops, the tail is mostly known too.  There's just enough known of Ceratosuchops for me to want a figure of it, plus baryonychines are one of my favourite types of animals!  However I had to customise the CollectA figure and create a notch between the premaxilla and maxilla.  I'm satisfied with it now!

[Torvosaurus]

IMO, the bear is in an awkward position. Bears usually stand up to increase their senses, especially smell which is quite a bit better than a bloodhound's (around 250 times) and for a clear line of sight, though their sight starts to drop off rapidly after approximately 100 yards. I've never seen bears fight, but bears standing up are usually sniffing, mouth more or less closed (possibly head up) or looking for something, again mouth closed, and their usually looking for what their smell has detected, again, mouth more or less closed, and looking straight out or slightly down. Regardless, the mouth would not be snarling. They would also be in a neutral pose, arms more or less to the side.

I have watched bears fighting in video, though I've never seen a fight in person. This figure would be in a fighting stance with its one paw up. The single arm out-stretched would be a mere second in a fight as the other arm is raised to the same height. Think of a bear hug. I would also say that the bear is too upright for an attack pose and should be leaning inward to make the attack look more plausible. Also, bears don't normally stand up-right, so throwing a single arm out like that is more than likely going to bring it down to an all fours stance.

All in all, the brown and polar bears illustrated are much closer to what a bear standing upright is more likely to look like. The short-faced bear pose is definitely meant to inspire the strength and fierceness of the bear. The color is along the lines of the spectacled bear, which may or may not be typical of tremarctines but gives the figure a plausible look based on what we do know. I won't be purchasing it, but I wouldn't tell people not to, either.

I don't know enough about Ingentia to say what it should look like based on what remains exist. I am wondering about the dew claws being on the outside of the limbs. Is that normal?

Torvo

[Flaffy]

That was the point I was trying to convey, and yes while it is ok to point out inaccuracies (even for dino reconstruction which are often still speculative), it does surprise me when one of the first responses to a cool obscure taxon is 'overall not too impressed'. And I don't mean to pick on Flaffy here, as several people often have similar responses.

Different strokes for different folk I suppose. Not everyone is excited by fragmentary taxa. Sometimes comments such as yours comes across as "stop complaining, just consume product", even if it may not have been your intent. Just because some paleontologists may not care, it doesn't make the objective criticisims any less valid.

Like Sim I am not too interested this genus, especially when more complete and well known sauropodoforms still sorely lack good figure representation e.g. Melanorosaurus. Compounded by the fact that CollectA set the bar very high this year with the Jaekelopterus, I just find it odd for CollectA to make a basic error such as this in 2024/25.

Funny though, one could argue we should be less critical of fragmentary species, since we really don't know what they looked like overall.

Hence the importance of infering known anatomy from closely related taxa when reconstructing fragmentary species, rather than only referencing a single skeletal. Kholumolumo has a beautiful fully preserved right pes (currently kept in Cape Town I believe?), which does not show a distinct Digit V. I personally find it odd how this was not reference during the creation of the figure.

A quote from De Fabrègues and Allain (2019).
"Metatarsal V is a vestigial element and consequently the shortest element of the metatarsus."
Based on it's vestigial nature, it's unlikely the metatarsal would've supported a distinct digit V.


"Figure 15: Pes of three lower Elliot Formation sauropodomorphs.
(A) Blikanasaurus cromptoni (holotype SAM K403; from Galton & Van Heerden, 1985). (B) Kholumolumo ellenbergerorum (NMQR1705). Reverse image in anterior view from Krupandan (2019). (C) Eucnemesaurus entaxonis (BP/1/6234). Right pes in dorsal view taken from McPhee et al. (2015b). Digit IV is indicated. Scales are 5 cm." - Sciscio et al. (2023)

[suspsy]

Speaking as someone who has observed both black bears and brown bears in the wild, I can attest that they can and do indeed rear up very straight when they are attempting to intimidate another animal. And given that Arctodus is thought to have been a kleptoparasite that bullied smaller carnivores away from their kills, this pose makes perfect sense. Perhaps CollectA will be kind enough to make a mammoth corpse that the Arctodus can be confronting a Smilodon over.

We also need to keep in mind that its proportions were significantly different from those of modern bears, so it's not going to look "right" to our eyes when standing upright.

[Flaffy]

Speaking as someone who has observed both black bears and brown bears in the wild, I can attest that they can and do indeed rear up very straight when they are attempting to intimidate another animal. And given that Arctodus is thought to have been a kleptoparasite that bullied smaller carnivores away from their kills, this pose makes perfect sense. Perhaps CollectA will be kind enough to make a mammoth corpse that the Arctodus can be confronting a Smilodon over.

We also need to keep in mind that its proportions were significantly different from those of modern bears, so it's not going to look "right" to our eyes when standing upright.

I agree. The pose is entirely plausible. The sculptor did not subject it to Papo's infamous contortionist poses. Subjective measures on artistry should be distinct from discussions on scientific accuracy/plausibility afterall.

Good point about a carcass. Honestly surprised that CollectA has yet to give us a mammoth carcass since they've already made quite a few dinosaur ones. Would compliment many Pleistocene dioramas and scenes nicely.

[Torvosaurus]

A bear isn't going to look a human in the eye, correct, but it will look down or out depending on the targets position. Unless it's another bear it won't look up. Bears might stand up to get a lay-out of the land in preparation, but rarely do they stand up against non-bears to fight.  The bear's center of gravity is too high ( roughly at the back of the ribs when standing) and the torso usually is slanted forward. The arms need to both be in a neutral position, usually down to the sides but generally meaning both are kept at roughly the same height. I think that position is going to pull the body forward, both on the model and in the skeleton that suspy has provided. From there we'll have to agree to disagree.

A friend of mine and his two sons were elk hunting and a grizzly charged him. It took six shots to put it down. It then took the government three years of investigations to agree it was necessary.

Torvo

[suspsy]

Again, you're overlooking both the fact that Arctodus wasn't built the same way as any modern bear and the fact that many modern bears do rear up tall in order to intimidate as opposed to fighting or gaining a better view. Sloth bears and moon bears often do precisely that when confronted by tigers. And for that matter, here's a grizzly bear photographed in nearly the exact same pose as the CollectA toy.

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/photo/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctos-horribilis-montana-usa-royalty-free-image/521358598

Not sure what the shooting of a grizzly has to do with this discussion.

[Gwangi]

The bear gives off taxidermy/trophy room vibes.

[Torvosaurus]

Again, you're overlooking both the fact that Arctodus wasn't built the same way as any modern bear and the fact that many modern bears do rear up tall in order to intimidate as opposed to fighting or gaining a better view. Sloth bears and moon bears often do precisely that when confronted by tigers. And for that matter, here's a grizzly bear photographed in nearly the exact same pose as the CollectA toy.

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/photo/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctos-horribilis-montana-usa-royalty-free-image/521358598

Not sure what the shooting of a grizzly has to do with this discussion.

Actually, the upper mass of the short-faced bear probably gave it an even higher center of gravity, which is less stable when standing than the lower center of gravity on modern bears (which is actually closer to the pelvis than the back of the ribs, correcting my earlier comment). A lower center of gravity gives it a more stable base than a higher one. So your point that Arctodus was built different more than likely actually supports my own statements.

Alright, sloth bears and moon bears, may use an upright position in defense. I was thinking grizzlies and black bears; they rarely fight upright. Even against other bears the fight turns to a ground fight after the initial few minutes of rearing up. Wolves, cougars, wolverines, and even other bears draw the bears down to the ground. They cannot fight effectively when standing up.

Both arms are upright in the photo, you linked to. But if you shift the arms in any way that shifts the center of mass the body is coming down to all fours. That is my point here: larger bears cannot maintain that position for longer than a few minutes, and they cannot shift their weight fast enough on two legs to fight that way. They would be too vulnerable.

So, I don't especially like the short-faced bear and find its pose improbable for more than a few seconds, while you think it is possible. I disagree with most of what you're saying and you disagree with me. Let's leave it at that.

Torvo

Edit: Oh, the bear story was just because I randomly thought about it. 🙂

[BlueKrono]

Anyone who's got a problem with this pose would be REALLY irked by the Safari Siberian tiger: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Safari_907003_Siberian_Tiger_Leaping

I don't see this Arctodus as seeking to duke it out in this pose or even hold it for a couple minutes. To me it's rearing up to sight or scare off a rival. A dynamic pose... a mere second in time.

[Halichoeres]

Didn't see Ingentia coming! That's another one I'll definitely be buying.

[suspsy]

Anyone who's got a problem with this pose would be REALLY irked by the Safari Siberian tiger: https://toyanimalwiki.mywikis.wiki/wiki/Safari_907003_Siberian_Tiger_Leaping

Or the Papo standing tiger for that matter. Caught in a split second pose.

https://animaltoyforum.com/blog/tiger-standing-adult-and-cub-wild-animals-by-papo/

I don't see this Arctodus as seeking to duke it out in this pose or even hold it for a couple minutes. To me it's rearing up to sight or scare off a rival. A dynamic pose... a mere second in time.

Bingo.

[dinofelid]

On whether the Arctodus pose is an odd one for a bear even if understood as a brief snapshot, something I posted earlier:

Though doing an image search for "bear rearing up" or "bear raising arms" I couldn't fine any in a pose quite like that where one arm is raised so high and the other is low enough that the forearm is angled downward (closest I see is something like this), that could be part of why it looks a little too human-like, though it is mounted in such a pose in the skeleton.

Of course this was just based on a little image searching, I'm not knowledgeable about bears, but I wonder if bears might instinctively keep a smaller angle between arms when rearing up for whatever reason, maybe balance issues (I'm sure they are anatomically capable of having one arm raised high and the other pointed down, even hanging down vertically). Can anyone find a photo of a rearing bear with a greater difference between the high arm and the low arm than the one I linked? Even if the model's pose would be atypical for a rearing bear in this sense it'd be a very minor quibble, but like I said it might account for why the pose looks a little off to some people.