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

[Concavenator]

@Sim These are the illustrations I was talking about:




Technically, I don't think Dilophosaurus would be too small for them, because they've made Megalosaurus (and it's relatively recent, they released it last year) which is around the same size a 1:35-or so Dilophosaurus would be. But at the same time, I would be lying if I said that I'm expecting them (PNSO) to make a figure of it (as I always say, I hope to be proven wrong). We all know Taurovenator is more likely to be made by them (would love it if this statement I just said was a joke, but I'm confident it isn't  ).

Oh and Herrerasaurus and Zhenyuanlong are also featured in the illustrations, but if Dilophosaurus is unlikely already, those two are even more so.

I also doubt Eofauna will be releasing a Dilophosaurus.

I kinda remember some mention of Zhuchengtyrannus having relatively long lengs back when the PNSO figure was released, but even then, I think it's quite the pointless taxon. Even more so considering there are other quite a few tyrannosauroids known from appropriate remains which would thereby be better choices to make a figure of.

Same goes for Magnapaulia (well, no, Magnapaulia does have more complete remains than Zhuchengtyrannus!).

[Flaffy]

Still waiting on a PNSO Zhenyuanlong after all these years... I can't believe PNSO haven't made figures of some of the best preserved species from their home country.

[Concavenator]

Still waiting on a PNSO Zhenyuanlong after all these years... I can't believe PNSO haven't made figures of some of the best preserved species from their home country.

PNSO is one of those companies that (currently) solely focus on "1:35-able" taxa. As with Haolonggood or Eofauna, the advantage is that you can have a range of creatures in scale with each other, and at a manageable size (not as space-consuming as larger scales like 1:18). And hey, it goes without saying that it's indeed nice to have figures in scale with each other. But the disadvantage of focusing exclusively on the 1:35 scale is that it leads to serious, glaring omissions from a lineup, which is the situation we're seeing with PNSO, Haolonggood and Eofauna (though it's less notorious with Eofauna as their release output is way smaller).

Some of those exquisitely well-preserved, local (for them) taxa (like Zhenyuanlong) simply happen to be too small for 1:35 scale. That's all there is to it. Now, if Zhenyuanlong was 9 m long, then it would be an option, but that's not the case... As it is right now, there is a higher chance for this genus to be tackled by Safari or CollectA than by PNSO (or HLG or Eofauna).

And this is why Safari and CollectA are so important in the current collecting panorama, and not everyone comprehends their worth.

Spoiler

I've seen people call their products "toys" (as in expressing they're not particularly high-quality products, I get the feeling). But those so-called "toys" (and that term is relative anyways) are (or usually) scientifically accurate depictions of prehistoric animals in figure form, with research behind them, just like PNSO's or Haolonggood's figures (products which tend not to be called "toys", by contrast). Further, it's not unheard of certain Safari's or CollectA's figures surpassing PNSO's or Haolonggood's when scientific accuracy is concerned.

[close]

Safari and CollectA, just like PNSO/Haolonggood/Eofauna, can and do release "1:35-able" taxa. But, unlike those companies, if they believe a smaller creature is interesting enough to turn into a figure, they will turn it into a figure. And that's why Safari and CollectA do have Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus represented in their lineups (animals that are generally perceived as obligatory in any dinosaur figure lineup), but PNSO doesn't (but of course, they're offering Tyrannotitan, "Saurophaganax", "Sinopliosaurus", etc). And if us collectors can be thankful for having a variety of figures in the same scale in our collections, we can also partially regret such a focus in the 1:35 scale owing to the absence of figures of popular yet "too small" species.

Safari and CollectA are there for us collectors who, may have a preference for the 1:35 scale or not, but are open to collecting figures of interesting and important creatures in a different scale. Combine that with their attention to scientific accuracy, and their worth is pretty obvious. But that's what I previously said not everyone can understand... I get the impression some people underestimate Safari's and CollectA's figures, when they shouldn't.

[Sim]

Thanks for sharing the images of the artwork @Concavenator!  I hadn't seen some of those before!  I like the Sinosaurus (and its background)!  And I love that Zhenyuanlong artwork!  It was actually featured on PNSO's Facebook page today.

It's a good point that PNSO's Megalosaurus is a similar size to a 1:35 Dilophosaurus.  I think Dilophosaurus would still be slightly smaller though, and that that would be a dealbreaker.  PNSO could always make it larger than 1:35, like they did for their Pachycephalosaurus and Lythronax dor example, but then I wonder why they haven't made it yet?  I think Dilophosaurus is more popular than e.g. Daspletosaurus, Lythronax, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, etc....  I like PNSO but I wish they made a wider range of dinosaurs rather than repeat groups so often.

I think Zhenyuanlong has a shot at being made by Safari.  It's either it, Dromaeosaurus or Atrociraptor as Safari's next dromaeosaurid I think.

[Sim]

I've started the overhaul!  The new feature I'm incorporating is whether a species has generally satisfactory representation.  This is in my opinion, but I've tried to base it on the general opinion.  And I'm open to suggestions.  Navy is for animals known from good remains with satisfactory representation.  Turquoise is for animals with satisfactory representation that are poorly known.  Satisfactory representation is generally considered to be having a figure that is highly accurate, good looking, not an action figure and in a size that is fitting for the species, and that the figure doesn't have a restricted release.

Other changes:
- I've removed the newest CollectA Allosaurus, that stamp on its belly is just too prominent to get a pass, in my opinion.
- I've split Sinraptor's entry into its two species.

[Sim]

I'm keen to implement the revised colour coding I described in my previous post as I think it better reflects what there's a need for (e.g. a bigger Abelisaurus) and what there isn't a need for (e.g. another Carnotaurus).  Sometimes even if there are good versions of a species, a better figure is needed (e.g. Tuojiangosaurus, Kentrosaurus).  I feel the list works better this way, by showing which animals are sufficiently well-represented and which ones need a better figure, as well as which have no decent figure at all.

Some other changes I've made:
- I've removed most Carnotaurus figures as they are very outdated.  I've kept the Haolonggood Carnotaurus, its feature scale distribution is irregular enough IMO and with regards to the tail musculature, the paper where the thick tail comes from estimated three levels at which the musculature could be and I think the Haolonggood Carnotaurus falls within the range presented.  I'm not sure if I should remove the CollectA Carnotaurus too.  It's got the outdated integument, but it's so good otherwise that perhaps it could be retained with the integument being a minor inaccuracy?  I'm curious to hear thoughts on this CollectA figure.
- I've removed the Kaiyodo Ceratosaurus.  It has pronated hands!  I was clearly too generous when I decided to include it.
- I've added the CollectA 2024 Velociraptor to the list.  After further comparison I saw that the pelvis is not too shallow, it only looks that way because the chest area of the figure is covered in a thicker coat of feathers which makes it look bigger.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I think that new feature is interesting and a good idea.

I have a question, if an animal appears as blue, what would that mean now? That it has good figure representation, but those figures aren't generally perceived as "satisfactory"?

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator!   Yes, that's what the blue means.  For example, Concavenator is in that colour as there's interest in a feathered version, which is also most likely what Concavenator was like I think, or Abelisaurus and Indosuchus only exist as mini figures when it comes to decent figures.

[Sim]

- I've removed the Wild Safari Baryonyx from the list, its head is just too off IMO.
- I've also removed the CollectA Ceratosuchops, the inaccurate upper jaw is really a major inaccuracy, and it's on one of the few parts the animal is known from!
- I've also removed the Qualia theropods as lacking pupils is again a major inaccuracy.
- I've removed the Mattle Coelurus too, it's proportions are unrealistic, although typical for the Mattel mainline figures.
- The CollectA Lourinhanosaurus is gone too, I clearly wasn't remembering how weird its head shape is!
- I've removed the PNSO Qianzhousaurus and Wilson too, due to their uneven jaw line which has been reconstructed like a crocodilian's, this is an objective inaccuracy.
- I've removed the Carnegie 1999 Tyrannosaurus as its tail looks posed unrealistically.
- I've removed the newest CollectA Tyrannosaurus too as its integument looks completely unrealistic and frankly terrible.
- The two Favorite soft model series 2 Tyrannosaurus are gone too as they look wonky.
- The PNSO and Safari Nanotyrannus are gone as well, their legs are much too short.

And with that, I've finished updating the theropod list!

[Sim]

As much as I didn't want to, I've removed the Haolonggood Ouranosaurus from the list.  The single horn is a major inaccuracy.  I'm still keeping my figure though, the inaccuracy doesn't bother me enough in that regard!

[Sim]

I've finished updating Ornithischia!  I removed a ton of Pachycephalosaurus figures that had pronated hands.

[Sim]

I've updated the sauropodomorph list!

[Sim]

I've added Wiehenvenator to the list.

[Sim]

With Creative Beast producing Appalachiosaurus and Alioramus, the number of tyrannosauroids known from good remains not without a good figure will be reduced to just two... the recently discovered Asiatyrannus and poor Xiongguanlong.  Xiongguanlong is among my favourite tyrannosauroids so I'm a little sad it doesn't have a good figure.  The number of tyrannosauroids neededing good "standard" figures is higer though.

[Concavenator]

Eofauna's Ankylosaurus has now been released, so it can be included.

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator, I've added it!

[Sim]

I've added Saturnalia and the Haolonggood Styracosaurus to the list!

[Concavenator]

@Sim I would remove the following figures from the list:

- CollectA Carnotaurus.

Spoiler

Has outdated feature scale distribution. Since these feature scales are quite characteristic of Carnotaurus, the fact that we now know how they were distributed is relevant enough IMO. If the PNSO Sinosauropteryx is excluded because it doesn't get the 'bandit mask' right, then I think it's also fair to exclude CollectA's Carnotaurus because of the inaccurate integument.

[close]

- CollectA Megalosaurus.

Spoiler

It's overall very good, it just gets ruined by those weird structures atop of its hips. I don't even get what are they supposed to represent, and they're out of place. We don't know about any related taxon possessing a similar structure, they're completely made-up. Not to mention whatever those structures are, they would be pretty big on the real animal going by the size they have on CollectA's figure. Same as with the feathery crest on CollectA's Maip, I don't get why CollectA does that. Perhaps they think they make the figures more interesting that way but what they are doing instead with this sort of details is ruining those very figures. Heck, I'd even argue that those filaments (?) on CollectA's Megalosaurus are even more out of place than the crest on CollectA's Maip, as the latter might be a coelurosaur, and well, there's evidence of feathering in coelurosaurs. But those weird structures on CollectA's Megalosaurus are tricky to interpret and are so out of place that I think the figure's removal from the list is justified.

[close]

- CollectA Diabloceratops.

Spoiler

Overall, the figure looks disproportionate, it has such a big head. Not to mention the skull doesn't look right to me, I think the brow horns should bend upwards more, and the frill appears too large as well.

It also has the so-called "butt fuzz". Honestly, I'd just remove all the ceratopsids with such structures altogether, there's no evidence of them on ceratopsids.

[close]

- Slender-necked Parasaurolophus figures (PNSO's, Battat's, Schleich's, Favorite Soft Model 2).

Spoiler

They're good overall, but they have become outdated owing to Bertozzo et al. 2021. Since this bulked-up neck is clearly different from the more slender necks those figures possess, I would remove them. Indeed, it's generally accepted nowadays that hadrosaurs had such bulky necks, so the same logic could apply to other hadrosaur figures with thin necks. However, since the study focused on Parasaurolophus, I think removing those Parasaurolophus figures at least is justified.

[close]

- Haolonggood Tlatolophus.

Spoiler

Its skull is wrong. It's missing the downward curvature on its forehead and the premaxila is way too short:



Screen cap from DinosDragons' review.

[close]

- Safari Regaliceratops.

Spoiler

Regaliceratops' brow horns curved downwards and were shorter than the nasal horn. On Safari's figure, the brow horns are forward-pointing and look to be about the same size as the nasal horn. CollectA and Creative Beast got the horns right however.

[close]

- Creative Beast Triceratops.

Spoiler

As previously discussed elsewhere, evidence of scales have been found on Triceratops' frill, which means IRL it would've had a scaly appearance. Whereas those BotM figures depict keratin on that area, so that's wrong. There's no excuse as the rest of the body is scaly.

[close]

On another note, I don't think there's a satisfactory Ceratosaurus figure yet. Papo's has oversized arms, so that's some proportion-messing. And CollectA's, while it's well-proportioned, is mounted on a base (meaning it's not for everybody) and might generally be perceived as "too large" too. Personally, I don't like Ceratosaurus as an animal, but I get why all the people who are requesting a new figure of it are doing so.

Also, I'm curious, why would you say Takara's Anchiornis is good but not satisfactory? And TNG's Sinosauropteryx? As for the latter, could it be because of its large size and base?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I believe Recur's new Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops could be added.

[Samrukia]

And CollectA's, while it's well-proportioned, is mounted on a base (meaning it's not for everybody) and might generally be perceived as "too large" too.

that's not a valid argument, in my opinion

[Pliosaurking]

@Sim I would remove the following figures from the list:

- CollectA Carnotaurus.

Spoiler

Has outdated feature scale distribution. Since these feature scales are quite characteristic of Carnotaurus, the fact that we now know how they were distributed is relevant enough IMO. If the PNSO Sinosauropteryx is excluded because it doesn't get the 'bandit mask' right, then I think it's also fair to exclude CollectA's Carnotaurus because of the inaccurate integument.

[close]

- CollectA Megalosaurus.

Spoiler

It's overall very good, it just gets ruined by those weird structures atop of its hips. I don't even get what are they supposed to represent, and they're out of place. We don't know about any related taxon possessing a similar structure, they're completely made-up. Not to mention whatever those structures are, they would be pretty big on the real animal going by the size they have on CollectA's figure. Same as with the feathery crest on CollectA's Maip, I don't get why CollectA does that. Perhaps they think they make the figures more interesting that way but what they are doing instead with this sort of details is ruining those very figures. Heck, I'd even argue that those filaments (?) on CollectA's Megalosaurus are even more out of place than the crest on CollectA's Maip, as the latter might be a coelurosaur, and well, there's evidence of feathering in coelurosaurs. But those weird structures on CollectA's Megalosaurus are tricky to interpret and are so out of place that I think the figure's removal from the list is justified.

[close]

- CollectA Diabloceratops.

Spoiler

Overall, the figure looks disproportionate, it has such a big head. Not to mention the skull doesn't look right to me, I think the brow horns should bend upwards more, and the frill appears too large as well.

It also has the so-called "butt fuzz". Honestly, I'd just remove all the ceratopsids with such structures altogether, there's no evidence of them on ceratopsids.

[close]

- Slender-necked Parasaurolophus figures (PNSO's, Battat's, Schleich's, Favorite Soft Model 2).

Spoiler

They're good overall, but they have become outdated owing to Bertozzo et al. 2021. Since this bulked-up neck is clearly different from the more slender necks those figures possess, I would remove them. Indeed, it's generally accepted nowadays that hadrosaurs had such bulky necks, so the same logic could apply to other hadrosaur figures with thin necks. However, since the study focused on Parasaurolophus, I think removing those Parasaurolophus figures at least is justified.

[close]

- Haolonggood Tlatolophus.

Spoiler

Its skull is wrong. It's missing the downward curvature on its forehead and the premaxila is way too short:



Screen cap from DinosDragons' review.

[close]

- Safari Regaliceratops.

Spoiler

Regaliceratops' brow horns curved downwards and were shorter than the nasal horn. On Safari's figure, the brow horns are forward-pointing and look to be about the same size as the nasal horn. CollectA and Creative Beast got the horns right however.

[close]

- Creative Beast Triceratops.

Spoiler

As previously discussed elsewhere, evidence of scales have been found on Triceratops' frill, which means IRL it would've had a scaly appearance. Whereas those BotM figures depict keratin on that area, so that's wrong. There's no excuse as the rest of the body is scaly.

[close]

On another note, I don't think there's a satisfactory Ceratosaurus figure yet. Papo's has oversized arms, so that's some proportion-messing. And CollectA's, while it's well-proportioned, is mounted on a base (meaning it's not for everybody) and might generally be perceived as "too large" too. Personally, I don't like Ceratosaurus as an animal, but I get why all the people who are requesting a new figure of it are doing so.

Also, I'm curious, why would you say Takara's Anchiornis is good but not satisfactory? And TNG's Sinosauropteryx? As for the latter, could it be because of its large size and base?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I believe Recur's new Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops could be added.

The reason for the Botm Trike lacking scales is that it was actually in the sculpting process, when the news came that confirmed triceratops has scales on its frill. I talked about it in my review of the big guy on the blog.