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

[Sim]

Thanks for your thoughts @Concavenator!  I've removed the CollectA Carnotaurus.  The filaments on the CollectA Megalosaurus are bizarre, but I don't think they warrant the figure being removed from the list.  I agree that they and the feather crest on the Maip ruin the figures.  I feel like this about the filaments on CollectA's ceratopsids too.  I've removed the CollectA Diabloceratops, its head is wonky and I had forgotten how awful its skin looks.

I've removed the Parasaurolophus figures you listed, as well as the Kenner and I think one of the Mattel ones, with one exception: I've left the PNSO Parasaurolophus in the list as it looks like its neck is thick enough to correspond with the thinnest neck recovered by the paper you linked to.

I think the Haolonggood Tlatolophus's "lack" of sloping forehead is due to the keratin extension of the crest making the crest merge smoothly with the forehead.  I'm not sure the premaxilla of the figure is too short, I think the skull compared to the figure is too large to be in the same scale, as can be seen by comparing their dentaries.  The premaxilla looks about right to me on the figure, with the lower jaw's beak being extended by keratin which makes it meet the premaxilla.

The Safari Regaliceratops looks within reason to me.  I completely failed to notice the Creative Beast Triceratops were still in the list, I've removed them now and the Creative Beast Torosaurus too, another figure I didn't realise should have been removed in my last review of the lists.

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.

I'm surprised to hear you don't like Ceratosaurus, I think it's an interesting animal, the only theropod known to be armoured, its head is interesting too and its ecology.  I think there's room for a new Ceratosaurus figure, I can change it back to blue if people want, although I do think the Papo Ceratosaurus is excellent and it satisfies me personally.

Anchiornis and Sinosauropteryx are listed as lacking a satisfactory figure because those figures you mention only had very limited release.

I would need convincing to add the Recur Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops as the former has oversized feet and the latter has humanoid hands.

[Concavenator]

Glad to help!

I don't know about the Tlatolophus... What you said could certainly be a possibility, but for that to be true, I'd expect the crest/forehead area being larger than what one would expect a priori (that is, without an extensive keratin covering). To me, that doesn't look to be the case, I think they just got it wrong. None of the Tlatolophus paleoart I've seen have a skull like HLG's.

Personally, I'd say the skull shape not matching is worse than PNSO's Corythosaurus having a head that's too large by a 5 % (according to Halichoeres 's calculations). That said, I still get why the PNSO Corythosaurus isn't included, because Corythosaurus had a relatively small head, and oversizing it kills that feature.

As for Safari's Regaliceratops, I respectfully disagree. As mentioned, it can be seen its horns look different from the preserved skulls's, as well as the CollectA and BotM figures:

Spoiler

Regaliceratops skull.



Regaliceratops by CollectA.



Regaliceratops by Creative Beast Studio.

And for comparison:



Regaliceratops by Safari.

[close]

I still think Safari's Regaliceratops is a nice figure. But I really don't think it's very accurate to the real animal. If there were more Regaliceratops specimens, and one of them happened to be closer to what the Safari figure depicts, I think Safari's figure would be fine. But since there's only one Regaliceratops specimen we know of, it'd be best if the figure closely resembled what we have.

Likewise, if a Lokiceratops figure was released and its epiparietals were symmetrical, I'd be tempted to consider that an inaccuracy too, unless evidence (more specimems) proves otherwise. It is indeed possible that the Lokiceratops specimen that's been described just happened to have asymmetrical epiparietals and that this wasn't necessarily the wild-type. However, as mentioned, with species known from a single specimen, it's better to adhere to what's known.

As for me not liking Ceratosaurus, it has nothing to do with the animal not being interesting. It certainly is a unique creature and an important taxon. I just don't like how it looks, I think it's because of the nasal horn. If it lacked the nasal horn, I think I'd like it.  But that just means I'm not a fan of the animal as it is.

I'm also not keen on how everyone calls it "the Jurassic underdog", or similar. I can see why they call it like that, but the result of everyone calling it "underdog" means it's the "official" underdog, and so, it's not that much of an underdog, really.  There are a lot of dinosaurs who could use a fraction of Ceratosaurus' fame...

Personally, I don't care if Ceratosaurus is listed as blue or navy as I'm not interested in getting a figure of it.  I simply thought it'd be fair to have it just as blue because I've seen a lot of people requesting HLG and PNSO to make a (new, in PNSO's case) Ceratosaurus.

About Anchiornis and Sinosauropteryx - got it, I think it's reasonable to leave them as blue then.

I hadn't noticed the new Recur Tyrannosaurus has oversized feet, but after checking it again, I think you're right. I remember the Recur Triceratops having weird hands, but the rest of it looks good which is why I was suggesting it. It's also OK if it's not included. Not that there's shortage of good Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops figures, and the list will keep on growing over time (at the very least, we know HLG and PNSO will be releasing more Tyrannosaurus figures).

BTW, when it comes to Triceratops horridus, on the list, after CollectA (2023), "[/color]" is typed.

@Samrukia Granted, I don't think there's any anatomical issues with CollectA's (lack of lips aside, but I get why that wouldn't be a dealbreaker). I thereby acknowledge it as a good figure, but at the same time, not everyone is fine with theropod figures that are permanently attached to a base, and it measures almost 27 cm long. For contrast, that's about 5 cm longer than Safari's (1:35) Daspletosaurus, and Ceratosaurus was a noticeably smaller animal.

@Pliosaurking My apologies, I'm definitely not up-to-date when it comes to Triceratops. Can't blame them for that, then, they just became obsolete like it's also happened to other figures. A more traditional approach would've worked better, Safari's Triceratops was released before the BotM ones and it has a scaly frill.

[Sim]

As for Safari's Regaliceratops, I respectfully disagree. As mentioned, it can be seen its horns look different from the preserved skulls's, as well as the CollectA and BotM figures:

[...]

I still think Safari's Regaliceratops is a nice figure. But I really don't think it's very accurate to the real animal. If there were more Regaliceratops specimens, and one of them happened to be closer to what the Safari figure depicts, I think Safari's figure would be fine. But since there's only one Regaliceratops specimen we know of, it'd be best if the figure closely resembled what we have.

Thanks for the comparison.  Seeing them all together does show that the Safari Regaliceratops's brow horns are bigger than they should be.  It's a shame CollectA gave their Regaliceratops those filaments, I prefer how it looks to Safari's but I don't want any ceratopsids with filaments.  I think I'll keep the Safari Regaliceratops on the list for the time being as I feel the inaccuracy is minor.

Likewise, if a Lokiceratops figure was released and its epiparietals were symmetrical, I'd be tempted to consider that an inaccuracy too, unless evidence (more specimems) proves otherwise. It is indeed possible that the Lokiceratops specimen that's been described just happened to have asymmetrical epiparietals and that this wasn't necessarily the wild-type. However, as mentioned, with species known from a single specimen, it's better to adhere to what's known.

What you're saying is reasonable, but I don't feel that way about it for the most part.  I've read that symmetry is the natural condition for most animals.  I think the Lokiceratops specimen that's known is aberrant, same as for that Styracosaurus with an extra frill spike on one side of its frill only.  I think there's nothing wrong with representing the known asymmetrical specimen of course.  But if a more symmetrical figure is made, I wouldn't consider it inaccurate.  Take the PNSO Zuul for example, which has tail osteoderms that are more symmetrical than the one known specimen of the animal.  Personally I prefer figures to be anatomically more symmetrical than asymmetrical.  However everything you've said is reasonable and fair.

As for me not liking Ceratosaurus, it has nothing to do with the animal not being interesting. It certainly is a unique creature and an important taxon. I just don't like how it looks, I think it's because of the nasal horn. If it lacked the nasal horn, I think I'd like it.  But that just means I'm not a fan of the animal as it is.

I'm also not keen on how everyone calls it "the Jurassic underdog", or similar. I can see why they call it like that, but the result of everyone calling it "underdog" means it's the "official" underdog, and so, it's not that much of an underdog, really.  There are a lot of dinosaurs who could use a fraction of Ceratosaurus' fame...

Personally, I don't care if Ceratosaurus is listed as blue or navy as I'm not interested in getting a figure of it.  I simply thought it'd be fair to have it just as blue because I've seen a lot of people requesting HLG and PNSO to make a (new, in PNSO's case) Ceratosaurus.

Interesting that you don't like Ceratosaurus because of how it looks!  I can relate to that in not liking the hadrosaurid bodyplan/basic anatomy.  I like that Ceratosaurus has a nose horn, even though I prefer Ornitholestes without one.
I think the underdog designation is due to an infamous documentary that I can't remember the name of that portrayed Ceratosaurus as inferior to Allosaurus and that it apparently went extinct because of that, plus how a lot of places would repeat that Ceratosaurus was inferior to Allosaurus whenever there was something to say about Ceratosaurus.  Fortunately, this erroneous description has been shed in more recent times.  I think Ceratosaurus has enough popularity and gets enough attention to not be much of an underdog anymore, Torvosaurus tanneri on the other hand really deserves more attention..
I will keep Ceratosaurus in navy, as for the purpose of this list it has good figures that tick all the boxes.  It's not stopping a new Ceratosaurus figure being made!

BTW, when it comes to Triceratops horridus, on the list, after CollectA (2023), "[/color]" is typed.

Thanks, it was code that was unintentionally left behind after removing the Creative Beast figures.  I've removed it!

[thomasw100]

What you're saying is reasonable, but I don't feel that way about it for the most part.  I've read that symmetry is the natural condition for most animals.  I think the Lokiceratops specimen that's known is aberrant, same as for that Styracosaurus with an extra frill spike on one side of its frill only.  I think there's nothing wrong with representing the known asymmetrical specimen of course.  But if a more symmetrical figure is made, I wouldn't consider it inaccurate.  Take the PNSO Zuul for example, which has tail osteoderms that are more symmetrical than the one known specimen of the animal.  Personally I prefer figures to be anatomically more symmetrical than asymmetrical.  However everything you've said is reasonable and fair.

I think this would be a matter of some statistics. If one relatively complete specimen is know and this is asymmetric, it is a good decision to represent that one specimen as close as possible as PNSO has done. If two specimens are found and one is symmetric and one asymmetric, then one has basically a free choice because statistically neither one nor the other is more likely. If more than two specimens are found, then it gets interesting and one has to calculate probabilities of how the known distribution (asymmetric vs. symmetric) correctly represents the true distribution in the population.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Thankfully CollectA have decided to let go of those filaments, as their new Furcatoceratops shows!

Out of curiosity, if for some reason a Lokiceratops figure was released and had symmetrical epiparietals, would you get it? I was surprised to see you mention you're not interested in a Lokiceratops figure, because you like ceratopsids and Lokiceratops is both known from good remains and distinctive-looking. I know you're hoping for a new Medusaceratops figure, so Lokiceratops might be the closest you can get to it for the time being. Realistically, currently I can only see HLG possibly making Medusaceratops, and because Lokiceratops has received a fair amount of attention, I think it's overshadowing Medusaceratops. Well, the fact that PNSO have made one already and Showanna have plans for it as well already proves that, for them, Lokiceratops gets the preference.

I remember what you said about more Lokiceratops figures not being needed and I agree. PNSO's figure is as accurate as it gets (understandable since they worked with the authors), is in 1:35 scale (or pretty close) and is good-looking. So I think it ticks all the boxes for most collectors.

However, with how much into ceratopsids HLG appear to be, you might just be lucky! You got your wish for a Utahceratops after all.

Speaking of underdogs, I do agree with Torvosaurus tanneri being more of one than Ceratosaurus, it's certainly not as famous. I get the impression it's also not one of the taxa that comes into people's minds when they think about the Morrison Formation, which really isn't right because being such a large theropod (maybe the biggest one there?) it had to have a relevant role in the ecosystem. Surprisingly, I think Torvosaurus tanneri is neglected... within its own genus!  As since ever it was described, I get the feeling that Torvosaurus gurneyi has overall received more attention than Torvosaurus tanneri itself, which I don't think is reasonable because T. gurneyi, unlike T. tanneri, is rather poorly-known.

Megalosaurids are quite neglected in figure form, and despite having been ignored for the longest time, Megalosaurus has received figures by CollectA, PNSO and Safari in recent years, with PNSO's and Safari's being top-notch. We have yet to see a Torvosaurus figure that's as good as those. As for that to happen, my money is on either Haolonggood or Safari, perhaps it'd be more likely to be coming from the former as Safari just made Megalosaurus.

[Sim]

Yes, I'm glad CollectA has stopped with the filaments on their ceratopsids, but it feels a bit too late for me.  There are a few of their ceratopsids I would have liked to get if they didn't have filaments and I don't see CollectA remaking them.  Perhaps though CollectA will make a ceratopsid I like without filaments, such as Anchiceratops.  I'm not interested in having a Furcatoceratops figure and CollectA's doesn't look good aesthetically to me.

If a symmetrical Lokiceratops figure was released, I don't think I would get it as I'm not interested in having a figure of Lokiceratops.  The species just doesn't appeal to me.  I too think the only company that could make Medusaceratops for the time being is Haolonggood...  I'm hoping that at least one of the ceratopsids I'd like will be made by Haolonggood in 2025.  They are: Medusaceratops, Anchiceratops, Arrhinoceratops, Agujaceratops, Achelousaurus, Centrosaurus apertus.

I too think Torvosaurus gurneyi has been getting more attention than Torvosaurus tanneri and I hate this.  The Morrison is a more interesting ecosystem than the Lourinhã and I'm annoyed Walking With Dinosaurs will be focusing on the latter in 2025, probably giving yet more attention to T. gurneyi...

I think the most likely to make a good Torvosaurus figure is Haolonggood.  After them I think it would be Papo or Eofauna, but I don't think it's very likely these two will make Torvosaurus...  Safari is next, but I doubt they will as they're releasing the very similar Megalosaurus...

[Concavenator]

@Sim I guess they chose the Lourinhã over the Morrison because they already covered the Morrison on the first series. I'd rather wish they had went for a Morrison remake with modern understanding of the species involved than the Lourinhã though, I also find the Morrison to be the more interesting ecosystem.

Yeah, out of those companies, I think a new Torvosaurus is most likely coming from Haolonggood. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Torvosaurus by Eofauna, as lately it seems they're just making figures of the all-time most famous dinosaurs and that's it. I could see Papo making one, although there's also the chance they make Megalosaurus instead of Torvosaurus (hopefully not!). I could see Safari making one as well, but it could probably take a while, since as you mention it'd be so similar to their Megalosaurus, which they just made.

BTW, if you excluded Kaiyodo's Ceratosaurus because it has pronated hands, then Papo's Allosaurus should be excluded as well.

Oh and the so-called Allosaurus maximus should now be called Allosaurus anax. A paper has been released erecting this wonky species off allosaurid material formerly assigned to Saurophaganax. And I wouldn't include Rebor's, it appears to have osteoderms on its back when the only theropod known to have had them was Ceratosaurus, which wasn't an allosauroid:



Its feet appear oversized to me as well, and overall, rather than resembling an animal, I would say it resembles some sort of monster instead. 

[Sim]

I've changed Eotyrannus to green, as after reading the blog post recently linked to in the BotM accuracy thread, I think Eotyrannus's appearance is really not known.

I too would have have liked a Morrison remake in WWD2 instead!

I've now removed the Papo Allosaurus, and the REBOR Saurophaganax.  I don't think the REBOR figure has osteoderms, I think it just has feature scales.  But I do agree it looks like a monster rather than a real animal, due to its proportions but also things like the highlighted scales on it just not looking realistic.

[Sim]

Oh, and I changed Allosaurus maximus to Allosaurus anax!

[Sim]

I've listed each Psittacosaurus species now!

[crazy8wizard]

I'd like to make the case that the safari toob Psittacosaurus is P. lujiatunensis because it coincides with a specific exhibit diorama representing the Yixian formation, and that's the species from that area and in the exhibit

[Sim]

Thanks for your thoughts.  I've done further comparison and I think you're right that it is P. lujiatunensis.  This is most likely the species with the tail filaments too, so I've removed the Safari toob figure from the list as it lacks tail filaments.

[crazy8wizard]

It also more annoyingly, lack cheek jugals which I think would be more of a reason to exclude it

[Sim]

Do you mean the cheek protrusions/horns?  I think I see them on it, am I missing something?

[crazy8wizard]

Yeah, it has a little nub of one on the figure but on the actual dinosaur they stick out pretty far, at least for this species.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I'd remove Papo's Apatosaurus (and Safari's) and Haolonggood's Amargasaurus from the list.

The Papo Apatosaurus doesn't have horseshoe-shaped manus and its nostrils are most likely wrong. I recall you mentioned Doug gave some reasoning, but if nowadays it's believed that sauropod nostrils were placed further down the snout, then I'm not convinced by this condition somehow being different in apatosaurine diplodocids.

I recall you said you consider it to be the best Apatosaurus figure currently available. I think Haolonggood's better, but what you said definitely isn't far-fetched, Papo's has the more accurate head, neck (being thicker) and tail. Both Papo's and HLG's Apatosaurus have their pros and their cons. We have yet to see a truly excellent Apatosaurus figure in my book.

Safari's Apatosaurus most likely gets the nostrils wrong as well, but from what I remember its manus are the correct shape.

As for Haolonggood's Amargasaurus, while aesthetically it's a very pleasing figure, I think the neck missing a full veil (as per Cerda et al., 2022) is enough of an inaccuracy for it not to make it into the list. As it directly contradicts the aforementioned paper:

Current data support the hypothesis for the presence of a 'cervical sail' in Amargasaurus and other dicraeosaurids.

Even if the upper part of its neck spines are not uncovered, they are merely covered by skin. That's weird, I don't get why would those spines be covered by skin if it's not because they are fully integrated within a sail.

EDIT - Forgot to say Amargasaurus most likely had a single first neck spine, whereas in HLG's figure, it's paired. So there is that too.

I recall Papo's and Safari's Apatosaurus and HLG's Amargasaurus weren't initially included on the list, now I would agree with that.

[Concavenator]

To add to my previous post, since @Halichoeres let us know the Display Model Series 3 by Bandai is now available, those figures could now be added!

[Sim]

Thanks for your thoughts @Concavenator!  Regarding the things you mentioned:

Apatosaurus: I might be able to be persuaded to remove these Apatosaurus figures from the list.  I too think Apatosaurus (and other apatosaurines) had nostrils at the end of the snout, like other sauropods, but since it's not known and @Doug Watson gave valid reasoning for the alternate condition, I'm inclined to not consider this nostril position an inaccuracy, or I can consider it a minor inaccuracy.  The hands of the Papo Apatosaurus have a dip at the back which makes them not quite horseshoe-shaped but close and I think this can be considered a minor inaccuracy.

Amragasaurus: I think the way the sail is in the Haolonggood Amargasaurus is plausible.  The spines are completely part of the sail and their upper parts being covered by skin which is a continuation of the sail skin, matches the condition in the extant Hydrosaurus's tail sail.  Regarding the fist neck spine of Amargasaurus most likely being single, we don't know if it split in the unpreserved portion, so I won't hold it against the figure.  The neck sail with spine tips projecting but being covered by skin, and the first neck spine being paired, are present in the Battat Amargasaurus as well as the Haolonggood Amargasaurus.

New bandai figures: I'll hold off on adding any until I can tell what species the Allosaurus and Citipati are.

[Concavenator]

@Sim As for Papo's and Safari's Apatosaurus, thinking about it again, I think it's OK if they stay, after all, they edge HLG's in some aspects.

As for Doug's reasoning, this is what I found:

Now that I have the Papo Apatosaurus, I find it amazingly good!  It's one of the figures I have that I'm most satisfied with.  It isn't on the list due to the position of the nostrils.  However, @Doug Watson has said he could see the recessions on the skull of Giraffatitan where the nostrils would extend down the snout but he couldn't see that on the skull of Apatosaurus.  So I guess its possible Apatosaurus had the nostrils further up the head, perhaps to protect them during the fights its neck suggests it had. 

I don't know, I'm not convinced... I don't quite get why sauropods would have their nostrils down the snout except for that specific subfamily (Apatosaurinae) within Diplodocidae...  If apatosaurines had their nostrils in an upper position because they actively engaged in fights, then the same could apply to titanosaurians, because, as some taxa show (like Alamosaurus), they also had quite massive necks, meaning they might have engaged in fights in a similar manner, à la Prehistoric Planet Dreadnoughtus.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you wouldn't include a sauropod figure because their nostrils aren't where it's believed they are (down the snout), then I'd apply the same logic to an apatosaurine. Well, that was your initial reason for not including Papo's and Safari's, after all.

But just as Papo's hands aren't quite right (and its nostrils' position is probably wrong too), the same applies to other aspects in HLG's (like its skull, neck and tail). So HLG's isn't much better. Well, it's debatable whether it's better or not. Again, no current Apatosaurus figure gets it quite right.

As for HLG's Amargasaurus, I wouldn't say the spines are completely part of the sail. The upper parts aren't part of the sail the same way the lower parts are (and I guess this is the main reason why some people, me included, passed on it). As it is, I think it still contradicts the previously mentioned paper, because they stated the spines (in their entirety) form a sail, and that isn't the case with HLG's. It is true the upper portions are covered by the same skin that forms the sail... but I still wouldn't say they're part of the sail per se.

This is the reconstruction they used in the paper:



Amargasaurus by Gabriel Lio.

In this case, it's clear that all portions of the neck spines are embedded in a sail. The difference with HLG's depiction can be clearly seen. As it is, this is what we believe Amargasaurus looked like.

Taking a look at Hydrosaurus' tail, I don't think it looks quite the same way as how the neck sail in HLG's Amargasaurus is handled. In that figure, the sail/membrane doesn't connect two successive neck spine tips the way it does in Hydrosaurus' tail (at least that I've seen).

I thought Citipati osmolskae is the only species within the genus. What are the other species? The only one I've found is just C. osmolskae.

I find it a bit tricky to tell which Allosaurus species does that figure represent. At first I thought it had a downward-curved jugal, which led me to believe it's A. fragilis. But looking at it again, I think what I thought was the jugal area is the masseter. So in that case, I'd say it represents A. jimmadseni.

[Sim]

There's a second species that is often considered a new species of Citipati, but it hasn't received a scientific name yet, even though it's been known about for decades and is what reconstructions of Oviraptor tend to be based on.