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

[Sim]

I've added Silvisaurus to the list, after finding out its skull is almost completely known (and some of its body armour is known too).

[Sim]

I just noticed the Safari Stygimoloch doesn't have dewclaws so I've removed it from the list.

[Sim]

I've added Taurovenator to the list...  I feel the dust has settled on that one, I'm not yet convinced on the other horned charcarodontosaurid though, I'm waiting to see if gets accepted as truly different from Carcharodontosaurus.

[Sim]

Also, I have the feeling a figure of Taurovenator will come this year, from PNSO of course.  I wish they wouldn't make it sometime soon, but I expect it... and I expect it will be well-received by many...  The only other allosauroid deserving a figure that doesn't have one is Asfaltovenator...  Personally, the one I'd like a new figure of is Sinraptor dongi.  I had one by Vitae but last week I discovered some minor repainting I did to it had a bad reaction to the figure.  It hasn't harmed any of my other figures fortunately, but I couldn't keep the figure after that.  Plus, its skin texture is unpleasant and not very realistic.  So, I'd love a new figure of Sinraptor dongi!

[Faelrin]

I agree with you both on Asfaltovenator and Sinraptor. Both could use some new figures. I'm honestly surprised there still isn't a figure of Asfaltovenator after all this time. While it isn't complete, it still has a good amount of remains, covering the skull, the torso, and the limbs giving us a pretty good look at its anatomy, and was described in 2019.

I also want to see a new figure of Sinosaurus, particularly because of the recent paper on its remains lately.

[Sim]

I will not be adding Tameryraptor or however it's spelt, as it's missing distinctive parts of the head and the "horn" is just part of the rough texture on the top of the snout, probably not something distinctive.

I've added the Mattel mini Borealopelta, Wild Safari Megalosaurus, Schleich Tawa, Schleich Oviraptor and CollectA Ingentia.  I also moved the Schleich Gastonia to the second species of Gastonia with a terribly long species name as after further examination I've concluded it's more like that one than Gastonia burgei.

[crazy8wizard]

That second species is G. lorriemcwhinneyae. It is long but if you break it down into the name it's supposed to be: Lorrie McWhinney it becomes a little easier to remember.

[Sim]

I've added the PNSO Spiclypeus and CollectA Furcatoceratops.  There's not a lot of centrosaurines and chasmosaurines known from good remains that still lack a satisfactory figure!

[Sim]

I've added Yuanmousaurus to the list.  Wikipedia said its skull isn't known, but PNSO has shown a photo of its (interestingly shaped, almost Plateosaurus-like) skull.

[Protopatch]

This is most useful, thank you.
Could you possibly create additional lists for the marine & flying reptiles ?

[Concavenator]

If Bandai's Citipati does represent IGN 100/42 indeed, then it could be added, because it's currently available.

Also, what about adding that stunning stegosaurian and the new Spinosaurus species with that super tall nasal crest? As for the latter, the abstract suggests it has better remains than S. aegyptiacus and if the latter qualifies for the "good remains" category, then that upcoming species surely will as well.

And just as a curiosity, I recently learnt that the nasal crest in the current fossils of Spinosaurus (S. aegyptiacus) is apparently broken, so it may have been taller than we're used to seeing. And if we consider the possibility of such structure being covered by keratin in life, it's possible that, at the very least, one of the species of Spinosaurus sported a really massive nasal crest.

This could mean that most Spinosaurus figures are so conservative in that regard they're potentially inaccurate. Interestingly, Mesozoic Life's has a nasal crest that looks bigger than usual, so that's interesting.

[Sim]

I'm not sure about adding the Bandai Citipati.  Partly because I'm still waiting to see what species the Allosaurus from the same set is, and partly because the oviraptorid figure's wing feathers are only attached to the third finger.  I'm not sure how I feel about that..  Perhaps I could still include it with the finger detail being a minor inaccuracy.

I haven't listed that stegosaurian as I think it's most likely a Wuerhosaurus.

The new Spinosaurus species isn't listed because apparently information on it is under embargo.  I was advised against making a thread for it, even though a lot of it is on the Internet, so I thought I shouldn't list it here as well...  Otherwise I would list it.

I'm sceptical about the crest of S. aegyptiacus being broken.  It isn't considered to be in a number of skeletals of it, it isn't considered to be in the paper on the new tall-crested Spinosaurus species, and most importantly there is an undescribed S. aegyptiacus skull where it isn't broken, shown at the bottom of the page here: http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Theropods/Spinosaurus.asp

This is most useful, thank you.
Could you possibly create additional lists for the marine & flying reptiles ?

I might do lists for those groups when I have more free time!

[Protopatch]

In the best of worlds : no more species in orange.
Apart from those that are "bankable", I'm wondering why the toy makers decide to produce certain species more than others.

[Sim]

In the best of worlds : no more species in orange.

Yes, perhaps one day that will be true!

Apart from those that are "bankable", I'm wondering why the toy makers decide to produce certain species more than others.

I can only guess.  I would be interested in knowing why companies keep making allosauroids so much and why troodontids get so neglected.  For the latter, most companies haven't even made one so the reason can't be that they don't sell well!


@Concavenator I just saw that in the latest Spinosaurus skeletal by Sereno et al. the front of its nasal crest is shown to be incomplete.  I would be surprised if the missing part extended far above the posterior part though.

[Concavenator]

@Sim As for Bandai's Citipati and the new Spinosaurus species - that's fair. When it comes Spinosaurus aegyptiacus' nasal crest being incomplete in the fossils that have been described, I saw mention of that in this X thread by paleoartist Ole Zant. It's an interesting read.

Taking a look at that Spinosaurus skull from the link you referenced to, I'm guessing there could've been sexual dimorphism as far as that particular trait is concerned. That paleoartist appears to be certain about nasal crests in S. aegyptiacus getting fairly big (based on what they said, it's safe to assume that larger than what that skull shows). However, I can't say that that skull diagram's wrong, so differences in the height of the nasal crest could be explained as intraspecific variation, perhaps as sexual dimorphism as previously said.

Personally, I find Sereno's interpretation of Spinosaurus to be more reasonable than Ibrahim's, and Sereno believes the tail may have predominantly been there for display purposes. Which leads to think that Spinosaurus itself may have been quite a flashy dinosaur, as in having several structures whose main function is display: the dorsal sail, the tail and the nasal crest.

I haven't listed that stegosaurian as I think it's most likely a Wuerhosaurus.

What makes you think that?

If true, my interest in Wuerhosaurus would clearly skyrocket! Would also be interesting to see how Vitae's, HLG's and PNSO's depictions of it would fare compared to newer depictions based on that amazing specimen.

Apart from those that are "bankable", I'm wondering why the toy makers decide to produce certain species more than others.

I can only guess.  I would be interested in knowing why companies keep making allosauroids so much and why troodontids get so neglected.  For the latter, most companies haven't even made one so the reason can't be that they don't sell well!

I think scale definitely plays a role in that. In recent years, there's been a growing interest in the 1:35 scale, and the popularity of companies like Eofauna, PNSO and HLG further accentuates that. Which leads to big dinosaurs (those that can be comfortably made in 1:35 scale) getting the preference when it comes to figures. Usually the type of dinosaur these companies release is always the same: either a tyrannosauroid, an allosaurid, a ceratopsid, an ornithopod, a stegosaurian, an ankylosaurian or a sauropod. This focus can lead to some overdue genera from said groups finally getting made (like Chasmosaurus, Edmontonia, etc), but can cause other dinosaur groups getting ignored.

When it comes to troodontids specifically, I think it's a combination of scale and popularity. If there was a 9 m long troodontid, it would stand a chance, but that's not the case (that we know of). Safari and Creative Beast Studio are largely the only companies who consistently release accurate figures of deinonychosaurs, and when they do, it's dromaeosaurids most of the time. Generally, they seem to be more popular than troodontids and are more focused on them. If there's a company who will finally make a new troodontid figure, it's most likely gonna come from either of them.

Size aside, for some reason, and unfortunately, feathered dinosaurs appear not to be that popular to figure makers. Off the top of my head, when it comes to figures of feathered dinosaurs being released, it's mostly either Safari or Creative Beast Studio releasing dromaeosaurid figures, or Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus figures being released relatively frequently. Anything that's not Therizinosaurus/Deinocheirus/some dromaeosaurid is very rare, as far as feathered dinosaur figures are concerned. And size isn't always an excuse, because Wild Past's Segnosaurus was looking like a relatively big, bulky figure in 1:35 scale.

I might do lists for those groups when I have more free time!

I also would be interested in such lists!

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator!

Regarding the head crest of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, I can't see comments on the X post you linked to, because I don't have an account on that site.  Can you share the relevant part?  I too find Sereno's interpretation of Spinosaurus to be more believable than Ibrahim's and I get the impression that Spinosaurus was indeed a very display-oriented animal with all the body parts you mentioned being useful for display.  The paper on the new Spinosaurus species does argue that the new tall-crested Spinosaurus specimen supports all the aforementioned parts being used for display.  I don't find it a stretch, Spinosaurus is so big it would have been an apex predator, Carcharodontosaurus's slashing teeth mode of attack not being very effective against a Spinosaurus which could defend itself with huge hand claws (which unlike in Therizinosaurus were robust), and its prey might have never seen more than Spinosaurus's hindlimbs before being snatched from the water.

With regards to the stegosaurian, I think it might be Wuerhosaurus because of the shape of its revealed plate, and even more so due to the part of the world it's from.  I've long been sceptical that more than one Wuerhosaurus plate is in fact broken, consequently I think the low plate shape is most likely the true shape.  And this new stegosaurian has a plate exactly like that!  I actually compared the larger PNSO Wuerhosaurus to this stegosaurian specimen and it looks like a good match!  But I don't think I can get that figure, I dislike its proportions and prefer the Haolonggood Wuerhosaurus.

[Concavenator]

Regarding the head crest of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, I can't see comments on the X post you linked to, because I don't have an account on that site.  Can you share the relevant part? 

Sure, here you go:

In case people are wondering about the crest: it is known that Spinosaurus had one, as the base of some have been found. Unfortunately no complete crests have been described, but seeing the extent of displays like the sail and tail, I find it likely the crest was quite prominent.

The bone core of completer crests were recently discovered in Niger and have not yet been described. This reconstruction is not based on those specimens (in which case I would have made them even taller, especially as they were likely covered by a keratinous sheath).

And the paleoart they featured specifically represents Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, so I think it can be assumed they're referring to that species and not the new one as far as those nasal crests are concerned.

With regards to the stegosaurian, I think it might be Wuerhosaurus because of the shape of its revealed plate, and even more so due to the part of the world it's from.  I've long been sceptical that more than one Wuerhosaurus plate is in fact broken, consequently I think the low plate shape is most likely the true shape.  And this new stegosaurian has a plate exactly like that!  I actually compared the larger PNSO Wuerhosaurus to this stegosaurian specimen and it looks like a good match!  But I don't think I can get that figure, I dislike its proportions and prefer the Haolonggood Wuerhosaurus.

It'd be interesting if it did prove to be Wuerhosaurus. I'll wait until that specimen gets described and identified, but if it does prove to be a Wuerhosaurus, then I may need to get me a Wuerhosaurus figure after all!

[Protopatch]

Regarding Saurolophus angustirostris, do you think it is worth adding the Favorite Co. Ltd. reference ?

[Concavenator]

@Sim I've been thinking that I'd remove the following figures from the list: PNSO's and Safari's Zuul, and HLG's Kosmoceratops and Tlatolophus. And here's why:

- PNSO Zuul: From what I see, proportions are generally OK, though its body might be too narrow:



From DinosDragons' review.

The biggest issue I have with this figure is its skull shape. As DinosDragons pointed out in his review, for some reason it has this almost Euoplocephalus-like downward curvature on its skull, when Zuul had a more straight-shaped skull:



From DinosDragons' review.

And again, checking my figure, I feel confident stating that the skull is just wrong. Only way of me being able to identify it as a Zuul is because it has the characteristic pointed posterior supraorbital and squamosal horns. Aside from the overall shape being wrong, it also lacks Zuul's characteristic frontonasal caputegulae being imbricated (as can be seen in the pic above).

Add to that the tail club's osteoderms being symmetrical, which doesn't reflect the condition seen in the individual we currently know. It's possible that in other individuals the tail club osteoderms were symmetrical, but since there's only one Zuul specimen we know about, that's technically an inaccuracy. The skull inaccuracy alone warrants its removal if you ask me. It's a shame really, because Zuul having such high-quality remains should make it easy to create highly accurate figures of it, so PNSO's is a bit underwhelming IMO. It's also a shame because PNSO's Zuul is certainly a pretty figure, but I have to be honest, accuracy is not one of its strengths. I'd definitely be interested in seeing a HLG  Zuul and see whether they can improve on PNSO's figure accuracy-wise.

- Safari Zuul: Its proportions are worse than PNSO's, its head is too large. That said, the head itself, regardless of its size relative to the body, to me looks more accurate than PNSO's. Another advantage it has over PNSO's is the tail club's osteoderms being appropriately asymmetrical, as the fossil depicts. However, body osteoderms wise, it's not as good as PNSO's, as the latter, despite being wrong in other aspects, takes the 2022 paper into consideration. So the wrong proportions and osteoderms (number & arrangement) are enough to remove it IMO.

- HLG Kosmoceratops: Its horns' downward curvature should be more pronounced, and to me they look to be a tad too short. In addition, the episquamosal 1 doesn't resemble the fossil's.



From DinoScream's review.

Compare to:



And...




- HLG Tlatolophus: I think I already said this before, but the head looks way off compared to the known skull.



Now that I think about it, it's a bit odd those carcharodontosaurid figures with artificially elongated skulls aren't on the list, but these ornithischian figures are, considering said ornithischians have better cranial remains (meaning less ambiguity). As for those carcharodontosaurids, like Eofauna's Giganotosaurus and PNSO's Carcharodontosaurus, we are so highly confident they're wrong we can call them "inaccurate". For the aforementioned ornithischian figures, it's not that we are highly confident they're inaccurate, instead, they're objectively inaccurate when compared to their well-preserved skulls.

I'm not saying said carcharodontosaurid figures should be on the list, I think them not being included is fair, but then I don't understand why those ornithischian figures get a pass. I would also say that, for example, CollectA's Carnotaurus' feature scales not being randomly arranged is a minor inaccuracy when compared to skull shapes being as off as in the aforementioned cases. And I would also consider HLG's Maiasaura's inaccuracy of having hornlets to not be as bad as the aforementioned cases. It's true that that's wrong, but at least, if I see the figure's head in profile, it resembles Maiasaura, one has to look at the figure from the front to notice it's wrong. For the aforementioned figures, all it takes is looking at them in profile to start spotting their inaccuracies.

[Protopatch]

Thank you @Concavenator & @Sim your analyses definitely make sense.
With regard to troodontids, I admit that the lack of figures remains a riddle to me too : a good figure of Gobivenator would have been appreciated for instance
Even if this subsidiary question could appear a bit far-fetched, I'd be also keen on understanding why Alexornis has a figure and not Gobipteryx, based on the fact they are both known from fragmentary remains and that the latter has been estimated to be approximately the size of a partridge and the former, a sparrow.