The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Halichoeres]

Vertebrates of the Devonian! All of these were released in painted versions by Oumcraft in 2022, and from a design standpoint are indebted to the Palaeopedia Tumblr blog.


Ctenaspis
Scale: 1:2 - 1:3
Lower Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "comb shield"
Straight from a Palaeopedia illustration; still, I'm glad to have a version of this distinctive jawless fish on my shelf. The gills were at the back of the shield where it joins the more flexible body; I wonder if the water being ejected helped with the flow of water along the tail.


Doryaspis
Scale: 1:5
Lower Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "spear shield"
The jawless fish with the chin that won't quit. I'm sure it was mostly defensive, but it's fun to imagine them as little undersea carpenters using the serrated projection to cut coral or driftwood to size.


Furcacauda
Scale: 1:3 - 1:4
Lower Devonian
Etymology: L. "fork tail"
This goofy looking little fella had no teeth, except maybe in its skin--thelodonts like this one are the origin of the 'outside-in' hypothesis for tooth evolution, namely, that teeth evolved as integumentary structures and only later were recruited for food processing in the mouth. Cool to have some thelodonts in plastic.


Rhinopteraspis
Scale: 1:25
Lower Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "nose wing shield"
This animal was absolutely huge, you know, for a pteraspidomorph. Maybe a little less than a meter, making it pretty hard to eat for most of its contemporaries other than maybe the very largest eurypterids. Fun fact: this genus was named by Otto Jaekel, the same guy Jaekelopterus is named after.


I moved recently, so I don't have a bunch of figures handy for comparisons. But trusty Homer will do in a pinch.

Regardless of chronological inconsistencies, I think that Placerias would scale relatively well with many BotM figures.

We just need BotM to make some Triassic species!

Thanks Tim!  I would like to have a Stygimoloch and I can't quite decided between the one I quoted, the newer Mattel mini figure and the Eikoh.  I might need to get all three and see which I like most.

I recommend the Captivz one!

Actually, that's a good idea. Miniatures always have somewhat oversized feet, but I think the Captivz version has more proportionate ones than any of the Mattel ones. If I didn't have the Takara Tomy mini I'd probably have gotten a Captivz one.

[Concavenator]

We just need BotM to make some Triassic species!

Oh we all know the Triassic is heavily ignored. It's partially a bit surprising that Creative Beast has been around for all of these years, yet they haven't made a single figure of a Triassic creature! That, considering that the Triassic is one of the three periods that make up the Mesozoic, the usually so-called "dinosaur era". And I said partially because if one takes into account just how overlooked the Triassic tends to be compared to the Jurassic and the Cretaceous (especially the latter), it's not that shocking, then.

I would deem Herrerasaurus to be the most likely Triassic creature they'd tackle, and I'm not sure I'd consider it to be a particularly likely release either, but well, let's hope at least. They'd surely do a great job.

And congrats on these, those Oumcraft figures represent yet another proof that the 1:35 scale, despite being usable for medium-sized to large animals, really is deleterious to small creatures like these. Some of which are rather unique and important. I appreciate the consistency to making figures of smallish animals in 1:35-or so scale that can be seen in Wild Past's and Haolonggood's ranges, but at the same time I'm grateful for those companies that realize there is life beyond the 1:35 scale (figuratively, and perhaps literally too!).

Edit: BTW, will you be getting Bandai's Citipati?

[Halichoeres]

And congrats on these, those Oumcraft figures represent yet another proof that the 1:35 scale, despite being usable for medium-sized to large animals, really is deleterious to small creatures like these. Some of which are rather unique and important. I appreciate the consistency to making figures of smallish animals in 1:35-or so scale that can be seen in Wild Past's and Haolonggood's ranges, but at the same time I'm grateful for those companies that realize there is life beyond the 1:35 scale (figuratively, and perhaps literally too!).

Edit: BTW, will you be getting Bandai's Citipati?

Yes, these would be very sad in 1:35! I'd have to keep a magnifying glass on my shelf.

Yes, I'm planning to get the Bandai Citipati. I have it on order but I'm waiting to ship. Hoping Bandai continues to branch out with their display model series.

I forgot to mention, this Doryaspis replaces the TST Advance plush version. I have already given the plush one to my friend's son.

[Flaffy]

Doryaspis
Scale: 1:5
Lower Devonian
Etymology: Gr. "spear shield"
The jawless fish with the chin that won't quit. I'm sure it was mostly defensive, but it's fun to imagine them as little undersea carpenters using the serrated projection to cut coral or driftwood to size.

Dang, I just checked my Oumcraft roster and not sure why I skipped this little guy. This line really is a gift that keeps on giving!

[Megalosaurus]

Hi. Seeing so many fishes makes me want to play the SNES EVO video game.

[Sim]

Nolcorp Psittacosaurus
Scale: 1:45 - 1:60
Released: 2021
Barremian - Albian of Eurasia
One of the Extinct For a Reason bath bomb figures, I went for this because I thought it might just be a small enough dinosaur to work in this scale. This is the first time I've met a Psittacosaurus that was a bit too small for my collection! I probably won't keep it, but I'm glad I tried it on for size. Awful cute, and well done for how minuscule it is.

Hi Tim, can I use this photo for the dinotoycollector site's entry for this figure?  I would give credit of course.

[Faelrin]

+1 to what @Sim is asking. Which reminds me I never got around to adding images for the rest of those figures which I had been sitting on. I should probably rectify that.

[Halichoeres]

Hey @Sim, absolutely you can use it! I'd probably add it myself if work weren't keeping me busy...

@Faelrin I have a few spares I got as bycatch. I'll check to see if there are any missing that I can add images for.

Dang, I just checked my Oumcraft roster and not sure why I skipped this little guy. This line really is a gift that keeps on giving!

They've really kept me going during a time when a lot of companies seem absolutely allergic to anything that isn't a Dinosaur®!

Hi. Seeing so many fishes makes me want to play the SNES EVO video game.

I wasn't aware of that game! It looks like fun though.

[Sim]

Thanks regarding the Psittacosaurus, I'll try to add it when I'm less busy.

Looking at your reference lists on the first page, I noticed the Haolonggood Stegosaurus isn't listed and the PNSO Himalayasaurus doesn't have the year it was made in listed, as you do for species with more than one figure by a company.

[Concavenator]

@Halichoeres Now that I think about it... have you considered getting Yowie's Atopodentatus?

[Sim]

Hi Tim, would you have any quidance for which species the Kaiyodo Cladoselache and Xenacanthus and Safari Orthcanthus could represent?  I just see a large list of species for the aforementioned genera without a description of how their species differ.

[Halichoeres]

Looking at your reference lists on the first page, I noticed the Haolonggood Stegosaurus isn't listed and the PNSO Himalayasaurus doesn't have the year it was made in listed, as you do for species with more than one figure by a company.

Fixed both, thank you! I also added the Toy Monster Monolophosaurus and the CollectA Placerias, which appeared in the same update as the Stegosaurus.

Halichoeres Now that I think about it... have you considered getting Yowie's Atopodentatus?

I have it, actually! I am just very behind on updating this thread, since I moved late last year and am still getting settled in. But there should be a big update soon...

Hi Tim, would you have any quidance for which species the Kaiyodo Cladoselache and Xenacanthus and Safari Orthcanthus could represent?  I just see a large list of species for the aforementioned genera without a description of how their species differ.

A lot of these species are differentiated on things like angles of tooth cusps, stratigraphic occurrence, numbers of ceratotrichia, or other very minor differences. Some species are known only from teeth, although compared to later pelagic chondrichthyans a higher proportion are known from body fossils. I don't think the different species of these three genera that are known from body fossils have any autapomorphies that would be discernible at the scale of a Kaiyodo or Toob figure. So basically I'd just choose any of the ones known from body fossils and described before the release of the figures.

[Sim]

A lot of these species are differentiated on things like angles of tooth cusps, stratigraphic occurrence, numbers of ceratotrichia, or other very minor differences. Some species are known only from teeth, although compared to later pelagic chondrichthyans a higher proportion are known from body fossils. I don't think the different species of these three genera that are known from body fossils have any autapomorphies that would be discernible at the scale of a Kaiyodo or Toob figure. So basically I'd just choose any of the ones known from body fossils and described before the release of the figures.

Thanks!   Would it be the same for Stethacanthus too?  (I forgot to mention this one.)

[Concavenator]

Halichoeres Now that I think about it... have you considered getting Yowie's Atopodentatus?

I have it, actually! I am just very behind on updating this thread, since I moved late last year and am still getting settled in. But there should be a big update soon...

Ooh, interesting! Looking forward to the update! Hope the move went well. 

[Halichoeres]

Thanks!   Would it be the same for Stethacanthus too?  (I forgot to mention this one.)

I think the proportions and angle of the Toob Stethacanthus spine-brush complex reflect S. altonensis. I found my copy of Palaeozoic Fishes and looked up Cladoselache, and C. fyleri is the species that has been most extensively reconstructed, so probably serves as the basis for figures, for whatever that's worth.

[Sim]

Thanks Tim!

[Halichoeres]

Protostomes of the Cambrian! These are all from Oumcraft's Life... game.


Ovatiovermis
Scale: slightly larger than 1:1
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: L. "clapping worm"
One of the best genus names I've seen, based on its inferred position while filter feeding. Its describers think that it would have had its posterior anchored in substrate, while raising its anterior half and using its appendages to funnel organic tidbits into its mouth. With this miniature, you can have a tiny one-member fan club applauding you every time you come home.


Amiskwia
Scale: 1:1
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: Cree "beaver tail"
Probably a gnathiferan, a group of spiralian protostomes that includes the chaetognaths and the rotifers. If that doesn't mean anything to you, then suffice it to say it's a worm more closely related to molluscs than to insects, a squishy animal swimming around during the Cambrian.


Hurdia
Scale: 1:7
Middle Cambrian
Etymology: After Mount Hurd in British Columbia, Canada
One of the large filter-feeding radiodonts, stem-group arthropods cruising around vacuuming up all the plankton. I bet they would have tasted pretty good.


Pambdelurion
Scale: 1:25
Early to Middle Cambrian
Etymology: Gr. "all-loathsome"
Another stem-arthropod, this one with a name you'd bestow on your ugliest kid. To be fair, if you were a Cambrian animal smaller than 20 cm, you'd probably find this thing pretty loathsome.


Homer in the Cambrian.

[BlueKrono]

Any day I see some lobopods is a good day. Can I join you for the Hurdia roast?

[Concavenator]

Scale: 1:1

It's always interesting seeing life-sized figures of prehistoric animals.

And as per usual, you've introduced me to some new taxa!

[Faelrin]

Could I use your images for the Yowies figures on the DTC? And can I link them in my prehistoric mammal thread (from the DTC)?