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

[BlueKrono]

Do we know for sure that Spinosaurus couldn't move quadrupedally?

Did I just see "know for sure" and "Spinosaurus" in the same sentence?

[Concavenator]

Do we know for sure that Spinosaurus couldn't move quadrupedally?

To answer that, a time travel would come handy. 

But seriously, this is what Scott Hartman thinks on the matter:

I've added the new CollectA Gallimimus

Ooh, so that one is now available? Where?

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

Now that it's pointed out ish to me like this, I do have a soft spot for "Theropods that suddenly have awkward shorty legs". Majungasaurus and Spinosaurus have both gone from 'I don't really care' genera to my list of favourites, post Dachshundification. Utahraptor didn't move quite as much, but everybody (myself included) loved Utahraptor already anyway so that's hardly surprising lol

[Protopatch]

Do we know for sure that Spinosaurus couldn't move quadrupedally?

I'm attaching an extract of the U of A's lesson about Spinosaurs in "Theropod dinosaurs and the origins of birds - Survey of non-avian theropods" :




To my way of thinking, it doesn't neither completely preclude the hypothesis of facultative quadrupedalism nor confirm an obligate bipedalism on land however, a "quadrupedal stance" would be more consistent with an aquatic life style.

[Sim]

Ooh, so that one is now available? Where?

Apparently it will be available soon from Everything Dinosaur, so because of that and since its size is known I added it to the list!

[Sim]

I've added the PNSO Centrosaurus brinkmani and Haolonggood Saurolophus!

Despite there being the same amount of centrosaurines and chasmosaurines known well from fossils (in my opinion), I find it interesting that centrosaurines are better represented as figures.  Below is where things are at for the two ceratopsid groups, taken from the first post, with their good figures not being specified.  I wonder which will be the next to get a good figure?  Things are going in the direction @Halichoeres predicted, which is that every ceratopsid will get a figure.

Centrosaurinae
Achelousaurus
Albertaceratops
Avaceratops
Centrosaurus apertus
Centrosaurus brinkmani
Centrosaurus sternbergorum
Diabloceratops
Einiosaurus
Furcatoceratops
Lokiceratops
Machairoceratops
Medusaceratops
Nasutoceratops
Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis
Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai
Sinoceratops
Stellasaurus
Styracosaurus albertensis
Styracosaurus ovatus
Wendiceratops
Xenoceratops

Chasmosaurinae
Agujaceratops mariscalensis
Anchiceratops
Arrhinoceratops
Chasmosaurus belli
Chasmosaurus perifania
Chasmosaurus russelli
Kosmoceratops
Mercuriceratops
Ojoceratops
Pentaceratops
Regaliceratops
Spiclypeus
Tatankaceratops
Torosaurus
Triceratops horridus
Triceratops prorsus
Utahceratops
Vagaceratops
"Transitional Triceratops"

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Have you considered adding Aletopelta to the list? The remains aren't great, but imo are enough to show that it's very different from other ankylosaurs of the time, being a Campanian species seemingly more closely related to basal, early Cretaceous species.

[Sim]

Thanks for the suggestion!  I've given a look to Aletopelta and I think its appearance isn't known enough.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

Thanks for the suggestion!  I've given a look to Aletopelta and I think its appearance isn't known enough.

Honestly I would argue its appearance is known more than most of the ankylosaurs on the list known only from skulls. While we may only have osteoderms, limbs, hips, and a few other bones they are enough to show an interesting pair of spikes above the shoulder and a Gastonia-like pelvic shield unlike other late Cretaceous nodosaurs or ankylosaurs

[Concavenator]

@Sim Papo's Suchomimus can now join the list!

[Sim]

Yes, thanks, I've added the Papo Suchomimus now.  I've also recently added the Showanna Tyrannosaurus, Haolonggood Euhelopus and that new sauropod with loong in its name.

[Concavenator]

@Sim BTW, a new paper dropped claiming that:

1) Allosaurus europaeus does not exist.
2) Allosaurus europaeus = Allosaurus fragilis

Here's said paper.

With that in mind, Mesozoo's Allosaurus could be placed in A. fragilis.

[Sim]

I've re-added the Safari Stygimoloch, as I don't think it's known how many toes pachycephalosaurids had.  Regarding Allosaurus, I'll wait a little longer to see if anything develops before sinking Allosaurus europaeus.

[Sim]

Regarding Allosaurus europaeus, I read the following on Wikipedia:

In 2024, André Burigo and Mateus re-described the Vale Frades specimen and carried out further fossil preparation that exposed additional bones. These authors identified nine unique features supporting the validity A. europaeus.[40] A 2025 study by Elisabete Malafaia and colleagues described the Andrés specimens in detail, including a newly discovered set of skull bones. Their analysis of the relationships between individual Allosaurus skulls instead suggested that A. europaeus is a synonym of A. fragilis because the Andrés specimens were more closely related to some North American specimens than to the Vale Frades specimen.[33]

So, Allosaurus europaeus was found to be valid as recently as last year.  Plus, the Vale Frades specimen which is the holotype of Allosaurus europaeus was not found to be as closely related to North American species as some other European specimens, which I think could be interpreted as Allosaurus fragilis and Allosaurus europaeus were both found in Portugal.  The evidence to synonymise the two Allosaurus specimens isn't strong enough for me to be convinced by it, so I'll retain them as separate for now.

[Sim]

I've added Shri to the list.