More Atopodentatus fossils...

[Yutyrannus]

...and they show that it had little resemblance to the previous interpretation of this animal:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/06/atopodentatus-was-a-hammerheaded-herbivore-new-fossil-find-shows

[Sim]

Thanks for sharing this!

The previous interpretation was unbelievably hideous.  I'm glad it turned out to be incorrect.  The real Atopodentatus makes much more sense, but it's still very unique and I think more interesting (and much nicer-looking) than the now-outdated interpretation.

It's situations like this one that make me dislike rushing out prehistoric toys based on new discoveries.

[E.D.G.E. (PainterRex)]

It has a very similar facial structure to Nigersaurus! So I guess the original fossil's face was bent inwards then?

[Flaffy]

I was sceptical about the old Atopodentatus, and my suspicions were right. 
#AquaticNigersaurus

[sauroid]

another article about the same creature
http://news.discovery.com/animals/very-strange-animal-was-first-marine-plant-eater-160506.htm

[Dinoguy2]

It has a very similar facial structure to Nigersaurus! So I guess the original fossil's face was bent inwards then?

It looks like maybe they just had one half of the jaws or something? Probably also distorted downward rather than outward.

[FishFossil]

Still a super weird reptile, and definitely still deserves it's name. Makes you wonder how the heck the original skull got so bent out of shape!

[Silvanusaurus]

Evidently one cannot interpret an incomplete or distorted specimen as inherently abnormal, and the clear picture of an animal can never be accurately assumed until a complete and undistorted one is revealed. Discoveries such as this always encourage my doubts about settling on any specific reconstruction of such animals as our old friend Spinosaurus. A small difference or addition, even to a specimen that seems relatively complete, can totally change one's view of it, little can ever approach certainty in this business!

[Halichoeres]

I have to admit I was very fond of the original zipper-faced morphology, but it seems it was asking too much of the developmental constraints of tetrapods. Obviously still a very cool animal.

[Jetoar]

in other words, I should change the face of my sculpture  .

[Flaffy]

in other words, I should change the face of my sculpture  .

Would love to see the updated version! Probably in a feeding pose?

[Tyto_Theropod]

Thanks for sharing this!

The previous interpretation was unbelievably hideous.  I'm glad it turned out to be incorrect.  The real Atopodentatus makes much more sense, but it's still very unique and I think more interesting (and much nicer-looking) than the now-outdated interpretation.

It's situations like this one that make me dislike rushing out prehistoric toys based on new discoveries.

Wholeheartedly agreed. The old reconstruction definitely looked more like something out of a sci-fi film than a real animal, and I'm glad I wasn't the only person who was sceptical about the interpretation.

_{Also, it makes me think about my views on... NONONOTytoyouarenotgoingtobringYiqiintothis!} 

[Flaffy]

Thanks for sharing this!

The previous interpretation was unbelievably hideous.  I'm glad it turned out to be incorrect.  The real Atopodentatus makes much more sense, but it's still very unique and I think more interesting (and much nicer-looking) than the now-outdated interpretation.

It's situations like this one that make me dislike rushing out prehistoric toys based on new discoveries.

Wholeheartedly agreed. The old reconstruction definitely looked more like something out of a sci-fi film than a real animal, and I'm glad I wasn't the only person who was sceptical about the interpretation.

Fingers crossed on the dragon himself, Yi Qi... 

[Jetoar]

in other words, I should change the face of my sculpture  .

Would love to see the updated version! Probably in a feeding pose?

No exactly, change the head or put another color. However the old figure still available. Now is a historical interpretation   .