The Identification thread

[crazy8wizard]

I have stumbled upon a very odd figure. I found it online in a lot of Imperial brand figures, although this figure is not branded.
It looks to me like a knockoff of the Kaiyodo Barosaurus. Does anyone know who might have made it?

[Libraraptor]

I have stumbled upon a very odd figure. I found it online in a lot of Imperial brand figures, although this figure is not branded.
It looks to me like a knockoff of the Kaiyodo Barosaurus. Does anyone know who might have made it?

Do you have any pictures?

[crazy8wizard]

Do you have any pictures?

Oh whoops. It looks like the image didn't embed. Yeah, just a second.

[crazy8wizard]

I have stumbled upon a very odd figure. I found it online in a lot of Imperial brand figures, although this figure is not branded.
It looks to me like a knockoff of the Kaiyodo Barosaurus. Does anyone know who might have made it?

Ok now here's the mystery sauropod.

[Duna]

The sculpt and colours remind me of a Hong Kong factory from the 70-80s.

[Libraraptor]

I have no clue, but it´s very interesting that even cheap dinosaur figures already show animals that have risen up on their hind legs.

[Halichoeres]

Huh, haven't seen that one! Looks more Ja-Ru than Imperial, but I guess it could be either. Harder plastic? And I assume you already checked it for any printing.

[crazy8wizard]

Huh, haven't seen that one! Looks more Ja-Ru than Imperial, but I guess it could be either. Harder plastic? And I assume you already checked it for any printing.

It is a harder plastic but soft enough to manipulate the neck and tail on, not quite as rigid as Marx or MPC. There's one continuous seam line along the bottom of the neck that goes around one shoulder, through both arms, and then around the legs.

[Halichoeres]

Huh, haven't seen that one! Looks more Ja-Ru than Imperial, but I guess it could be either. Harder plastic? And I assume you already checked it for any printing.

It is a harder plastic but soft enough to manipulate the neck and tail on, not quite as rigid as Marx or MPC. There's one continuous seam line along the bottom of the neck that goes around one shoulder, through both arms, and then around the legs.

All of that sounds consistent with Ja-Ru, and the paint job is too, but I have never heard of them making a Barosaurus or any Kaiyodo derivatives. I don't have any more info, but I'm super curious myself now.

[The Templar of the Past]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Surprisingly, this company has been alreayd useful to me, since despite their cartoonish dinosaur figures they got me Eohippus or some closely related species of early horse,so it would be interesting if those lizards were some unique species too.

[Halichoeres]

I don't think the lizards can be confidently identified, but the telson of the eurypterid is really only compatible with Megalograptus.

[The Templar of the Past]

I don't think the lizards can be confidently identified, but the telson of the eurypterid is really only compatible with Megalograptus.

Unfortunately it's still way too inaccurate for Megalograptus. It's kind of sad the only good figures Fisher-Price made were those early horses (and kinda Smilodon too, though there are definitely better models of that one).

[Libraraptor]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Are those Aetosaurs?

[The Templar of the Past]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Are those Aetosaurs?

Would explain the osteoderms.

[SBell]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Are those Aetosaurs?

Would explain the osteoderms.

They don't have the characteristic upturned snout though. And don't come across flat bodied enough. They're probably kind of an unidentifiable generic model. When I first got them 18 years ago or so there was probably some image I found that was reminiscent of Araeoscelis but who knows now what the inspiration was by the toymaker

[The Templar of the Past]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Are those Aetosaurs?

Would explain the osteoderms.

They don't have the characteristic upturned snout though. And don't come across flat bodied enough. They're probably kind of an unidentifiable generic model. When I first got them 18 years ago or so there was probably some image I found that was reminiscent of Araeoscelis but who knows now what the inspiration was by the toymaker

I mean, their Megalograptus is far from accurate too. Identifying these reptiles as aetosaurs would explain the osteoderms and the leg proportions though, while the identification as Araeoscelis does not.

Also I'm not sure it doesn't have scutes, the back of the figure is divided in various rectangular segments, maybe it's harder to see on the green version but it's pretty clear on the red version I possess.

[SBell]

So, does somebody know to which species these lizards and scorpion from Fisherprice Imaginext dinosaur line belong?

Are those Aetosaurs?

Would explain the osteoderms.

They don't have the characteristic upturned snout though. And don't come across flat bodied enough. They're probably kind of an unidentifiable generic model. When I first got them 18 years ago or so there was probably some image I found that was reminiscent of Araeoscelis but who knows now what the inspiration was by the toymaker

I mean, their Megalograptus is far from accurate too. Identifying these reptiles as aetosaurs would explain the osteoderms and the leg proportions though, while the identification as Araeoscelis does not.

Also I'm not sure it doesn't have scutes, the back of the figure is divided in various rectangular segments, maybe it's harder to see on the green version but it's pretty clear on the red version I possess.

I think we're all trying very hard to push an id on a figure that was probably not given much thought at all to be honest. Like the eurypterid, they probably just took the basic concept of 'reptile' and added some flourishes. Unfortunately, I no longer have the figure, but I still have my database photo.

That said, morphologically, there's a lot about it that doesn't match an aetosaur. The rounded, pebbly scutes and high-domed, sloping head especially.

This similarly sized figure (Desmatosuchus but close enough) shows features, in the same size range that are pretty characteristic of aetosaurs.



The biggest one is the broad, transverse plates, as well as the general flatness of the body (the legs are wrong, probably for production reasons). The head is low, but should have a pig nose (there are a few good aetosaur figures, but neither of these are them).

A good aetosaur would be like these (other than the goofy eye paint on Paratypothorax:


Looking at photos again, I think there's some old reconstructions of a dinosaur I can't remember that looks similar. Probably a very old nodosaur drawing or something.

Again, at best the imaginext figure is more likely Diapsid indet than anything specific. Within reason, it could stand in for a lot of taxa.

[The Templar of the Past]

Again, at best the imaginext figure is more likely Diapsid indet than anything specific. Within reason, it could stand in for a lot of taxa.

You're probably right about the indeterminate part, but the way I see it it would still fit an aetosaur better than it does Araeoscelis, in the case it doesn't really represent anything it would probably be better to remove it from Halichoeres' list.

Probably a very old nodosaur drawing or something.

Unlikely, since I have the figure in hand I can observe the details pretty well and there are small pointy teeth sculpted on it.

[Halichoeres]

If you really want to put a name on it, you could let it stand in for Acaenasuchus, which had osteoderms and a low-slung body, but lacked the pig nose and spikes that some true aetosaurs had. But I tend to agree it shouldn't be on the USL.