Great Dinosaur Figures Screwed Over By New Discoveries

[Gwangi]

Well you know what they say, art is subjective. The Papo Oviraptor is well made sure but people don't have to like it. I don't care for it myself, mostly because of the accuracy issue but there are a lot of other reasons as well. And there is nothing wrong with that. Collect what you like, others can collect what they like. It's all good.

[stargatedalek]

personally I don't like the Papo oviraptor not because of inaccuracy but because I find it to be rather bland and cliche (the egg definitely doesn't help that )
for example the Papo archaeopteryx is highly inaccurate, but I still love the thing

its as much about what appeals to me artistically as what is accurate

[Arul]

Anyway I just buy a figure only if i have an idea to make them into a diorama

[triceratops83]

I'd be disinclined to include Edmontosaurus in this list. The fleshy protuberance on the head is somewhat small, and may well have flopped over most of the time. Also, it seems like the sort of thing only males had for display. And let's face it, soft structures are rare to fossilize, so for all we know it could have been covered in these sort of things like a carpet shark, blending in with the foliage. It just doesn't seem like a big deal in and of itself.

[stargatedalek]

it could also have been something that not every species of edmontosaurus had (in fact I think its fairly likely not every species had it, considering some of the well preserved specimens we have!)

[DinoLord]

Yeah, IIRC it was only discovered in one specimen of Edmontosaurus regalis.

[triceratops83]

And is everyone sure it's not just a random artefact? Like, it's for certain this was really a crest and not a coincidence of decomposition or some random imprint? I think I read somewhere that it was not certain.