Dinosaur Toys in a World of Sapient Dinosaurs

[CityRaptor]

Scenario is the following: Non-Avian Dinosaurs never went extinct. ( Mammals on the other hand are nearly extinct, with only the Platypus remaining ) The Dinosaurs and other creatures of the Mesozoic are however gone, having evolved into new species during the last 65 Million years. One of the small Dinosaur species ( maybe Troodon, maybe someone you won't expect ) evolved into a sapient species of Dinosaur, who I will refer to as Dinosauroid ( not the Dale Russel kind, but something less human-looking. Basically not too different looking from your standard Dinosaur ). Dinosauroid society, among other things, produces toys based on extent and extinct animals. So the question is: How would this scenario affect those toys?

My Opinion on this:

Extant Animals: Pretty much stays the same.

Extinct Animals: There likely never would have been toys based on tail-dragging or tripod Dinosaurs, as Dinosauroids would know better, based on the animals they share the world with. So there never would have been a Dinosaur Renaissance ( not needed )  Also, less scaly toys, based on modern animals.  Pterosaurs with batwings would also never have been around, as bats do not exist. Toys in general would be more accurate. Chinasaurs would likely still exist aswell as Museum Quality lines.
The question for me is however what would be more popular? Would "Mesozoic" Dinosaurs  ( due to the classifications being different in this case ) still be the most popular ones, with "Cenozoic" ones taking the role of Prehistoric Mammals, popularity-wise? Or would maybe the Permain Animals become the big stars, with all Dinosaurs ending like Prehistoric Mammals, with some Dinosauroid named CityPlacerias being a member of the Synapsid Toy Forum and there being books like "The Synapsid Heresies"?

[Roselaar]

I bet this is what their toys would look like: 

[ZoPteryx]

Extant Animals: Just like you said, they'd pretty much stay the same.

Extinct Animals: I'd imagine they'd have the greatest reverance for the earlier dinosaurs and some paleozoic life.  This is because they would recognize them as their direct ancestors and find that fascinating.  They could also hold the large dinos of the Mesozoic in high regard because, if they're anything like us, they probably hunted all the giants to extinction in their early history.

[Libraraptor]

Twelve years after you brought up this thread, @CityRaptor , I came to read it again. Twelve years ago I could not really could not do anything with your question, but while writing my book, I often fell back on W.J.D. Mitchell´s "The Last Dinosaur Book", where he stated we "resurrected" the dinosaurs for the fascinating ambivalence of having them comfort and shudder us at the same time. I wrote about the long lasting feud between Sauropsida and Synapsida, too.

Isn´t it strange - As absurd as your thoughts may have sounded to me at the time, today I can really connect to this very original way of thinking

To answer your question, yes it may well be that some dino scientists cultivate a certain superiority thinking at first, until someone comes up with a kind of "The Synapsid Heresies" and finds out how close the race really was in the early Triassic Kids would play with Gorgonopsid and Anomalocaris toys. But I do guess they would also exaggerate their giant ancestors as toys and objects of history. Remember, humans did have giant mythology, too. So there would be still T.rex toys, but probably more Permian or even earlier ones.

On a more serious note, a bird´s intelligence is completely different from a mammal´s intelligence - it´s like a completely alien way of thinking. And now, ladies and gentlemen, we´re already deeply in the world of philosophy.
Quote
Quick Edit
More...