Male or female? What sex do certain figures belong to?

[Libraraptor]

Don't want a heated gender discussion here. But looking at certain figures I can't help but imagineing them as male or female.  My Schleich Animantarx for example to me is a female,  don't ask me why.

Do you think of certain figures in terms of sex?  And why?  What makes a figure rather female looking?  When do you think it is a male?

PNSO gives them names by which you can tell.

Did we ever have a discussion about this topic?

[suspsy]

Well, the overwhelming majority of prehistoric mammal figures are clearly male, so that nips that in the bud. I for one would love to see more females.

With dinosaurs and other archosaurs, I think it's entirely up to the individual collector. I do find, however, that if a figure has bright plumage or markings, I'm inclined to think of it as a male.

[Patrx]

I was informed by Darren Naish that the Dinosaurs in the Wild Dakotaraptor is female, because the male Dakotaraptors in the "canon" of Dinosaurs in the Wild do not have the bright red cap.

[Joey]

Well, the overwhelming majority of prehistoric mammal figures are clearly male, so that nips that in the bud. I for one would love to see more females.

With dinosaurs and other archosaurs, I think it's entirely up to the individual collector. I do find, however, that if a figure has bright plumage or markings, I'm inclined to think of it as a male.

My thoughts exactly, and If a figure has more dull colors, I tend to think of it as a female individual.

[Faelrin]

I think this is an interesting topic. I read my Mattel Carnotaurus as male (probably because it is one of my faves of the bunch and I want them to be like me, so male, in my sub conscious thoughts), even though most dinosaurs in the Jurassic franchise are female (although they were still able to change to male on the whim with those frog genes, so why not).

Ultimately though they are toys so assigning them sex (or even just pronouns) is probably pointless at the end of the day, but no harm in having fun with your imagination either. On top of that these can be sentimental to us as well, or at least mine are to me. No doubt I see mine as like a small family of sorts (that might also be tied into my autism too, at least I swear I've seen something about imprinting on inanimate objects being a trait of that), even if they are inanimate objects at the end of the day. I actually use they/them for most of mine (neither male nor female specifically), because regardless of the fact they are toys, if they were live animals I wouldn't be able to tell, only guess, on what to assign them, with a few exceptions such as the female Jurassic Park Tyrannosaurus, or Blue from Jurassic World being female, etc, or the Indoraptor being male, where they have been designated as such.

I guess I do agree about the bright versus dull colors thing though. Like I'd be more inclined to see the BotM pheasant Mononykus as having a male sex, and the emu colored one as having a female sex, as that is a norm in nature, but whatever floats one's boat.

And come to think of it, I would actually be interested in seeing a toy done up as an gynandromorph like some birds and butterflies are born as, having both male and female characteristics (which would qualify it is an intersex condition I think?). Like this cardinal for example. Although the chances of that happening are probably very slim. It just looks really interesting anyways (but is probably only strongly noticeable in animals with obvious sexual dimorphism):



https://phys.org/news/2014-12-stunning-wild-northern-cardinal-gynandromorph.html

[Patrx]

And come to think of it, I would actually be interested in seeing a toy done up as an gynandromorph like some birds and butterflies are born as, having both male and female characteristics (which would qualify it is an intersex condition I think?). Like this cardinal for example. Although the chances of that happening are probably very slim. It just looks really interesting anyways (but is probably only strongly noticeable in animals with obvious sexual dimorphism):

Rebecca Groom did this with a couple of her Ornithocheirus Palaeoplushies, actually!

Note that one side has a bright white face with an orange snout, while on the other the face has brown markings and a violet snout.

[Shonisaurus]

For example the diprotodon of Soutlands Replicas is female, and the tyrannosaurs running from Papo are males. But honestly I would like the companies of dinosaurs and prehistoric toy animals to start making figures of dinosaurs and other disappeared animals of both sexes.

I have a memory in the decade of the seventies of a wild animal company of hard plastic that was called Elastolin that made figures of whole mammals (male, female, male and female breeding). I would be in favor of making figures of prehistoric animals in general of both sexes.

Sincerely they usually take out the marks of toy dinosaurs figures of prehistoric male animals in the sense that in the animal world they are more showy and dazzling than the females. In this case there is only one animal species in which males come out badly in terms of beauty and that species is from my humble point of view humans. Women are more graceful. I say this with all the respect in the world and I do not wish at all to offend anyone with my opinion.

Getting to the point I understand that the reason why toy dinosaur companies do not make female prehistoric animal companies is due to the fact that they have more more developed attributes in horns, hair, color and size for putting some examples irrational male animals. Honestly, I would like you to make both genres as this could enrich our collections and be cooler. Examples I find them in the family of koreaceratops and hypelopodon of Collecta where both genders are represented in adults and in offspring, by the way magnificent miniatures that I recommend.

[BRONSON]

If you look at the spider world all the female spiders are bigger, have large bums and are usually more dangerous 

[Faelrin]

@Patrx Thanks for the heads up on this, because I had no idea. They look amazing.

[Brontozaurus]

The problem with trying to make figures definitively one gender or another is that our sample sizes for most fossil species are so small, and the data mostly absent, that we don't know what biological features defined gender in them. As such, unless anything's specifically intended to be a particular gender (e.g. most mammal figures), it's probably safe to see most prehistoric animal toys as being gender neutral and open to whatever you want it to be. Also like Faelrin said above, there's no harm in it either; no one's affected if I decide my Schleich Spinosaurus is female.

As far as things that make me see gender in toys goes, probably colours and display structures, seeing as they're often gender specific in real animals.

[Tyto_Theropod]

The problem with trying to make figures definitively one gender or another is that our sample sizes for most fossil species are so small, and the data mostly absent, that we don't know what biological features defined gender in them. As such, unless anything's specifically intended to be a particular gender (e.g. most mammal figures), it's probably safe to see most prehistoric animal toys as being gender neutral and open to whatever you want it to be. Also like Faelrin said above, there's no harm in it either; no one's affected if I decide my Schleich Spinosaurus is female.

As far as things that make me see gender in toys goes, probably colours and display structures, seeing as they're often gender specific in real animals.

This is a perfect explanation and I completely agree with it. Having said which, I tend to assign all my models genders, and some of them even have names. I did it with the models I had as a kid and when I started collecting again I just carried on because I'm still a big kid at heart!

The only non-mammal figure in my collection that has a definite sex is my Schleich snowy owl, which you can tell is probably a female from her plumage (adult males have far less black spots and some are almost pure white. But, as a caveat, juvenile males look the same as females). I could hazard a guess with my CollectA barn owl, again based on plumage, but there's a lot more individual variation in that species. The obvious thing here is that these are extant species and you need to look at the colour and patterns of multiple individuals to get an idea of what's going on. Obviously this is pretty much impossible with prehistoric animals.

[Neosodon]

Sincerely they usually take out the marks of toy dinosaurs figures of prehistoric male animals in the sense that in the animal world they are more showy and dazzling than the females. In this case there is only one animal species in which males come out badly in terms of beauty and that species is from my humble point of view humans. Women are more graceful. I say this with all the respect in the world and I do not wish at all to offend anyone with my opinion.

Beutiful males is more of an archosaur than a mammal thing. Most male birds are more colerfull and striking than the females. In mammals you have things like horns, antlers and manes on lions but in the majority there is very little in the terms of buety or coloration. This may be due to them being dichromats and less sensitive to color than archosaurs such as birds that have up two twice the photopigments as mammals. In the case of humans, I think females selected males more on strengh and utility rather than beauty as it was the males job to hunt and provide physical protection. Although that is changing.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Sincerely they usually take out the marks of toy dinosaurs figures of prehistoric male animals in the sense that in the animal world they are more showy and dazzling than the females. In this case there is only one animal species in which males come out badly in terms of beauty and that species is from my humble point of view humans. Women are more graceful. I say this with all the resect in the world and I do not wish at all to offend anyone with my opinion.

Beautiful males is more of an archosaur than a mammal thing. Most male birds are more colorful and striking than the females. In mammals you have things like horns, antlers and manes on lions but in the majority there is very little in the terms of beauty or coloration. This may be due to them being dichromats and less sensitive to color than archosaurs such as birds that have up two twice the photopigments as mammals. In the case of humans, I think females selected males more on strength and utility rather than beauty as it was the males job to hunt and provide physical protection. Although that is changing.

Just a few observations here. /Cue biology nerd rant:

1. It's true that as a general rule, mammals have poor colour vision and therefore we don't see sexually-selected display colours in most species. Humans are a bad example, though, because as primates we have way better colour vision than most other mammalian groups. Whilst this isn't the case for humans, some primates do exhibit bright display colours - an obvious example being mandrills.

2. It's also a general rule that in species where sexual dimorphism happens as a result of mate choice, it's the males who are brighter and/or more conspicuous because it's the females who are doing the mate choice. However, the reverse can be true, where the display features evolve on the females because the males are doing the selection.

ANYWAY, given that non-avian dinosaurs probably had colour vision on par with that of birds, I'd honestly be surprised if there weren't examples of sexually dimorphic colouring, display features, etc in lots of different species. I can certainly imagining a lek situation going on with some of the herbivores, especially Lambeosaurines.

3. The same could also happen for totally different reasons - one of my lecturers at university suggested that male eclectus parrots were so different from females because the female is sealed into the nest while incubating and raising chicks, and the male is finding food. His idea was that males are green so they could camouflage against leaves, thus giving them (and indeed their entire family) a better chance of survival. Females are red and blue because they weren't going out as much and could 'afford to be': they don't have the same strong selective pressures acting on them as the males do.

4. As explained above, sexual dimorphism can be a result of other mechanisms that have nothing to do with mating displays and mate choice. For example there are at least three theories at to why birds of prey like sparrowhawks are sexually size dimorphic (namely: "bigger females could produce healthier offspring.", "Smaller, more agile males are better hunters." and "It means that males and females have different prey and therefore the species can exploit a wider niche."). It's also entirely possible that you have species where there's more than one factor driving the sexual dimorphism.

/End biology rant.

[stargatedalek]

The opposite can also be argued, as both birds and mandrills are likely to be outliers at least in terms of colour specifically.

There is a lot of evidence that bright colours are the norm for birds, and females developed their dull colours secondarily to assist in guarding eggs. Male birds that are the less colourful partner are always the one that sits on the eggs, and birds that share nesting duty, or nest in protected circumstances like tree cavities (IE macaws, hornbills), are either dull or colourful in both sexes.

And mandrills have very strict social systems of dominant males, often fighting with each other. Because the system "is meant" to only have the males in charge and doing this, they are the only ones that eventually adapted to have bright colours intended for aggressive display.

Most dinosaurs likely didn't sit on their eggs, and the idea that either the male or female specifically would be responsible for hiding the eggs is a lot more speculative than one might assume based purely on birds. For example; female Maisaura even if they were the ones to guard the eggs, could develop aggressive warning patterns as a result of competing for nesting space, just as easily as they could develop camouflage patterns to hide near their nests.

As for size in birds of prey, it's worth noting that regardless of the reasons the differences become smaller the larger the bird is. It's quite possible most dinosaurs simply wouldn't experience any advantage to similar size dimorphism.

[Tyto_Theropod]

The opposite can also be argued, as both birds and mandrills are likely to be outliers at least in terms of colour specifically.

There is a lot of evidence that bright colours are the norm for birds, and females developed their dull colours secondarily to assist in guarding eggs. Male birds that are the less colourful partner are always the one that sits on the eggs, and birds that share nesting duty, or nest in protected circumstances like tree cavities (IE macaws, hornbills), are either dull or colourful in both sexes.

And mandrills have very strict social systems of dominant males, often fighting with each other. Because the system "is meant" to only have the males in charge and doing this, they are the only ones that eventually adapted to have bright colours intended for aggressive display.

Most dinosaurs likely didn't sit on their eggs, and the idea that either the male or female specifically would be responsible for hiding the eggs is a lot more speculative than one might assume based purely on birds. For example; female Maisaura even if they were the ones to guard the eggs, could develop aggressive warning patterns as a result of competing for nesting space, just as easily as they could develop camouflage patterns to hide near their nests.

As for size in birds of prey, it's worth noting that regardless of the reasons the differences become smaller the larger the bird is. It's quite possible most dinosaurs simply wouldn't experience any advantage to similar size dimorphism.

That's certainly an interesting argument. I'd appreciate a citation as AFAIK most people go with the idea that runaway sexual selection is just making ever showier animals until you come to a point where anything flashier would incur serious fitness costs.

I'd personally say that even if bright colours were the original condition I question whether we'd actually see them in dinosaurs. I doubt you'd want to be bright blue and orange when you can't fly and there are predators that hunt by sight. Similarly, if you're an ambush predator, you don't want flashy colours giving you away. On the other hand, maybe there was just no point in camouflage for the larger herbivores as their size would give them away anyway. I remember one picture of brightly coloured sauropods where the artist referred to them as 'walking billboards'!

I completely agree with your point on sexual size dimorphism. I doubt that you'd see much of a difference in most non-avian dinosaurs. I really put that in as an example of the fact that sexual dimorphism isn't always about display, and it isn't always directly driven by mating behaviours.

[Faelrin]

Wasn't that the case with Megaloceros? That it was continuously selected for its large antlers, which in turn became problematic for it because they got too big for it to be beneficial for it anymore?

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Wasn't that the case with Megaloceros? That it was continuously selected for its large antlers, which in turn became problematic for it because they got too big for it to be beneficial for it anymore?

If you're counting extant animals, could be the same for male babirusa too.

[Faelrin]

Just did a quick google search and yikes. Some of those tusks come dangerously close to growing through their skulls. I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened to some sadly. So yeah I guess those might count towards that too.

[Brontozaurus]

Wasn't that the case with Megaloceros? That it was continuously selected for its large antlers, which in turn became problematic for it because they got too big for it to be beneficial for it anymore?

According to this paper, Megaloceros antlers were actually variable depending on their environment, so they may have been more adaptable than previously thought.