Which Mesozoic dinosaurs have good figures and which don't, according to Sim

[crazy8wizard]

I didn't include it because PNSO gave it horns where it shouldn't have any according to Wikipedia and images of the skull that I've seen.

It would have a little bump of bone there, but those would connect to the orbit creating a sort of "eyebrow", for lack of a better term. PNSO didn't add anything that wasn't already there, they just misinterpreted it

[Sim]

Yes, I did think it was a case of misinterpreting the preorbital process as a horn base, the same as has been done for dromaeosaurids, troodontids and possibly Psittacosaurus sibiricus.

[Sim]

I've added Basal Thyreophora to the list!

[Chasmosaurus]

There is the new safari ltd stegouros

[Sim]

Yes, thanks, I'm only including released figures or about to be released figures, so I'll add it around the time of its release.

[Halichoeres]

Have you looked at Gretcheniao? It seems pretty well preserved to me.

[Sim]

I hadn't heard of it!  I'm not sure one can tell the appearance of its head due to how it's preserved though.

[Sim]

I've completed Ankylosauridae!  I considered whether to list the Safari Zuul and decided not to due to its beak paint having been extended onto its cheeks.  If anyone thinks I should include this figure, let me know and I'll reconsider it.

[Chasmosaurus]

I've completed Ankylosauridae!  I considered whether to list the Safari Zuul and decided not to due to its beak paint having been extended onto its cheeks.  If anyone thinks I should include this figure, let me know and I'll reconsider it.

From my point of view, a minor paint problem is no big deal. No figure is perfect.
There is also the Zhejiangosaurus from VItae. What do you think of this species.

[Faelrin]

I think the armor arrangement being slightly outdated (which the paper detailing this was published after the figure was released), is more of a strike against it then a minor qc issue, but that said I still think it is definitely worth adding. Worth mentioning there is also the Kaiyodo Zuul, even if you don't intend on adding their figures.

[Concavenator]

@Faelrin You beat me to it, I was literally going to say the same as you did. Furthermore, the Kaiyodo has better proportions than the Safari considering that paper you mention.

I still don't understand why the PNSO Sinraptor and Carcharodontosaurus and the Safari Carcharodontosaurus are on the list, considering they all have an inaccurate skull and @Sim mentioned that was a reason to exclude the Eofauna Giganotosaurus. It hurts me to see that Schleich figure on the list but not Eofauna's.

[Sim]

Thanks for the thoughts on the Safari Zuul, I've now added it to the list!

@Chasmosaurus: I've read that Zhejiangosaurus is a species of uncertain validity, but @Halichoeres thinks diagnostic features of it could be found if further study on it is conducted.  It was classified as a nodosaurid, so I think I'll include the Vitae figure in that group.

@Concavenator: The Eofauna Giganotosaurus had its skull bones shrunk relative to the rest of its bones, I can't consider good a figure with such an inaccuracy.  Regarding the PNSO Sinraptor, I'm not convinced its skull is definitely inaccurate, I've seen another theropod fossil with the fenestrae like the Sinraptor hepingensis specimen which I think Scott Hartman restored it like with that feature.  I can't remember which theropod it was right now though.  The PNSO Carcharodontosaurus's skull is unlikely to be correct, but with how much else is good about it that seems passable to me.  It's the same as the Carnegie Giganotosaurus.  If you think I should remove the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus, let me know and I think I will remove it.  As for the Safari Carcharodontosaurus, what is inaccurate about its skull?  It looks like it has the shorter skull that's belived to be accurate for this species.  The only inaccuracy I can see about that figure is the teeth are too big, but that is something that's done for toys sometimes and considering how much else is good about the figure I think it should be in the list.

[Leyster]

S @SidB the Zhejiangosaurus should be in the list by sheer virtue of being the best Gastonia model around.

[Concavenator]

@Sim L @Leyster already explained about the PNSO Sinraptor having a distorted skull.

About the Safari Carcharodontosaurus, now I'm not sure what to think. I was going to say it suffers from the same issue as the PNSO, but looking at it again, it looks like the PNSO's skull is more off compared to Safari's. As a fun fact, I remember from the very same preview about Safari's 2016 dinosaurs that looking at its skull I was confident it was going to be a Carcharodontosaurus, whlist at the same time some folks were saying it was going to be a new Giganotosaurus. And, IIRC (I may be wrong), the only skull reconstruction available at the time was the old elongated one by Sereno, and remember that Carcharodontosaurus is a fragmentary dinosaur... so assuming I'm right and Sereno's was the only reconstruction at the time (which I'm not sure about) that would mean the Safari is based on it. But again, I'm not sure I'm right and looking at it now, I think you might be right about it after all. I'd say it can be kept. I would remove the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus, though. Not even the Haolonggood Carcharodontosaurus has a totally up-to-date skull either, but at least it isn't based on the elongated, very probably inaccurate skull seen in PNSO's (read Paleo-Nerd's review to see what I'm talking about). I would remove the Carnegie Giganotosaurus too. And the Schleich as well. In the latter, comparing its skull to the new PNSO's (which is currently the most accurate) it still looks elongated to me.

[Sim]

I remember what Leyster said about the PNSO Sinraptor's skull.  I think it's reasonable, makes sense and might be right.  However I also think it's possible the fossil skull is only distorted in the way where one side of the skull is pushed up or down, as seen in the paper that describes it.  So I think the PNSO Sinraptor might not be inaccurate.  If it is inaccurate I still think it can remain in the list as so much else about is great and it doesn't use a skull reconstruction that is blatantly wrong e.g. the elongated Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus ones.

I'm confident the Safari Carcharodontosaurus doesn't use the elongated skull.  Comparing it to PNSO's or CollectA's, I can see the difference clearly.  I don't know if the elongated skull was the only reconstruction around at the time, but I know it was already known that reconstruction of the skull of Carcharodontosaurus was implausible.  I think @Doug Watson based the missing parts on Acrocanthosaurus, as Andrea Cau has suggested, when sculpting that Safari Carcharodontosaurus, resulting in an accurate skull.

I've now removed the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus, Carnegie Giganotosaurus and Schleich juvenile Giganotosaurus.  Thanks for your thoughts on those.  I have to say that looking at it again the Schleich isn't as good as I thought I remembered it.  And it hurts to remove the Carnegie Giganotosaurus, it's such an aesthetically pleasing figure...  As for the Haolonggood Carcharodontosaurus, I think the skull recon you're referring to in the Paleo Nerd review is one possibility, the older non-elongated one still being possible.

[Sim]

I've done Nodosauridae!  It's interesting how there's much more ankylosaurids than nodosaurids.

[Sim]

I've done Stegosauria!  And with that Ornithischia is finished!  The stegosaurian representation is good, there's only a couple of animals needing a good figure from that group.  I wonder which animal the next good stegosaurian figure will be of, if there is one?

[Halichoeres]

How the tables have turned! Here you have the Schleich listed as the only acceptable Gastonia, whereas I favor the CollectA version. Just curious what makes you favor the Schleich.

Also, have you considered including Iteravis?

[Sim]

I love the colouration of the CollectA Gastonia.  However when I bought one at one point I was surprised by how poorly the head looks like a Gastonia head.  The snout of the CollectA figure is elongated, and the horn below the eye is too far back.  It also has five toes which I doubt is correct, the most I've seen in thyreophorans is four.  The Schleich Gastonia is much better in my opinion.

I think I didn't include Iteravis initially since it didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I thought it must not be known from good remains, since no-one was impressed enough by it to give it a Wikipedia page.  I've included it now, thanks!

[Halichoeres]

I love the colouration of the CollectA Gastonia.  However when I bought one at one point I was surprised by how poorly the head looks like a Gastonia head.  The snout of the CollectA figure is elongated, and the horn below the eye is too far back.  It also has five toes which I doubt is correct, the most I've seen in thyreophorans is four.  The Schleich Gastonia is much better in my opinion.

I think I didn't include Iteravis initially since it didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I thought it must not be known from good remains, since no-one was impressed enough by it to give it a Wikipedia page.  I've included it now, thanks!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll give the Schleich another look. They put out so much that is bad, but they do have occasional gems.

As a fish, plant, and invertebrate enthusiast, I'm used to absolutely exquisite fossils having either bare-bones Wikipedia pages or none at all! But that is unusual for a dinosaur.