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

[Leyster]

@Sim actually, nodosaurs have five fingered forelimbs (and four fingered hindlimbs).

As I said, anyway, the best Gastonia around is Vitae Zhejiangosaurus, basically a fleshed version of Paul's skeletal.

[Sim]

Thanks L @Leyster, I knew thyreophorans have five-fingered hands, it's the toes of the hindlimbs which I get the impression were four at maximum, like in Scelidosaurus.

I've done Basal Sauropodomorpha!  This is the worst-represented group so far along with some of the Mesozoic bird groups, with no good figures!

[Leyster]

Thanks L @Leyster, I knew thyreophorans have five-fingered hands, it's the toes of the hindlimbs which I get the impression were four at maximum, like in Scelidosaurus.

Ah sorry, I didn't understood you meant the hindlimbs. Yes, mostly have four toes, while some reduced the number to three.

[Sim]

I've completed basal Sauropoda!  The situation with the species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus is bizarre, each one with the skull preserved has it look quite different to other species in the genus.  I wonder why they don't all have their own genus?

[Sim]

I've added the Schleich Dakotaraptor and Monolophosaurus, and the Mojo Mandschurosaurus.  I actually think the Schleich Monolophosaurus is better than Safari's.

[Faelrin]

Why not Dinosaurs in the Wild Dakotaraptor (Kaiyodo's is also probably more accurate for what it's worth)?



It does a much better job at getting the anatomy right compared with the Schleich one:



The only downside to the Dinosaurs in the Wild one is that it is retired, and was limited to an in-person event only (not available online).

That said Dakotaraptor might not even be a valid genus anyways. It's rather up in the air (aside from the earlier misidentified "furcula" that came from a turtle), since unless DePalma were to give access to it being studied (the material currently resides at the Palm Beach Museum of Natural History, which he is curator of), there's no way to do further analysis of the material. Considering his reputation and track record with Tanis and other things I wouldn't bet on it. I recall a twitter thread from either Thomas R. Holtz Jr., or in which he commented on that the sickle claw of Dakotaraptor might actually be a Tyrannosaurus hand claw instead, and that some of the material of Dakotaraptor is still likely dromaeosaurid. I don't have the exact link anymore, but information seems to be in this thread (otherwise I'd have to dig through my comment history on reddit to find the thread in r/naturewasmetal where I first came across this):

https://reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/zfj0ll/sad_and_frustrating_dakotaraptor_update/

The author(s) for the Dineobellator paper also suspect it could be of a chimeric nature, beyond that "furcula" which belonged to a turtle:

It is noted that Dakotaraptor is likely a chimera and portions of the described skeleton have already been shown to not represent a dromaeosaurid, namely with the "furcula" reidentified as part of a turtle plastron ^{see ref. 34}.

[Sim]

I've added the DITW Dakotaraptor now.  I've also added the CollectA Lourinhanosaurus and the new PNSO Yangchuanosaurus and Haolonggood Carnotaurus.

Regarding Dakotaraptor being a chimera, I think some people are being overly dramatic about it.  It's been shown that its limbs do not belong to Anzu as had been claimed, and the only dinosaurs with its tail morphology are dromaeosaurids.

[Sim]

I've done Diplodocoidea!  I wonder who will be the first company to make an accurate Amargasaurus?

[Chasmosaurus]

What do you think of the brontosaurus from collecta?
For Kaatedocus there is the dinozoo figure even if few was produce.
For shunosaurus safari made à good one I believe.
Safari also produced a nigersaurus, but its head is a little large for its body and its legs are not anatomically correct. But this is also the case for the jobaria de collecta.
I'm surprise you don't consider the bajadasaurus from collecta and amargasaurus from carnegie. Is that because they don't have a sail?

[Sim]

I think the CollectA Brontosaurus is very good, I like it a lot, however it gets the teeth wrong compared to this Brontosaurus excelsus skull: https://www.witmerlab.com/apatosaurus

I'm not including Dinozoo figures as they are made of resin.  The Safari Shunosaurus is mostly good, but its teeth are painted terribly.  I've now added the Safari Nigersaurus to the list!

For the Bajadasaurus and Amargasaurus, them not having sails covering their spines is a major inaccuracy now, so that keeps them off of the list.  Although the Carnegie Amargasaurus, which I have to say is beautiful, also has a common inaccuracy of Amargasaurus figures: the first spine is paired when it should be single.

[Sim]

I've added the Mattel Borealopelta and Chialingosaurus, they're well done!

[Concavenator]

@Sim Some thoughts I have:

- The CollectA Brontosaurus could easily be added, it having wrong teeth is a rather minor detail and could be attributed to the small size of the figure's head.

- I would also include the Safari Shunosaurus. I agree its teeth are painted really crudely, but it is a decent representation of the animal nonetheless. I hope someone will make a nice new version of the genus as I'm not too fond of Safari's (plus it's also retired), but that doesn't stop me from appreciating Safari's attempt.

- I would remove the Safari Nigersaurus. Its proportions are pretty inaccurate, plus it has inaccurate manus and pes. I read that you're interested in getting it, and that's fine, but according to this rule you mentioned, it shouldn't be included in this list:

1. A figure will be considered good if it has high accuracy and lacks basic inaccuracies.

- I would remove the PNSO Tuojiangosaurus. I can see why someone might find it appealing, but it has several flaws. Its proportions are outdated (reminiscent of pre-Sophie Stegosaurus reconstructions), you can check Hartman's 2013 skeletal for comparison to see what I mean. The shape of the plates is wrong as well, Tuojiangosaurus has straight dorsal plates, whereas in the PNSO model, those are pointing backwards. On another hand, stegosaurs only had claws on the 2 innermost digits, the PNSO figure has claws on the innermost 3 instead. Of course, it suffers from oversized scales too. In my opinion, I don't think it's fair to leave the CollectA Brontosaurus out but include this PNSO Tuojiangosaurus.

- I would also like to point out that no existing Carnotaurus figure reflects our current knowledge on the animal (except for the upcoming Creative Beast versions, that is). So no figure of it is really accurate. It's not just that no existing figure gets the integument right (again, except the upcoming Creative Beast, but unreleased figures aren't featured on the list), but a lot of Carnotaurus reconstructions depict it with legs that are too long, which happens when said reconstructions are based on Xenotarsosaurus. The Favorite, Carnegie and PNSO Carnotaurus all suffer from this, so I would at least remove those 3 (plus the PNSO one has oversized scales, too). The Safari, CollectA and Haolonggood versions are imperfect, but at least their legs look closer to Aucasaurus', so based on that I can see why they could remain. When it comes to Safari's and CollectA's Carnotaurus, it's understood they didn't get the integument right as its description came later, but in paleontology this can't be avoided, sometimes reconstructions simply turn outdated. Just like the BotM Eotyrannus is now outdated, for example, despite being a beautiful figure (just like the Carnegie Carnotaurus and Amargasaurus, for example).

- I would also remove the Papo Dilophosaurus. Considering the 2020 reconstruction, it's outdated too, and that aside, it has a fantasy pose. It shouldn't be leaning itself on one hand, and I doubt the tail could achieve such a pose. I think it's okay to remove it, after all the Haolonggood Dilophosaurus will be released soon, so there will be a good Dilophosaurus already. Plus, there are also the Creative Beast versions coming out, which of course are also be good.

- I don't agree with some of the color codes. For instance, you seemingly consider Olorotitan doesn't have good remains. I know its head crest wasn't preserved intactly, but based on the rigorous skeletals I've seen (like olofmoleman's or GetAwayTrike's), to me it looks fairly obvious that its head crest's shape was the one we believe it had. Otherwise, the rest of it is fairly complete. It's also noteworthy due to its very long neck. If you still consider it doesn't have good remains, fine then, but in that case, Dilophosaurus and Spinosaurus should be changed to green, too. We don't know the actual shape of Dilophosaurus' crests either, nor do we know the sail shape of Spinosaurus. In the case of the latter, add all the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of the neotype being a chimera, the unclear taxonomy of African spinosaurids, and so on. So just for the list to be consistent, I think either Olorotitan should be changed to blue, or Dilophosaurus and Spinosaurus changed to green. Particularly I don't agree with Spinosaurus having good remains.

Hope this helps.

[Lynx]

After doing some research, and I'll also put it on this thread, I am doubting the PNSO Pinacosaurus is a good representation of the genus. The proportions are very iffy

It might just be the photos so I will check in person later, but here is what I've found (will edit out anything I found to be fine in reality);

EDIT: Disregard this post, I appreciate the replies with info.

[Sim]

@Lynx, are you comparing the PNSO Pinacosaurus to Gregory Paul's skeletal?  Around the time of its release, the PNSO Pinacosaurus was compared to PNSO's skeletals and Paul's skeletals and it was concluded PNSO's skeletals were accurate and Paul's were inaccurate.  The PNSO Pinacosaurus looks accurate to me based on PNSO's skeletals, which can be seen here (there's two of them): https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/_archives/2021/03/05/pinacosaurus-scale-drawing.html

[Leyster]

Honestly? It pretty much matches MPC-D 100-1305. Now, if MPC-D 100-1305 is really a Pinacosaurus (and which species), it's another matter. But the model is cleary based on that.

[Lynx]

@Lynx, are you comparing the PNSO Pinacosaurus to Gregory Paul's skeletal?  Around the time of its release, the PNSO Pinacosaurus was compared to PNSO's skeletals and Paul's skeletals and it was concluded PNSO's skeletals were accurate and Paul's were inaccurate.  The PNSO Pinacosaurus looks accurate to me based on PNSO's skeletals, which can be seen here (there's two of them): https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/_archives/2021/03/05/pinacosaurus-scale-drawing.html

Do you have a link to the discussion? I have never seen anyone say Paul's skeletal was flawed, PNSO is the only form of modern media that seems incredibly different to it. PNSO's skeletals are what the figure is based upon, but the figures still have proportion flaws in other cases, thus why I am not using the one provided.

If there is a discussion of Paul's skeletal being flawed, I would appreciate it heavily as I am modeling something based off it.

[Lynx]

Honestly? It pretty much matches MPC-D 100-1305. Now, if MPC-D 100-1305 is really a Pinacosaurus (and which species), it's another matter. But the model is cleary based on that.

It being Pinacosaurus or not is a bit of a prime issue, but for that specimen and whatever it is, its accurate enough.
Edit: I think in the end it shouldn't be listed as a specific pinacosaurus species on the list with how iffy it is.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, very interesting!

[Leyster]

This is the discussion about what more closely matches.

Here is some criticism by Victoria Arbour on Paul's Pinacosaurus. Sadly Paul usually do not explain his refereces so it's hard to question why he did something the way he did it, so I'd say GAT's better, at least we can pinpoint it to a specimen (even if not Pinacosaurs, which is debatable, it'd be a model of some Ankylosaurid built like that). Other than the arguments stated above.

[Lynx]

I appreciate it a ton! I'll look into both, and remodel the thing I was working on to be based off the PNSO version.
I'll edit the original concern to clarify with the new info given.

[Sim]

Thanks for sharing those links L @Leyster!  In case it's helpful, I've quoted D @Dinoguy2's post in the discussion, below.  The identification of PNSO's Pinacosaurus as P. grangeri is based on the head.

Here's a comparison with Gregory Paul's reconstruction from the Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

Looking at a bunch of fossil specimen photos and diagrams this morning, I think Paul's skeletal is off and the PNSO model is closer to being accurate. Most specimens show that the posterior cervical half ring right in front of the shoulder is about half the width of the pelvis. So the neck area wouldn't be nearly as skinny compared to the rump as Paul shows, unless this is based on a particular specimen I'm not seeing, and in either case, that would just mean the PNSO is a more typical looking Pinacosaurus. If Paul's is accurate it must either be a different species or an extreme ontogenetic morph. The subadults found in situ and articulated clearly have a more teardrop shape. Nothing wrong with a model based on a subadult, especially if those are better represented.