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

[Concavenator]

@Sim I would change HLG's Chasmosaurus and Diabloceratops to purple (small-sized). I have HLG's Chasmosaurus and display it next to PNSO's Pachycephalosaurus (coded as purple), and the Pachycephalosaurus is bigger than the Chasmosaurus. And the Diabloceratops is even smaller than the Chasmosaurus.

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator, I've changed them.  I have the PNSO Pachycephalosaurus and Haolonggood Chasmosaurus too, but I don't keep them near each other.  I can't compare them right now, but if I remember right the Pachycephalosaurus is longer than the Chasmosaurus, but the Chasmo is bulkier than the Pachy.  I must have overestimated the bulkiness of the Haolonggood Chasmosaurus and Diabloceratops when I colour coded them.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I would say Favorite's 2021 Giganotosaurus is good enough to be on the list, what do you think? FWIW, I believe it doesn't appear to follow the outdated, elongated skull reconstruction.

[Sim]

@Sim I would say Favorite's 2021 Giganotosaurus is good enough to be on the list, what do you think? FWIW, I believe it doesn't appear to follow the outdated, elongated skull reconstruction.

Yes, I agree.  I've added it and the Favorite soft model series 2 Giraffatitan.

[Sim]

I've kept updating the lists at the start of this thread.  I just thought I'd mention that, and that I've added the Haolonggood Argentinosaurus and Huayangosaurus.

[Concavenator]

@Sim The BotM Allosaurus fragilis, Deinonychus and Dilophosaurus have now been released, so they can be added to the list.

Also, could you add Bandai's figures from the "Display Model series" to the list, please?

And here are some thoughts I have:

- I think Brachiosaurus can qualify for being in the "good remains" category. It has a known skull, which is a rarity for a sauropod. There is some postcranial material too, enough for it to have a "known appearance", in my opinion.



Brachiosaurus skeletal by GunnarBivens.

- Xenoceratops however shouldn't be in the "good remains" category I would say. For a ceratopsid to be reasonably well-known, it should have, at least, a decently well-preserved skull, and the only part of Xenoceratops' skull there is material of is the parietal. Which means its brow horns aren't known, and the snout region isn't known, either.

- I would exclude Papo's Acrocanthosaurus. I don't think it can be considered a good figure when a part of its anatomy is drastically different from the real animal's (namely, its arms being waaaaay oversized). When compared to an accurate Acrocanthosaurus figure like PNSO's, it's even more evident.

- I would also exclude Haolonggood's Dilophosaurus. As Papo's Acrocanthosaurus, aesthetically, they're nice. But I think they fall short when accuracy is concerned. The torso on HLG's Dilophosaurus is clearly too short. Since that's something that's visually apparent (well, FWIW, I immediately noticed it upon seeing the figures for the first time), I feel like it doesn't really count as an "accurate" Dilophosaurus figure. Funnily enough, despite its name, we do know more about Dilophosaurus' proportions than we do about the crests that give it its name (its shape and extent being unknown). Dilophosaurus' proportions are quite characteristic, and Haolonggood's doesn't accurately portray them, so...



Dilophosaurus skeletal by randomdinos.

Proportions is an important factor to consider when it comes to assessing a figure's scientific accuracy. For instance, that's the reason why PNSO's Anchiornis isn't on the list.

- I'm also not sure I would include Safari's and Creative Beast's Psittacosaurus. Overall, they're great, but they're both missing the patagium (understandable when it comes to the BotM) and the characteristic cloaca.

[Sim]

Thanks for letting me know about the new Creative Beast figures, I haven't been keeping up with that brand and forgot about them!  I've added them now.  Thanks also regarding the Bandai figures, I've added them now.  They're made of PVC, right?

As for Brachiosaurus, the head crest area part of its skull isn't preserved, so the shape is unknown, that's what's stopping me from putting it in the good remains category.  Regarding Xenoceratops, reading its Wikipedia page apparently more of the frill, brow and nose horns is known.

I think the Papo Acrocanthosaurus's forelimb size can be accepted as a minor inaccuracy.  I remember Leyster said I should include the Papo Ceratosaurus in the list and that figure has oversized arms too.  However, looking at the Papo Acrocanthosaurus again it appears to me that its proportions are terrible.  Not only are the arms too big, the legs are too short, its chest extends below the pelvis...  I think Leyster did say its proportions are very off and I see that now.

I'm not sure the torso length of the Haolonggood Dilophosaurus is inaccurate.  I've seen a mounted skeleton of Dilophosaurus with a "short" torso on the Dilophosaurus Wikipedia page:
  (Image source)
Also this reconstruction from a paper:
  (Image source)

The Safari and Creative Beast Psittacosaurus are a different species to the Psittacosaurus specimen that preserved the patagia and cloaca, so I think they can fit in the list, with possible minor inaccuracies.  Especially since I've seen scepticism about the Psittacosaurus patagia being real and instead being taphonomic.

I intend to go through all the entries in the list and be more strict about what's included.  I'll do that when I have the time and I'll post what changes I've made once I'm done updating it.

[Concavenator]

@Sim No problem, glad to help!

Yes, those Bandai figures are made of PVC.

When it comes to Brachiosaurus, it isn't in a much different position to Dilophosaurus, really (which has very complete remains save for the poorly-preserved crests). Considering Bistahieversor and Irritator are on the "good remains" category despite having essentially unknown proportions (the only part of them that's well-preserved are their skulls), then Brachiosaurus wouldn't feel out of place in that category IMO. Unlike a hadrosaurid like Magnapaulia (a lambeosaurine, at that, with their flashy crests), it's not like any variation in that part of a sauropod's head could change its appearance so much to the point of categorically making it "unknown".

As for Xenoceratops, I based my statement on the taxon's description (Ryan et al., 2012). The description says the holotype and paratypes are parietals (it's also mentioned that the parietals are incomplete). There are several referred specimens as well, and the material belonging to those are more parietal, squamosal, epiparietal and nasal bones. I checked its Wikipedia page, and it says this:

Additional skull bones have also been assigned to the genus, including additional parietals, squamosals (bones which make up the rest of the frill's lateral borders), and a partial nasal.

So I see no mention of the brow horns anywhere, and obviously, for a ceratopsid's appearance, that area is very relevant.

Those Dilophosaurus reconstructions are previous to 2020, and so, previous to its redescription (Marsh & Rowe, 2020). Even then, the skeletal mount from that first pic you shared doesn't appear to have such a short torso in my eyes. Even Safari's 2020 Dilophosaurus, despite having become outdated, has a longer torso than Haolonggood's. CollectA's does, as well. And then, all post-2020 Dilophosaurus skeletals I've seen (like randomdinos' or TheSynopsis') unambiguously show an elongated torso.

Thanks for the clarification about Psittacosaurus! I had forgotten they were meant to represent a different species. I still think those two factors are potential inaccuracies, but I now agree with them being on the list nonetheless.

And BTW, with Lokiceratops out of the way now, there aren't many centrosaurines left to receive a good figure!

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator!

I've changed the colouration of Brachiosaurus to what you suggested.

On the Xenoceratops Wikipedia page it says:

Another fragmentary skull in the collections of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology is thought to belong to this genus as well.

The holotype and associated skull material do not include much of the face, but the Royal Tyrrell skull shows evidence of large brow horns, perhaps similar to those of Albertaceratops and Diabloceratops.

Its brow horns are less understood than I thought, but since the distinctive parts of the rest of Xenoceratops's head are so well-understood and give a very distinctive appearance I think Xenoceratops should remain blue.  I've also reconsidered Machairoceratops and Furcatoceratops.  Their only really unknown part is the nose horn area, but since their frill is so highly distinctive and so much of their head is well-preserved I think they should be in blue, plus phylogenetic bracketing suggests they lacked a nose horn, like Brachiosaurus having a head crest.

I think I'll keep the Haolonggood Dilophosaurus in the list for now as I'm not certain their torso length is inaccurate.  Maybe the torso length can be seen as a "minor inaccuracy".  I didn't notice a discrepancy when I first saw the Haolonggood Dilophosaurus.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Interestingly, about Brachiosaurus, Paleo-Nerd recently shared this on their social media:



Here's the full post, for more info. I guess this means it did have a head crest, as expected and in case there was any doubt about that.

On the Xenoceratops Wikipedia page it says:

Another fragmentary skull in the collections of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology is thought to belong to this genus as well.

The holotype and associated skull material do not include much of the face, but the Royal Tyrrell skull shows evidence of large brow horns, perhaps similar to those of Albertaceratops and Diabloceratops.

I don't know what to make of those statements. I checked the Wikipedia page for Xenoceratops and the reference that's cited for both statements is its description. And the description doesn't mention there's material belonging to the brow horns. So I'm guessing their appearance is speculative on the reconstructed skull.

And so, I take the 2nd statement as: "we don't know what its brown horns were like, but the Royal Tyrrell skull is depicted with large brow horns, so it might have looked like that".

And while as a basal centrosaurine, it is indeed reasonable to assume it had large brow horns (as seen in other basal members of the group like Diabloceratops or Albertaceratops, as Wikipedia mentions), that notion isn't too conclusive when it comes to figuring out what its brow horns were like. Diabloceratops, Nasutoceratops, Furcatoceratops, or members of the Albertaceratopsini, are also basal centrosaurines, have large brow horns, but they clearly differ to each other's.

I do think we know more about Furcatoceratops' and Machairoceratops' appearance than we do about Xenoceratops', as I believe inference for the former two using Avaceratops/Nasutoceratops and Diabloceratops may be more reliable.

As for HLG's Dilophosaurus, @Fembrogon took measurememts for their phenomenal review at the DTB, and confirmed this issue. @Halichoeres also said the same, here. Plus, like I said, if you take a look at an up-to-date Dilophosaurus skeletal, its elongated torso can be clearly seen:



Dilophosaurus skeletal by TheSynopsis.



Dilophosaurus by Haolonggood.

Well, I think it's pretty apparent that the torso is too short, even without measurements... That's an inaccuracy, no doubt about that. It's a matter of each individual to judge for themselves how bad that inaccuracy is for them, or whether they care or not. And too-short-torso aside, it's not like the figure's perfect otherwise (concerning accuracy). It still lacks lips. Though granted, I don't think that (very likely potential) inaccuracy is so bad to the point of making a figure not being represented on this list. But the elephant in the room are its misproportions in this case.

[Sim]

I think the Papo Acrocanthosaurus's forelimb size can be accepted as a minor inaccuracy.  I remember Leyster said I should include the Papo Ceratosaurus in the list and that figure has oversized arms too.  However, looking at the Papo Acrocanthosaurus again it appears to me that its proportions are terrible.  Not only are the arms too big, the legs are too short, its chest extends below the pelvis...  I think Leyster did say its proportions are very off and I see that now.

L @Leyster, sorry I should have tagged you!

[Concavenator]

@Sim To add to my previous post, I just read you got the Papo Apatosaurus, and I find that interesting. I'd overlooked that figure, but you just brought it to my attention again. Interestingly, thinking about it now... I think it's pretty good! Why isn't it on the list? Is it because of the nostrils being placed in the wrong position?

[Sim]

Thanks for sharing that news about Brachiosaurus, @Concavenator!  A new highly complete dinosaur specimen is always great!  I notice that this new Brachiosaurus specimen is reconstructed with a reduced head crest compared to Giraffatitan.  As there's currently no way to know if Brachiosaurus altithorax had a crest like this new Brachiosaurus specimen or one more like Giraffatitan's, I've put it in green again.  I've added the new Brachiosaurus specimen in blue however (as "Brachiosaurus sp.").

I found a part of the paper that describes the brow horns of Xenoceratops:

Although no identifiable portions of the postorbitals were preserved with the specimens, an additional, unprepared fragmentary skull (TMP 2010.76.24) was collected from the Foremost Formation in the same region in 2010 that does preserve portions of two large-diameter, elongate postorbital horncores. This material can be referred to Xenoceratops based on the presence of apomorphic, shallow epiparietal contacts on parietal fragments that were recovered with the specimen. From this, we infer that Xenoceratops had elongate, robust postorbital horncores similar to the similarly aged basal centrosaurines Albertaceratops and Diabloceratops.

With that in mind, I think there's enough known of Xenoceratops for it to have a distinctive and quite well-known appearance, similar to Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus.

Speaking of Dilophosaurus, I've removed the Haolonggood pair from the list, following your advice.

Now that I have the Papo Apatosaurus, I find it amazingly good!  It's one of the figures I have that I'm most satisfied with.  It isn't on the list due to the position of the nostrils.  However, @Doug Watson has said he could see the recessions on the skull of Giraffatitan where the nostrils would extend down the snout but he couldn't see that on the skull of Apatosaurus.  So I guess its possible Apatosaurus had the nostrils further up the head, perhaps to protect them during the fights its neck suggests it had.  I think I'll add the Papo Apatosaurus to the list and the Wild Safari Apatosaurus too, when I go through it to update it.  On the subject of Apatosaurus, I got the CollectA Brontosaurus at the same time as the Papo Apatosaurus and the two figures successfully show the difference in the necks of the two genera!

[Concavenator]

@Sim About Dilophosaurus, Creative Beast's aside, if Recur gets to eventually release theirs, that would be another accurate option (if perhaps a bit large for some people).

When it comes to Papo's Apatosaurus, I may actually get it instead of Haolonggood's! I'd prefer it if Eofauna, PNSO or CollectA made their version, but Papo's is pretty good as it is AFAIK, and is reminiscent of Sideshow's Apatosaurus, which I still think is the most impressive representation of the animal in model form to date. The placement of its nostrils is unfortunate, probably inaccurate (even if it's likely apatosaurines behaved differently from other diplodocids, engaging in fights with their necks as you suggested, so who knows). That said, I don't think it's worth it getting the bigger and more expensive Haolonggood version when the main (if only?) advantage it has going for it is the position of the nostrils.  I also think Papo's has a more accurate head than Haolonggood's and probably neck as well, as I remember L @Leyster finding issues with the way the neck is depicted in Haolonggood's Apatosaurus.

And I'd also like to have an Apatosaurus that's in scale with Eofauna's Diplodocus... 

And since you mentioned Cryolophosaurus, its crest was a solid structure, not split in half as seen in Papo's or Battat's figures. Safari's gets it right. Just mentioning this in case you hadn't noticed.

And BTW, crest aside, I'm surprised to see Papo's Cryolophosaurus on the list. It's one of those crazy-posed Papo figures, like the Giganotosaurus, Chilesaurus, the Pentaceratops, etc. If the otherwise pretty-good Gorgosaurus is out because of its pose, then I'd say it's fair for the Cryolophosaurus not to be included, either. An upright posture like that I'd expect to see in a therizinosaurian, but certainly not on a Cryolophosaurus!

[Sim]

Thanks for your input @Concavenator    You are right about the Battat Cryolophosaurus's crest being inaccurate, I hadn't noticed that.  The Papo Cryolophosaurus's crest is only split at the top though and that area is unpreserved as far as I'm aware?  You make a good point about its pose though.  I've removed these two figures from the list.  I'm also going to overhaul the list with a new feature...

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

You may have a new Cryo to add to the list soon!

[Sim]

You may have a new Cryo to add to the list soon!

Oh, are you referring to the Creative Beast Cryolophosaurus?  Or the Recur one?  This makes me think that we're more in need of a new Dilophosaurus figure.  I'm going off Haolonggood's and due to what else is and isn't out there I'd like to get the Papo Dilophosaurus.

[Concavenator]

The Papo Cryolophosaurus's crest is only split at the top though and that area is unpreserved as far as I'm aware?

The crest is fully-known:



Cryolophosaurus skull by Miyess.

Interested in knowing what that new feature is about!

I'm going off Haolonggood's and due to what else is and isn't out there I'd like to get the Papo Dilophosaurus.

Surprised to hear that. Papo's Dilophosaurus is clearly worse than Haolonggood's, and in every aspect I would say. Its skull is outdated, and the pose is a mess yet again (leaning on a hand, plus the way the tail is posed is inaccurate I think?).

When it comes to pre-2020 (and therefore, outdated) Dilophosaurus figures the best is Safari's. Interestingly, that figure is in 1:35 scale.

There's also CollectA's, which is a post-2020 one and is overall good, albeit it has oversized feet.

Recur did show a new one, which is probably coming out soon, and it appears to be very accurate. It seems to be relatively big, though.

I'd love it if PNSO made one (or a Sinosaurus). They've shown art of those, as can be seen here, for example (alongside other interesting species):

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/9241133016#/

However, at this point I'm not sure they will consider making figures of either.  Tyrannotitan and "Sinopliosaurus" on the other hand are no-brainers it seems. This is one of the things that most irritate me from PNSO, every once in a while they drop a new release that feels like a prank (Tyrannotitan, "Sinopliosaurus", Zhuchengtyrannus, etc) and yet here we are, we still haven't gotten a Dilophosaurus, Sinosaurus or an eudromaeosaur from them, and the prospect of them releasing figures of either isn't too likely. I'd actually deem Taurovenator as more likely than those other, much more important animals...

There's also Herrerasaurus, Gallimimus, etc, very important animals that, again, are very unlikely to be made by PNSO (well, by anyone, to be fair).

Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. Chances may be slim, but not zero, after all Austroraptor has gotten some attention, something I was unsure would happen!

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

You may have a new Cryo to add to the list soon!

Oh, are you referring to the Creative Beast Cryolophosaurus?  Or the Recur one?  This makes me think that we're more in need of a new Dilophosaurus figure.  I'm going off Haolonggood's and due to what else is and isn't out there I'd like to get the Papo Dilophosaurus.

Talking about Recur, tho I imagine once it drops BoTM's will prolly be great too!

[Sim]

@Concavenator, sorry I meant to say the midline of Cryolophosaurus's crest is apparently unpreserved as shown here: http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Theropods/Cryolophosaurus.asp  The split in the Papo figure's crest seems to be in the apparently unpreserved area.

The reason I got the Papo Dilophosaurus is that I want to have a Dilophosaurus figure and everyone who would make one seems to have for now.  Safari and CollectA have made recent ones, both disappointing to me, I've owned the Safari while the CollectA is unappealing to me.  Schleich has made that horrid thing and Favorite's I don't like the feathering of.  Haolonggood's has the too-short torso and I've never liked the pose of the head of the walking one (or the sitting one's pose).  PNSO I think won't make it as it would be too small for their liking in 1:35, same for Eofauna.  That just leaves the Papo.  Well, and Creative Beast's and Recur's but they are too big for me.  Out of all the Dilophosaurus figures there are, I like Papo's the most.  I don't like the way its tail is posed, and the tail looks a bit on the short side too, but I like everything else about it.  I think its torso length is one thing it does better than Haolonggood's.  Its pose is acceptable to me, although I acknowledge the tail might be in an impossible pose.  As long as there isn't a Dilophosaurus figure that suits me more, I'm satisfied with Papo's.

I'm not able to see the artwork in the link you shared.

I share your feelings about those genera being made, except for with regards to Zhuchengtyrannus.  I think Zhuchengtyrannus must be popular in China for obvious reasons, it was requested on this forum too, and PNSO incorporated the unpublished longer legs it had that helps it stand out.