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

[Concavenator]

@Sim These are the illustrations I was talking about:




Technically, I don't think Dilophosaurus would be too small for them, because they've made Megalosaurus (and it's relatively recent, they released it last year) which is around the same size a 1:35-or so Dilophosaurus would be. But at the same time, I would be lying if I said that I'm expecting them (PNSO) to make a figure of it (as I always say, I hope to be proven wrong). We all know Taurovenator is more likely to be made by them (would love it if this statement I just said was a joke, but I'm confident it isn't  ).

Oh and Herrerasaurus and Zhenyuanlong are also featured in the illustrations, but if Dilophosaurus is unlikely already, those two are even more so.

I also doubt Eofauna will be releasing a Dilophosaurus.

I kinda remember some mention of Zhuchengtyrannus having relatively long lengs back when the PNSO figure was released, but even then, I think it's quite the pointless taxon. Even more so considering there are other quite a few tyrannosauroids known from appropriate remains which would thereby be better choices to make a figure of.

Same goes for Magnapaulia (well, no, Magnapaulia does have more complete remains than Zhuchengtyrannus!).

[Flaffy]

Still waiting on a PNSO Zhenyuanlong after all these years... I can't believe PNSO haven't made figures of some of the best preserved species from their home country.

[Concavenator]

Still waiting on a PNSO Zhenyuanlong after all these years... I can't believe PNSO haven't made figures of some of the best preserved species from their home country.

PNSO is one of those companies that (currently) solely focus on "1:35-able" taxa. As with Haolonggood or Eofauna, the advantage is that you can have a range of creatures in scale with each other, and at a manageable size (not as space-consuming as larger scales like 1:18). And hey, it goes without saying that it's indeed nice to have figures in scale with each other. But the disadvantage of focusing exclusively on the 1:35 scale is that it leads to serious, glaring omissions from a lineup, which is the situation we're seeing with PNSO, Haolonggood and Eofauna (though it's less notorious with Eofauna as their release output is way smaller).

Some of those exquisitely well-preserved, local (for them) taxa (like Zhenyuanlong) simply happen to be too small for 1:35 scale. That's all there is to it. Now, if Zhenyuanlong was 9 m long, then it would be an option, but that's not the case... As it is right now, there is a higher chance for this genus to be tackled by Safari or CollectA than by PNSO (or HLG or Eofauna).

And this is why Safari and CollectA are so important in the current collecting panorama, and not everyone comprehends their worth.

Spoiler

I've seen people call their products "toys" (as in expressing they're not particularly high-quality products, I get the feeling). But those so-called "toys" (and that term is relative anyways) are (or usually) scientifically accurate depictions of prehistoric animals in figure form, with research behind them, just like PNSO's or Haolonggood's figures (products which tend not to be called "toys", by contrast). Further, it's not unheard of certain Safari's or CollectA's figures surpassing PNSO's or Haolonggood's when scientific accuracy is concerned.

[close]

Safari and CollectA, just like PNSO/Haolonggood/Eofauna, can and do release "1:35-able" taxa. But, unlike those companies, if they believe a smaller creature is interesting enough to turn into a figure, they will turn it into a figure. And that's why Safari and CollectA do have Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus represented in their lineups (animals that are generally perceived as obligatory in any dinosaur figure lineup), but PNSO doesn't (but of course, they're offering Tyrannotitan, "Saurophaganax", "Sinopliosaurus", etc). And if us collectors can be thankful for having a variety of figures in the same scale in our collections, we can also partially regret such a focus in the 1:35 scale owing to the absence of figures of popular yet "too small" species.

Safari and CollectA are there for us collectors who, may have a preference for the 1:35 scale or not, but are open to collecting figures of interesting and important creatures in a different scale. Combine that with their attention to scientific accuracy, and their worth is pretty obvious. But that's what I previously said not everyone can understand... I get the impression some people underestimate Safari's and CollectA's figures, when they shouldn't.

[Sim]

Thanks for sharing the images of the artwork @Concavenator!  I hadn't seen some of those before!  I like the Sinosaurus (and its background)!  And I love that Zhenyuanlong artwork!  It was actually featured on PNSO's Facebook page today.

It's a good point that PNSO's Megalosaurus is a similar size to a 1:35 Dilophosaurus.  I think Dilophosaurus would still be slightly smaller though, and that that would be a dealbreaker.  PNSO could always make it larger than 1:35, like they did for their Pachycephalosaurus and Lythronax dor example, but then I wonder why they haven't made it yet?  I think Dilophosaurus is more popular than e.g. Daspletosaurus, Lythronax, Mapusaurus, Tyrannotitan, etc....  I like PNSO but I wish they made a wider range of dinosaurs rather than repeat groups so often.

I think Zhenyuanlong has a shot at being made by Safari.  It's either it, Dromaeosaurus or Atrociraptor as Safari's next dromaeosaurid I think.

[Sim]

I've started the overhaul!  The new feature I'm incorporating is whether a species has generally satisfactory representation.  This is in my opinion, but I've tried to base it on the general opinion.  And I'm open to suggestions.  Navy is for animals known from good remains with satisfactory representation.  Turquoise is for animals with satisfactory representation that are poorly known.  Satisfactory representation is generally considered to be having a figure that is highly accurate, good looking, not an action figure and in a size that is fitting for the species, and that the figure doesn't have a restricted release.

Other changes:
- I've removed the newest CollectA Allosaurus, that stamp on its belly is just too prominent to get a pass, in my opinion.
- I've split Sinraptor's entry into its two species.

[Sim]

I'm keen to implement the revised colour coding I described in my previous post as I think it better reflects what there's a need for (e.g. a bigger Abelisaurus) and what there isn't a need for (e.g. another Carnotaurus).  Sometimes even if there are good versions of a species, a better figure is needed (e.g. Tuojiangosaurus, Kentrosaurus).  I feel the list works better this way, by showing which animals are sufficiently well-represented and which ones need a better figure, as well as which have no decent figure at all.

Some other changes I've made:
- I've removed most Carnotaurus figures as they are very outdated.  I've kept the Haolonggood Carnotaurus, its feature scale distribution is irregular enough IMO and with regards to the tail musculature, the paper where the thick tail comes from estimated three levels at which the musculature could be and I think the Haolonggood Carnotaurus falls within the range presented.  I'm not sure if I should remove the CollectA Carnotaurus too.  It's got the outdated integument, but it's so good otherwise that perhaps it could be retained with the integument being a minor inaccuracy?  I'm curious to hear thoughts on this CollectA figure.
- I've removed the Kaiyodo Ceratosaurus.  It has pronated hands!  I was clearly too generous when I decided to include it.
- I've added the CollectA 2024 Velociraptor to the list.  After further comparison I saw that the pelvis is not too shallow, it only looks that way because the chest area of the figure is covered in a thicker coat of feathers which makes it look bigger.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I think that new feature is interesting and a good idea.

I have a question, if an animal appears as blue, what would that mean now? That it has good figure representation, but those figures aren't generally perceived as "satisfactory"?

[Sim]

Thanks @Concavenator!   Yes, that's what the blue means.  For example, Concavenator is in that colour as there's interest in a feathered version, which is also most likely what Concavenator was like I think, or Abelisaurus and Indosuchus only exist as mini figures when it comes to decent figures.

[Sim]

- I've removed the Wild Safari Baryonyx from the list, its head is just too off IMO.
- I've also removed the CollectA Ceratosuchops, the inaccurate upper jaw is really a major inaccuracy, and it's on one of the few parts the animal is known from!
- I've also removed the Qualia theropods as lacking pupils is again a major inaccuracy.
- I've removed the Mattle Coelurus too, it's proportions are unrealistic, although typical for the Mattel mainline figures.
- The CollectA Lourinhanosaurus is gone too, I clearly wasn't remembering how weird its head shape is!
- I've removed the PNSO Qianzhousaurus and Wilson too, due to their uneven jaw line which has been reconstructed like a crocodilian's, this is an objective inaccuracy.
- I've removed the Carnegie 1999 Tyrannosaurus as its tail looks posed unrealistically.
- I've removed the newest CollectA Tyrannosaurus too as its integument looks completely unrealistic and frankly terrible.
- The two Favorite soft model series 2 Tyrannosaurus are gone too as they look wonky.
- The PNSO and Safari Nanotyrannus are gone as well, their legs are much too short.

And with that, I've finished updating the theropod list!

[Sim]

As much as I didn't want to, I've removed the Haolonggood Ouranosaurus from the list.  The single horn is a major inaccuracy.  I'm still keeping my figure though, the inaccuracy doesn't bother me enough in that regard!

[Sim]

I've finished updating Ornithischia!  I removed a ton of Pachycephalosaurus figures that had pronated hands.