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

[Sim]

I've split the enrty for Wuerhosaurus in two, as after looking into it @Flaffy is right that the PNSO version is W. homheni and the Haolonggood is W. ordosensis.  This is reflected in the size of these figures too.  So in the end PNSO made a different species to Haolonggood in their Wuerhosaurus!  I'll have to get the PNSO Wuerhosaurus now, which I'm warming up to.

I hadn't included the Favorite Saurolophus as I thought it had been reconstructed with a "duck-bill" while hadrosaurids had vertically downward projecting beaks.  Looking at the Favorite Saurolophus again I think its beak is within reason, so I've added it to the list.  Someone needs to make a more widely-available Saurolophus angustirostris though, preferably one bigger than the Favorite version too.

Alexornis has a figure because it appeared in the Walking with dinosaurs film.  The figures made for that movie included a number of rarely-made types of animals!

@Concavenator, I'll respond to what you've described soon!

[Halichoeres]

This is most useful, thank you.
Could you possibly create additional lists for the marine & flying reptiles ?

Asking the real questions! I'm more interested in these animals than in dinosaurs lately.

[Protopatch]

I've split the enrty for Wuerhosaurus in two, as after looking into it @Flaffy is right that the PNSO version is W. homheni and the Haolonggood is W. ordosensis.  This is reflected in the size of these figures too.  So in the end PNSO made a different species to Haolonggood in their Wuerhosaurus!  I'll have to get the PNSO Wuerhosaurus now, which I'm warming up to.

I hadn't included the Favorite Saurolophus as I thought it had been reconstructed with a "duck-bill" while hadrosaurids had vertically downward projecting beaks.  Looking at the Favorite Saurolophus again I think its beak is within reason, so I've added it to the list.  Someone needs to make a more widely-available Saurolophus angustirostris though, preferably one bigger than the Favorite version too.

Alexornis has a figure because it appeared in the Walking with dinosaurs film.  The figures made for that movie included a number of rarely-made types of animals!

@Concavenator, I'll respond to what you've described soon!

Triple thumb up for your exhaustive response @Sim thanks !

[Flaffy]

I've split the enrty for Wuerhosaurus in two, as after looking into it @Flaffy is right that the PNSO version is W. homheni and the Haolonggood is W. ordosensis.  This is reflected in the size of these figures too.  So in the end PNSO made a different species to Haolonggood in their Wuerhosaurus!  I'll have to get the PNSO Wuerhosaurus now, which I'm warming up to.

Thanks for reminding me. Need to get the PNSO Wuerhosaurus at some point as W. homheni.

[Concavenator]

@Concavenator, I'll respond to what you've described soon!

Sure, no problem!

[Sim]

So, with regards to things you mentioned @Concavenator...

PNSO Zuul: The head osteoderms are the bone cores and in life they could look different.  I think the slightly overlapping condition of them could have been invisible in life as the keratin that covered them filled out space.  The figure's head shape doesn't look off to me, especially when imagining the keratin that covered it in life.  I think another feature that identifies this figure as Zuul is the horn core on the lower jaw near the beak.  I don't recall seeing it in any other ankylosaurian.  I've read that the natural condition of animals is to be symmetrical, so the asymmetrical condition of Zuul's tail club is probably an exception for the species, rather than a rule.  I therefore don't consider the tail club as being a reason to not include the PNSO Zuul on the list.

Safari Zuul: I've removed it from the list.  Do you think I should remove the Kaiyodo version too, if I remember right it has outdated back armour?

Haolonggood Kosmoceratops: The hooks on the side of the figure's frill look to be lengthened by keratin, hence the different shape.  The figure's head seems to be based on the following reconstruction, with that in mind I think it's within reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skull_reconstruction_of_Kosmoceratops_richardsoni.jpg

Haolonggood Tlatolophus: I now see its premaxilla is too short.  But I think I'll keep the figure on the list, as it's a good representation of the species still.  The elongated skull carcharodontosaurids have their head heavily distorted from the natural shape of a carcharodontosaurid, they just don't look like anything known from nature.  So I don't think they are good representations.

[Sim]

I've moved "Non-Sinosauropteryx" to Tyrannosauroidea and added the new Antarctic sauropodomorph.

[Sim]

D @Dinoguy2, I've just come across where my thought that Confuciusornis had a tail fan came from.  It was from seeing a reconstruction of Jeholornis with a feather fan at the base of the tail and another at the tip of the tail.  I was just remembering it wrongly as Confuciusornis.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I said PNSO's Zuul's head looks off to me because it has a downward curvature that, as you can see, is not present on the fossil. That'd mean their shapes don't match, although I hadn't thought of the possibility of the caputegulae being the core of keratin extensions. That could be an excuse I suppose, although the Zuul specimen is so well-preserved that I think  if what you said is true, any outer keratin would've remained in the fossil seeing as some of the postcranial osteoderms did indeed preserve keratin sheaths.

Concerning what you said about the imbricated frontonasal caputegulae not being visible in life... again, I guess that could be a possibility, but I'm not very convinced considering how well-preserved the existing Zuul specimen is, and the fact that such a trait is an autopomorphy.

My main issue with this figure, and the reason why I suggested removing it, is the head shape. If PNSO's Zuul had a head that resembles the known specimen as closely as Safari's or Kaiyodo's figures do, I wouldn't have suggested its removal (nevermind the tail club thing, again, regardless of the default symmetry condition in animals which I'm not negating).

Accuracy aside, it's still a nice figure, and I think I'll keep it, because, not being a big fan of ankylosaurians myself, I have enough with having just 1 ankylosaurid, and Zuul is so well-preserved it's my go-to taxon for the group.

As for Kaiyodo's Zuul, personally I wouldn't remove it. I don't know whether it's technically outdated or not, but comparing its back armour to PNSO's figure, I am unable to spot any significant difference. Then again, I'm certainly no ankylosaur expert (you certainly know more about ankylosaurs than I do).

As for HLG's Kosmoceratops, the main reason why I suggested its removal were the brown horns not being as downward-curved as they should be. That is the most glaring issue in my eyes. Then there is the episquamosal 1 being in the incorrect position. I'm not very convinced about what you said about said horns being covered by keratin, because in that case, regardless of the horns being larger, I'd still expect them to be oriented more laterally. I just noticed how HLG's Kosmoceratops has the most inaccurate skull of any Kosmoceratops figure I've seen! The BotM, Kaiyodo, PNSO, Eikoh, and even the old CollectA all match the skull more closely as far as I can see. Speaking of CollectA's, why isn't it on the list? It's certainly a bit crude when compared to modern figures, but I'd say that, as a depiction of the animal, it's decent.

However, you made me reconsider HLG's Kosmoceratops. I think I can easily bend the brow horns downwards with a blow dryer. Maybe even the lateral-most frill hooks too. I think if I manage to do that, I'll be satisifed with the figure.

About HLG's Tlatolophus, premaxilla aside, Tlatolophus' forehead has a distinct curvature that's completely absent in the HLG figure (but present in every other Tlatolophus paleoart I've seen, including Ancestors' resin figure). As it is, HLG's Tlatolophus to me looks like a Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus that had the distal part of its crest removed, and had the distal part of a Tlatolophus' crest glued on to it. If HLG's Allosaurus isn't included because of its head shape not matching (which I understand), then I think this is another case.

On a different note, I think HLG's Concavenator would be better off as purple. Here it is compared to PNSO's Pachycephalosaurus (which appears as purple):



Pic posted by Paleofiguras, not mine.

And if Appalachiosaurus counts as having good remains, then I'd consider Eotyrannus to also have appropriate remains. Well, I do consider Eotyrannus to have better remains than Appalachiosaurus, especially because Appalachiosaurus' forelimbs are missing and so we don't whether it had long forelimbs like Dryptosaurus or not (as how it's usually depicted).

Edit - If Papo's Gorgosaurus is excluded because of an inaccurate pose, then the same would apply to PNSO's Ankylosaurus and its downward curvature of its tail near the club.

[Sim]

although the Zuul specimen is so well-preserved that I think  if what you said is true, any outer keratin would've remained in the fossil seeing as some of the postcranial osteoderms did indeed preserve keratin sheaths.

The keratin sheaths of the tail osteoderms are inconsistently preserved, especially towards the end of the tail.  So I think it's very possible the ones on Zuul's head simply weren't preserved.  I read that very little of the keratinous scales on the tail were preserved, which supports the ones on the skull being keratin cores..  Looking at the Zuul specimen's tail, I noticed that it seems there are osteoderms on each side all the way to the club's knob.  On one side the last one is very small and could be mistaken for part of the club knob, but it is there so the Safari Zuul is inaccurate in lacking it.  The image below shows this..
  (Image source)
Zuul is a good choice for representing ankylosaurids!

I once saw x-rays of two spiky lizards and one had a spiky skeleton too while the other had a "typical" lizard skeleton.  Despite the similarity of their appearance, their skeletons were very different.  It shows that keratin, which made up the spikes, can change the shape of something a lot.  Of course, you decide for yourself what you feel is acceptable.  I think the Haolonggood Kosmoceratops is within reason, but I acknowledge the possibility of what you showed.
The CollectA Kosmoceratops isn't in the list as it has giant eyes which exceed the size of their sclerotic ring.  It gives it an interesting look though, that's for sure..
Good luck with modifying the Haolonggood Kosmoceratops if you decide to do it!

The Haolonggood Allosaurus's head shape actually seems to match that of a currently unnamed Allosaurus species, illustrated by Gregory Paul.  I posted this in the Haolonggood new for 2023 thread.  I didn't include the figure in the list as its head seems relatively crudely sculpted and it doesn't have the large thumb claw, which might not be known in that species, but is present in A. jimmadseni and A. fragilis which this new species appears to be intermediate between.

Thanks for your comment on the colour coding of the Haolonggood Concavenator.  I think I'll leave it in grey as it fits into the smallest size for a medium-sized figure in my mind.

It's true that the forelimbs of Appalachiosaurus are uncertain, but its skull isn't and has a distinctive appearance which is why I consider its remains good.  It has an identity.  I wish I felt this way about Eotyrannus too, but I don't.  After Dan Folkes made a new skeletal reconstruction of Eotyrannus it became clear that its whole appearance is very uncertain.

The known Ankylosaurus tail club handle has a small downward curvature.  I think the PNSO figure is within possible range of this feature.

I've re-added the two Haolonggood Dilophosaurus to the list.  Their torso is a bit short, but I think it's a minor inaccuracy and the figure remains a good representation of the species.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Interesting info about the tail osteoderms! Even if Safari's Zuul lacks those final tail osteoderms, those are so tiny that their absence doesn't strike me as a noticeable inaccuracy. As a non-ankylosaur expert, the only way for me to notice the figure is (now) inaccurate are its proportions.

Thank you, but seeing as PNSO is making figures of more obscure (even fragmentary) ceratopsids, I might hold off for a (larger) PNSO Kosmoceratops after all. I'd rather not get a figure I'd need to modify in order to be satisfied with.

I now saw that pic you're alluding to. I highly doubt HLG modelled their Allosaurus after that skull.  But it seems they've had good luck and their figure seems to fit some Allosaurus skull after all.  Speaking of the enlarged thumb claw, if its absence really is a criterion for you not including an Allosaurus figure on the list, then I believe most (if not all, save for PNSO's Saurophaganax?) Allosaurus figures should be excluded, including Safari's 2019 version and PNSO's. I think I recall you mentioning you have those figures and said their thumb claws are indeed the largest ones? If so, of course I haven't seen your copies and maybe you were lucky, but looking at online pics and even their stock photos, those two figures' thumb claws aren't larger than the other two. And it is indeed one widespread issue I have seen people mention in reference to those figures, me included (I also had Safari's Allosaurus and mine didn't have an enlarged thumb claw).

Took a look at Folkes' Eotyrannus skeletals and his 2024 one looks a bit different than his 2022 version indeed. But if I just look at its skeletal remains, it's relatively complete.

HLG's Dilophosaurus I'd say is about 50 % good when it comes to a modern Dilophosaurus depiction. It has up-to-date crests and a proportionally larger skull -good- but its torso is clearly too short, so it doesn't quite capture the animal's look. Not as accurate as Creative Beast's versions, but still better than other Dilophosaurus figures. I wonder if PNSO will eventually make their own Dilophosaurus? The obvious answer should be yes, because it's such an important and famous animal (and because it isn't tiny to the point that it's an instant skip for them size-wise), but at this point I don't know what to think.

[Sim]

Regarding the Safari and PNSO Allosaurus, yes on mine the thumb claw is the largest claw.  I'm not sure if people were expecting that claw to be bigger than it is on these figures, but in the images below I think I see the thumb claw being largest on the Safari Allosaurus.  The PNSO Allosaurus is very similar.








I've changed Eotyrannus to blue, thanks!

[Concavenator]

@Sim Yeah, looking at those pics, to me the thumb claw doesn't appear to be the largest. By contrast, the Creative Beast Allosaurus and PNSO Saurophaganax unequivocally have a thumb claw that's larger than the other two:





So that's what I would have expected to see on Safari's and PNSO's Allosaurus figures.

[Sim]

Speaking of Allosaurus, I saw a photo of the Bandai one from the side and I've added it to the list now that I've seen what species it is.  I've added the Stegosaurus from the same series too.  ...And speaking of stegosaurians, I read an updated Wikipedia page for Yingshanosaurus and its remains are not as good as I previously thought, I've removed it from the list.  However after doing more research on Chungkingosaurus I think it can fit in the good remains category.  PNSO's museum series Chungkingosaurus doesn't match the more complete smaller holotype so I think it's based on another specimen which may be a different species of Chungkingosaurus, perhaps the specimen with the remarkable tail spike arrangement.  There's room for a better Chungkingosaurus, I now hope PNSO makes an updated version of it!

[Protopatch]

What do you think about the Ichtyovenator by CollectA ?
Actually, I would like to add a prospective PNSO version of the species in the wishlist for your separate thread

[Sim]

The CollectA Ichthyovenator is one of a few CollectA figures that was made with hips that are too far apart.  CollectA made a number of theropods like that, but fortunately they stopped doing this.

[Concavenator]

@Sim I'd remove PNSO's 2020 Spinosaurus as well as Haolonggood's, as they are leaning their weight on a hand, which means they're depicting Spinosaurus as a quadruped. And Spinosaurus couldn't have been a quadruped.

What do you think about the Ichtyovenator by CollectA ?
Actually, I would like to add a prospective PNSO version of the species in the wishlist for your separate thread

You may be lucky, because an Ichthyovenator by PNSO is indeed confirmed to be coming at some point. We don't know when, though.

[Sim]

I think the pose of those Spinosaurus figures are possible, I just look at them not bearing (much) weight on their forelimbs.

I've added the new CollectA Gallimimus and Maip, and Haolonggood Tyrannosaurus!  Looking over the list, it's terrible how neglected troodontids are.  Only some avialans have it worse, among theropods.

[Concavenator]

I think the pose of those Spinosaurus figures are possible, I just look at them not bearing (much) weight on their forelimbs.

The PNSO 2020 Spinosaurus is one of those depictions that represent Spinosaurus as a knucle-walker, like a gorilla. That implies a notable degree of weight bearing, enough so that a Spinosaurus would break its hands that way:




If it wasn't visually evident already, I also recall Everything Dinosaur stating the same (that the figure is meant to be a quadruped that uses its knuckles for support). I just can't find where they said that.

The HLG Spinosaurus is another glaring quadruped:



And IMO, the worst pose for a quadruped Spinosaurus figure I've seen to date. PNSO at least depicted it as a possibility that was once considered, i.e., knucle-walking. Same for CollectA, which in turn depicted their 2015 walking Spinosaurus figures as using their hands' palms for support. Both wrong, but hey, at least, they clearly chose a specific option to depict it. HLG's doesn't follow neither and looks even more unnatural.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying these two Spinosaurus figures are quadrupeds just because one of their forelimbs is in contact with the ground. I know that's also the case with figures like Papo's Acrocanthosaurus or Yangchuanosaurus. But it's a totally different situation with those Papo figures, because the contact with the ground only takes place via the tip of a single claw. Besides, no one suggests Acrocanthosaurus or Yangchuanosaurus were quadrupeds, but because Spinosaurus has a fairly long torso, short hindlimbs and big, robust forelimbs, when the 2014 findings about Spinosaurus took place, the idea that it might have been a quadruped was considered (as you may already know). And that's what the aforementioned PNSO and HLG figures depict.

[Sim]

Do we know for sure that Spinosaurus couldn't move quadrupedally?