Feathered dinosaur toys - you're doing it all wrong!

[Yutyrannus]

I would love to see these in figure form! These are my favorite raptor reconstructions.

[FUTABA]

Anyway, I don't see how Rey's "Fighting Dinosaurs" illustration is at all OTT (especially compared to Schouten's). I mean, the only colorful part of said illustration is the Velociraptor's face. The fight itself is also more realistic-looking. AFAIK, it's the overall best "Fighting Dinosaurs" illustration today. At the very least, it's better than Schouten's (which, among other things, makes Velociraptor look more hand puppet or a movie monster or a movie monster hand puppet).

I don't have a problem with the positions of the the animals as such, they both seem quite plausible to me, it's mainly the colour scheme that disagrees with me. Plus the hands on the Velociraptor just look a bit out of proportion. I understand the claws would have been bigger in real life with having been covered in keratin and all, but the size of them just appears exaggerated to me. I really don't think either picture could be called objectively better than the other though. They're just appreciated in different ways by people with different perspectives. 

Anyway, I sense this whole discussion being split off into a separate palaeoart thread before long, so...

I was looking at my Geoworld Caudipteryx earlier, and I thought it'd make a good candidate for one of the better feathered dinosaur toys out there  (Geoworld!? I hear you say? Ohh the controversy of it all!), the plumage is realistic and entertaining, without being too flashy, yet hardly drab in any way, the tail is well filled out, featherwise (of course it'd be a travesty if it wasn't, going by the evidence) and although the primary feathers on the arms start on the first digit and not the second, they still mostly cover the claws so they aren't blatantly visible as great big grasping baldy hands as you just see little more than the tips of the claws.

Plus I think the head on this is more like that of an Oviraptorosaur than the Safari Ltd. one.

[FUTABA]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

I think you'd appreciate a book named All Yesterdays.

I've been meaning to get that book. Haven't heard great reviews for it but that doesn't put me off. Still intrigued by the subject and no dount the illustrations would entertain me.

[tyrantqueen]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

I think you'd appreciate a book named All Yesterdays.

I already have it, and although I like it, I think it's pretty overrated.

[tyrantqueen]

Plus the hands on the Velociraptor just look a bit out of proportion. I understand the claws would have been bigger in real life with having been covered in keratin and all, but the size of them just appears exaggerated to me. I really don't think either picture could be called objectively better than the other though.

Yeah, I always thought that Luis Rey tends to over exaggerate the claws on his dinosaurs...maybe to make them "cooler" or something like that.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Luis generally sticks to the science but expounds on it with fleshy bits and such most would not consider.  He also tends toward interesting angles we don't usually see and that can make claws, tails, heads, ect..seem a lot larger than one would think.

[Skulexander]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

I think you'd appreciate a book named All Yesterdays.

I already have it, and although I like it, I think it's pretty overrated.

I never even bothered to check out the reviews of it. Yeah, I definitely wouldn't say it's the greatest, but it was enjoyable and worth reading. I mostly enjoyed it for the interesting interpretations of dinosaurs.

[amanda]

OK. I know this is a hot topic issue. BUT, aside from the are they feathered debate. We have NO feather impressions for Velociraptor, right? I get the assumption of feathering. But to say a figure is incorrect for NOT doing feathers is extreme, as is criticizing the length of any said feathers. Some artists/companies would rather be conservative until actual DIRECT proof exists as opposed to conjecture, no matter how logical such conjecture may be. As this IS a thread about how the toys are wrong, I feel justified discussing this aspect. Likewise, while  tyrannosaur chick may have had feathers (another logical but unproven theory) there is not enough evidence for me to then extropolate that the adults did. And certainly not enough to conclude allosaurs and such did. No reason to belive sauropods, stegosaurs, ceratopsians or ankylosaurs did. The quills on all ceratopsians is purely speculative so far. So FOR ME, I dismiss most art with these animals as fuzzy. And, I just don't even consider buying these as toys. Aside from Raptors and such. I'm picky, and conservative. I have no issue with the concept, or the theories, I just would like more direct evidence.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

We seem to think quite similarly when referring to this debate Amanda, however one thing I made note of. There is proof of quills for a primitive ceratopsian dinosaur, the Psittacosaurus. In addition there is the Triceratops fossil "Lane" which possesses quite unique skin impressions suggestive of a domed or quilled center, although as yet the paper for this animal has not been published.
As to Velociraptor and proof for feathering , to date, there is an arm bone from a Mongolian specimen which does have quill nobs, which would be assumed as the attachment points for arm feathers for the dinosaur. The thing which I believe makes this argument complex, is the often found feathering in Chinese dinosaurs, and yet so little if anything found for North American species, although in general the North American species are timewise more derived than their feathered ancestors from China. We do have scale impressions from the Neck Area of B-rex, indicating at least that area of the dinosaur was scaled.
  Generally the excuse for this lack of perservation is the general acidity of the north American preservational soils but I am unsure if that works as a valid reasoning.

[wings]

...We have NO feather impressions for Velociraptor, right?...I just would like more direct evidence.

On the contrary, Velociraptor actually have the quill knobs on the lower arm (highly likely that these are attachment site for the secondaries, please see http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/09/24/quill-knobs-reveal-that-veloci/ and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.full). Other than this interpretation, I'm not sure whether we have other explanation for these structures (shape, location and their regular spaced placement). Not all birds today have quill knobs (likewise microraptors were found feathered but none of them is reported with these structures) but for those which possess them are feathered (at least along this area, however feather distribution is a separate issue...). 

[DinoToyForum]

OK. I know this is a hot topic issue. BUT, aside from the are they feathered debate. We have NO feather impressions for Velociraptor, right? I get the assumption of feathering. But to say a figure is incorrect for NOT doing feathers is extreme, as is criticizing the length of any said feathers. Some artists/companies would rather be conservative until actual DIRECT proof exists as opposed to conjecture, no matter how logical such conjecture may be. As this IS a thread about how the toys are wrong, I feel justified discussing this aspect. Likewise, while  tyrannosaur chick may have had feathers (another logical but unproven theory) there is not enough evidence for me to then extropolate that the adults did. And certainly not enough to conclude allosaurs and such did. No reason to belive sauropods, stegosaurs, ceratopsians or ankylosaurs did. The quills on all ceratopsians is purely speculative so far. So FOR ME, I dismiss most art with these animals as fuzzy. And, I just don't even consider buying these as toys. Aside from Raptors and such. I'm picky, and conservative. I have no issue with the concept, or the theories, I just would like more direct evidence.

This thread isn't really about the "did they?"/ "didn't they?" debate - there are other threads on this forum dedicated to discussing the evidence for feathers in dino-birds. Rather, this thread is about getting the figures of dino-birds to look right when they are depicted with feathers.

[Hermes888]

The Bullyland Velociraptor is quite ugly. I'm really not fond of all the scaly patches, such as the area underneath the neck. It's a shame the Papo Archaeopteryx will have the same problem.

How is the Carnegie Collection Microraptor in terms of accuracy (colors aside)? I see no one mentioning it, and the other Carnegie Collection feathered figures.

[tyrantqueen]

The Bullyland Velociraptor is quite ugly. I'm really not fond of all the scaly patches, such as the area underneath the neck. It's a shame the Papo Archaeopteryx will have the same problem.

How is the Carnegie Collection Microraptor in terms of accuracy (colors aside)? I see no one mentioning it, and the other Carnegie Collection feathered figures.

I think it's pretty good in terms of accuracy. Although, didn't it have a weird painting error that made it look like it had two thumbs?

I personally find the sculpting a bit crude, but given its age that can be accounted for. I wish there was more defined sculpting around the head.

[Hermes888]

The Bullyland Velociraptor is quite ugly. I'm really not fond of all the scaly patches, such as the area underneath the neck. It's a shame the Papo Archaeopteryx will have the same problem.

How is the Carnegie Collection Microraptor in terms of accuracy (colors aside)? I see no one mentioning it, and the other Carnegie Collection feathered figures.

I think it's pretty good in terms of accuracy. Although, didn't it have a weird painting error that made it look like it had two thumbs?

I personally find the sculpting a bit crude, but given its age that can be accounted for. I wish there was more defined sculpting around the head.

Forgot about the thumbs thing, yeah that always confused me. I hope they do a resculpt with maybe a larger size?

[stoneage]

OK. I know this is a hot topic issue. BUT, aside from the are they feathered debate. We have NO feather impressions for Velociraptor, right? I get the assumption of feathering. But to say a figure is incorrect for NOT doing feathers is extreme, as is criticizing the length of any said feathers. Some artists/companies would rather be conservative until actual DIRECT proof exists as opposed to conjecture, no matter how logical such conjecture may be. As this IS a thread about how the toys are wrong, I feel justified discussing this aspect. Likewise, while  tyrannosaur chick may have had feathers (another logical but unproven theory) there is not enough evidence for me to then extropolate that the adults did. And certainly not enough to conclude allosaurs and such did. No reason to belive sauropods, stegosaurs, ceratopsians or ankylosaurs did. The quills on all ceratopsians is purely speculative so far. So FOR ME, I dismiss most art with these animals as fuzzy. And, I just don't even consider buying these as toys. Aside from Raptors and such. I'm picky, and conservative. I have no issue with the concept, or the theories, I just would like more direct evidence.

This thread isn't really about the "did they?"/ "didn't they?" debate - there are other threads on this forum dedicated to discussing the evidence for feathers in dino-birds. Rather, this thread is about getting the figures of dino-birds to look right when they are depicted with feathers.

Yes, but just because modern bird feathers look a certain way, we can't assume that they were the same on all dinosaurs.  Couldn't feathers have started one way and evolved with time?

[DinoToyForum]

OK. I know this is a hot topic issue. BUT, aside from the are they feathered debate. We have NO feather impressions for Velociraptor, right? I get the assumption of feathering. But to say a figure is incorrect for NOT doing feathers is extreme, as is criticizing the length of any said feathers. Some artists/companies would rather be conservative until actual DIRECT proof exists as opposed to conjecture, no matter how logical such conjecture may be. As this IS a thread about how the toys are wrong, I feel justified discussing this aspect. Likewise, while  tyrannosaur chick may have had feathers (another logical but unproven theory) there is not enough evidence for me to then extropolate that the adults did. And certainly not enough to conclude allosaurs and such did. No reason to belive sauropods, stegosaurs, ceratopsians or ankylosaurs did. The quills on all ceratopsians is purely speculative so far. So FOR ME, I dismiss most art with these animals as fuzzy. And, I just don't even consider buying these as toys. Aside from Raptors and such. I'm picky, and conservative. I have no issue with the concept, or the theories, I just would like more direct evidence.

This thread isn't really about the "did they?"/ "didn't they?" debate - there are other threads on this forum dedicated to discussing the evidence for feathers in dino-birds. Rather, this thread is about getting the figures of dino-birds to look right when they are depicted with feathers.

Yes, but just because modern bird feathers look a certain way, we can't assume that they were the same on all dinosaurs.  Couldn't feathers have started one way and evolved with time?

I think Occam's razor and common sense applies. For species known from specimens with feathers preserved we have a good indication of how they were, or weren't, arranged. This includes maniraptorans as well as primitive birds with dinosaurian features, such as Archaeopteryx. One can extrapolate from there with modern birds as a convenient guide.

[amanda]

You can't discuss whether or not a toy is accurate unless you are willing to talk about the evidence? I mean, we could have a fluffy Apatasaurus toy produced. Discussing if it was done right would be pointless if we did not talk about whether it was even fluffy? I don't see how the two conversations exclude each other.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

A bit OT, but I'm surprised we haven't found some amber with feathers in it yet..I see tree sap around here all the time with feathers stuck in it.

[Splonkadumpocus]

A bit OT, but I'm surprised we haven't found some amber with feathers in it yet..I see tree sap around here all the time with feathers stuck in it.

I believe there have been some amber-preserved feathers from the Dinosaur Park Formation.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

A bit OT, but I'm surprised we haven't found some amber with feathers in it yet..I see tree sap around here all the time with feathers stuck in it.

I believe there have been some amber-preserved feathers from the Dinosaur Park Formation.

Say what ? I haven't found any in the formations around the Dino Park here !    

Actually I had never heard of any found before from the mesozoic. You would think that would be as news worthy as a piece of truly preserved dinosaur skin found.