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

[HD-man]

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.

While I get what you're about "different perspectives", there actually is a way to compare the aforementioned illustrations objectively: At the very least, Rey's is more anatomically accurate than Schouten's; To quote Holtz ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-A-Dinosaur-Lover-s-Bookshelf-374321353 ), "if the known fossil skeleton conflicts with the shape of the reconstruction, the reconstruction must be wrong."

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.

This.

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.

See the Turner et al. quote for "direct evidence of feathers in Velociraptor". However, even b-4 said evidence was known, depicting Velociraptor without feathers was anti-scientific (See the Holtz quote).

Quoting Turner et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.full ):

We present direct evidence of feathers in Velociraptor mongoliensis based on the presence of quill knobs on the posterior forearm. In many living birds, raised knobs along the caudal margin of the ulna reveal where the quills of the secondary feathers are anchored to the bone by follicular ligaments. Quill knobs are variably present in extant bird species and are present in only a few basal taxa such as Ichthyornis (2), so their absence does not necessarily indicate a lack of feathers. Their presence, however, is a direct indicator of feathers of modern aspect (e.g., feathers composed of a rachis and vanes formed by barbs).

Quoting Holtz ( http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/so-when-is-this-coming-to-a-city-near-me/ ):

Actually, at this point there are several feathered dromaeosaurid fossils: a couple specimens of Sinornithosaurus and the many specimens of Microraptor (incl. Cryptovolans). More to the point, there are no specimens of the integument of any dromaeosaurid lacking feathers, nor are there any specimens of dinosaur phylogentically closer to Aves than Dromaeosauridae that lack feathers. Even more, the specimens for which we have integument for the next series of outgroups to the dromaeosaurid-bird clade (oviraptorosaurs, therizinosauroids, alvarezsaurids, and Archaeoptyerx and Pedopenna, if they wind up there) have either honest-to-goodness feathers or protofeather fuzz.

Thus, the simplest inferences is that true feathers were already present in the common ancestor of Dromaeosauridae + birds. While loss of this trait in any given branch is certainly possible, to infer such a change without positive information is dishonest.

Our inference that all dromaeosaurids were feathered is the same inference that monotremes were furry.

Given the current evidence, it is up to those who argue for non-feathered dromaeosaurids to provide a reason to argue for that position, as the evidence supports feathered "raptors" as the basal condition.

[DinoToyForum]

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.

There are other threads on the forum for discussing whether or not dinosaurs had feathers at all. This thread is about how the feathers looked in dinosaurs where the evidence is overwhelming that they did. Evidence for how the feathers looked can be invoked, of course. I never said otherwise.

[wings]

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.

@Blade
Since this is a thread more on toys so I won't talk too much on the science. There was a thread a while back on preen glands (http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1991.0) and it actually has a paper on feathers found in amber (http://faculty.eas.ualberta.ca/wolfe/eprints/McKellar_Amber_feathers2011.pdf).

[Hermes888]

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.

http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2011/09/dinofuzz-found-canadian-amber

Dream bigger! Vertebrates, such as frogs and lizards, have been found in amber. Why not some small, non-avian dinosaur?

[tanystropheus]

Apparently, Papo has the best feathered dinosaur toy in the mass market...

[Horridus]

Apparently, Papo has the best feathered dinosaur toy in the mass market...

IRONY ALERT!

Actually, I'm not sure about this...I think some of the feathered Carnegies may just have the edge on it, in particular the Caudipteryx (which has its issues, granted) and Beipiaosaurus. But we'll have to wait and see.

[FUTABA]

Wild Republic Velociraptor plush FTW. 

[Iguanocolossus]

The Walking With Dinosaurs toy series did the coelurosaurs decently, and I wish the next dinosaur toy series will have similar sculpts
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baptistecoudert/11492116053/