Unofficial Poll question for additional dinosaurs for the former MOS series

[Takama]

Here is also a List of ones that others have suggested that I also agree with. 

Daspletosaurus torosus 30 feet long
Massospondylus huenei 30 feet long
Dicraeosaurus hansemanni 40 feet long
Jobaria tiguidensis 70 feet long
Gryposaurus notabilis 27 feet long
Lambeosaurus 15m
Corythosaurus 10m
Alamosaurus sanjuanensis  Over 18.3 metres
Iguanodon 10metres
Hadrosaurus

[Gryphoceratops]

Dryptosaurus (roughly 20 feet)- This dinosaur has been known for so long and NOBODY ever made a model of it.  It more than deserves a model.

It probably hasn't had a figure of it made because it's known from very fragmentary remains.  The brown parts in the image below are all it's known from:

Oh don't you worry I am VERY familiar with Dryptosaurus' remains.  Here is my table at the state museum several years ago.  Those are Dryptosaurus casts up top. 



A model was never made because Tyrannosaurus was discovered right after it and took all the attention.  If what you suggest is true Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus would never have gotten models either.  I am VERY well aware of exactly what remains of Dryptosaurus.  Plenty of it is known to to get an idea of what it looked like in life if you reference other basal tyrannosauroids.  It's the second dinosaur ever discovered in America, and the first carnivorous one.  It was also the dinosaur that suggested that dinosaurs could be fast and athletic.  It has way too much scientific and historical significance to not deserve a model.  Plus it's cool.  It needs a model.  Don't try to reason with me otherwise. 

[DC]

1.   Antetonitrus  max 10m length
2.   Torvosaurus  Max 10 m 
3.   Astrodon 30m length
4.   Dicraeosaurus 12 m 
5.   Hesperosaurus 6.5 m
6.   New style Spinosaurus
7.   Centrosaurus 6 m
8.   Appalachiosaurus 7 m
9.   Aucasaurus 3 m
10.   Kritosaurus 8 m
11.   Dakotadon 6 m
12.   Rajasaurus 9 m

I would also like to see one of the Late Jurassic ankylosurs but the seem to be too small for your scope. 

[Gwangi]

As a native of the east coast, I too would love to see a Dryptosaurus.

[tyrantqueen]

Don't take this the wrong way, but since Mr. LoRusso...well, left the forum, what is the status of this thread? What is the point of making suggestions if he isn't here to read and comment upon them? I don't know if he would even take our previous suggestions on board anymore, after the way things ended

I'm not trying to start another argument, just wondering.

[Gwangi]

Don't take this the wrong way, but since Mr. LoRusso...well, left the forum, what is the status of this thread? What is the point of making suggestions if he isn't here to read and comment upon them? I don't know if he would even take our previous suggestions on board anymore, after the way things ended

I'm not trying to start another argument, just wondering.

He does not comment anymore but he still visits if his profile is any indication. According to that, he was last active...today.

[Allosaurus89]

Let's see, I'm going to go with mostly safe bets for this (i.e. well known to relatively well known dinosaurs). 

Plateosaurus engelhardtii (5-10 m)

Allosaurus fragilis (~10 m)

Giraffatitan brancai (26 m)

Giganotosaurus carolinii (12.5 m)

Iguanodon bernissartensis (10 m)

Spinosaurus aegypticus (15 m)

Apatosaurus louisae (23 m)

Lambeosaurus laticaudus (15 m)

Corythosaurus casuarius (9 m)

Centrosaurus apertus (6 m)

Concavenator corcovatus (6 m)

Torvosaurus tanneri (10 m)

[SBell]

Don't take this the wrong way, but since Mr. LoRusso...well, left the forum, what is the status of this thread? What is the point of making suggestions if he isn't here to read and comment upon them? I don't know if he would even take our previous suggestions on board anymore, after the way things ended

I'm not trying to start another argument, just wondering.

He does not comment anymore but he still visits if his profile is any indication. According to that, he was last active...today.

I kind of wondered the same thing--it looks like he stops by, but his last post remains--I don't think the opinions posted here are as...valued, as they once might have been? Although I'm guessing that quick glances for marketing purposes are still free, so why not check? That sort of research usually costs thousands and is hard to get. 

[Gwangi]

Don't take this the wrong way, but since Mr. LoRusso...well, left the forum, what is the status of this thread? What is the point of making suggestions if he isn't here to read and comment upon them? I don't know if he would even take our previous suggestions on board anymore, after the way things ended

I'm not trying to start another argument, just wondering.

He does not comment anymore but he still visits if his profile is any indication. According to that, he was last active...today.

I kind of wondered the same thing--it looks like he stops by, but his last post remains--I don't think the opinions posted here are as...valued, as they once might have been? Although I'm guessing that quick glances for marketing purposes are still free, so why not check? That sort of research usually costs thousands and is hard to get. 

Well it should at least mean that he is aware of just how torn up the forum was when he left and he could potentially come back. I feel certain he read through those comments everyone posted about him if he is still visiting. I've only checked his profile a couple times but both times I did he was here the day I checked. But like you said, it certainly can't hurt to check back here at our suggestions. He may not value all of them but like you said, free marketing research. An inside look into what the people want, even if we are but a few.

[Sim]

Dryptosaurus (roughly 20 feet)- This dinosaur has been known for so long and NOBODY ever made a model of it.  It more than deserves a model.

It probably hasn't had a figure of it made because it's known from very fragmentary remains.  The brown parts in the image below are all it's known from:

Oh don't you worry I am VERY familiar with Dryptosaurus' remains.  Here is my table at the state museum several years ago.  Those are Dryptosaurus casts up top. 



A model was never made because Tyrannosaurus was discovered right after it and took all the attention.  If what you suggest is true Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus would never have gotten models either.  I am VERY well aware of exactly what remains of Dryptosaurus.  Plenty of it is known to to get an idea of what it looked like in life if you reference other basal tyrannosauroids.  It's the second dinosaur ever discovered in America, and the first carnivorous one.  It was also the dinosaur that suggested that dinosaurs could be fast and athletic.  It has way too much scientific and historical significance to not deserve a model.  Plus it's cool.  It needs a model.  Don't try to reason with me otherwise.

Your reply feels hostile.  I think we'd all be better off without hostility.  I certainly don't want it!

I wasn't worrying, and I made no assumption regarding how much you knew about Dryptosaurus.  The known remains picture I included was to show exactly what remains are known for Dryptosaurus for those who didn't know - it wasn't intended specifically for you.  My guess as to why Dryptosaurus hasn't had a toy of it made is due to it being known from fragmentary remains.  What this means is that there are many other dinosaurs, including other tyrannosauroids, that are known from more complete remains, consequently often making them a better choice for a figure that shows an extinct animal.  "If what you suggest is true Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus would never have gotten models either."  I didn't say a dinosaur known from fragmentary remains won't get a figure.  I gave my thoughts only on why Dryptosaurus hasn't been made into a figure.  I think being known from fragmentary remains makes it less likely for a dinosaur to get a figure, but if it has qualities that toy/figure makers feel make them worth making, they get made.

Would you be able to know of Carnotaurus' distinctive horns, Concavenator's hump, Spinosaurus' huge sail, or Deinocheirus' skull and hump by looking at their relatives?  There are big gaps in Dryptosaurus' known skeleton.  The fossil remains of Dryptosaurus are very incomplete, particularly in the areas most likely to make it stand out as an animal/toy - the head and forelimbs.  Some tyrannosauroids have longer snouts, some have shorter snouts, most (if not all?) have horns/ridges/crests that make them look visibly different to each other.  We don't know what Dryptosaurus' head looks like.  Palaeontologists aren't sure if Dryptosaurus had two or three fingers.  The problem with making a figure of an animal with very incomplete remains is that it will mostly be a generic guess.   More complete remains can turn up showing the animal didn't look like the figure, e.g. CollectA Deinocheirus.  Dinosaur toy companies usually take a long time to update their figures if they ever do.  It's for this reason I'd prefer to see a Dryptosaurus figure if more of its fossils turn up and we get a better idea of its appearance.  Spinosaurus was one of my suggestions for additions to the Battat line, but when it became clear that even with the new fossils, experts are disagreeing on how it looked, I edited my post saying it would probably be better to not make it until a consensus on how it looked is reached.

"It's the second dinosaur ever discovered in America, and the first carnivorous one.  It was also the dinosaur that suggested that dinosaurs could be fast and athletic." That's interesting, I didn't know that!  I look at all the things that makes a dinosaur important when thinking about what I'd like to be made into a figure, with how much is known of it from its remains being very important!  I understand why you'd like to see it get a figure.  Is the reason you'd like a figure of it despite the head being mostly unknown, because you don't think more of Dryptosaurus will be discovered?  Dryptosaurus seems like it might get made by CollectA, maybe if it was suggested, as they seem to do less known dinosaurs more often than the other lines.

There is a Dryptosaurus model now!: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2567.0

[DinoLord]

I understand why you'd like to see it get a figure.  Is the reason you'd like a figure of it despite the head being mostly unknown, because you don't think more of Dryptosaurus will be discovered?

As a NJ resident who has dabbled into fossil hunting myself and who knows various quite serious fossil hunters in the state, it would not be unsafe to assume that there is not really a good chance for more good Dryptosaurus remains to be found. The Cretaceous fossil deposits in the state are primarily marine in origin, and the huge bulk of what one will find are shark teeth (with Scapanorhynchus being the most common genus). Even finds from other marine vertebrates (turtles, mosasaurs, etc.) are extremely rare, let alone dinosaur remains. Even museum digs of sites like the marl pits where the 19th century NJ dinosaur fossils were found haven't really resulted in anything besides marine organisms. I would love for more Dryptosaurus remains to be found, but it's not particularly likely. 

[Gryphoceratops]

Dryptosaurus (roughly 20 feet)- This dinosaur has been known for so long and NOBODY ever made a model of it.  It more than deserves a model.

It probably hasn't had a figure of it made because it's known from very fragmentary remains.  The brown parts in the image below are all it's known from:

Oh don't you worry I am VERY familiar with Dryptosaurus' remains.  Here is my table at the state museum several years ago.  Those are Dryptosaurus casts up top. 



A model was never made because Tyrannosaurus was discovered right after it and took all the attention.  If what you suggest is true Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus would never have gotten models either.  I am VERY well aware of exactly what remains of Dryptosaurus.  Plenty of it is known to to get an idea of what it looked like in life if you reference other basal tyrannosauroids.  It's the second dinosaur ever discovered in America, and the first carnivorous one.  It was also the dinosaur that suggested that dinosaurs could be fast and athletic.  It has way too much scientific and historical significance to not deserve a model.  Plus it's cool.  It needs a model.  Don't try to reason with me otherwise.

Your reply feels hostile.  I think we'd all be better off without hostility.  I certainly don't want it!

I wasn't worrying, and I made no assumption regarding how much you knew about Dryptosaurus.  The known remains picture I included was to show exactly what remains are known for Dryptosaurus for those who didn't know - it wasn't intended specifically for you.  My guess as to why Dryptosaurus hasn't had a toy of it made is due to it being known from fragmentary remains.  What this means is that there are many other dinosaurs, including other tyrannosauroids, that are known from more complete remains, consequently often making them a better choice for a figure that shows an extinct animal.  "If what you suggest is true Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus would never have gotten models either."  I didn't say a dinosaur known from fragmentary remains won't get a figure.  I gave my thoughts only on why Dryptosaurus hasn't been made into a figure.  I think being known from fragmentary remains makes it less likely for a dinosaur to get a figure, but if it has qualities that toy/figure makers feel make them worth making, they get made.

Would you be able to know of Carnotaurus' distinctive horns, Concavenator's hump, Spinosaurus' huge sail, or Deinocheirus' skull and hump by looking at their relatives?  There are big gaps in Dryptosaurus' known skeleton.  The fossil remains of Dryptosaurus are very incomplete, particularly in the areas most likely to make it stand out as an animal/toy - the head and forelimbs.  Some tyrannosauroids have longer snouts, some have shorter snouts, most (if not all?) have horns/ridges/crests that make them look visibly different to each other.  We don't know what Dryptosaurus' head looks like.  Palaeontologists aren't sure if Dryptosaurus had two or three fingers.  The problem with making a figure of an animal with very incomplete remains is that it will mostly be a generic guess.   More complete remains can turn up showing the animal didn't look like the figure, e.g. CollectA Deinocheirus.  Dinosaur toy companies usually take a long time to update their figures if they ever do.  It's for this reason I'd prefer to see a Dryptosaurus figure if more of its fossils turn up and we get a better idea of its appearance.  Spinosaurus was one of my suggestions for additions to the Battat line, but when it became clear that even with the new fossils, experts are disagreeing on how it looked, I edited my post saying it would probably be better to not make it until a consensus on how it looked is reached.

"It's the second dinosaur ever discovered in America, and the first carnivorous one.  It was also the dinosaur that suggested that dinosaurs could be fast and athletic." That's interesting, I didn't know that!  I look at all the things that makes a dinosaur important when thinking about what I'd like to be made into a figure, with how much is known of it from its remains being very important!  I understand why you'd like to see it get a figure.  Is the reason you'd like a figure of it despite the head being mostly unknown, because you don't think more of Dryptosaurus will be discovered?  Dryptosaurus seems like it might get made by CollectA, maybe if it was suggested, as they seem to do less known dinosaurs more often than the other lines.

There is a Dryptosaurus model now!: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2567.0

It was not hostility it was passion  Please understand that on a thread lead by Dan who is asking for suggestions for what he could sculpt in the future and you go and give reasons why someone else's idea should NOT be considered where he can see it (maybe not your intent but remember that was this thread's intent- to give him ideas) made me a bit annoyed especially since the reasons you give are not completely true (i explain that below).  Maybe it made no difference and he never intended to do Drypto anyway or maybe he does and your comment didn't stop him.  We may never know.  But if it doesn't get made I would feel really frustrated if it was because of your comment.  Note i didn't list ten animals like he said we could and so many others did.  I only listed three.  I wouldn't have bothered unless i was VERY passionate about the idea of them being made into figures.  No hard feelings.  No hostility.  I try to be friends with everyone on here.  Just please understand where I was coming from there. 

"What this means is that there are many other dinosaurs, including other tyrannosauroids, that are known from more complete remains, consequently often making them a better choice for a figure that shows an extinct animal."

But they are not Dryptosaurus.  Dryptosaurus has more historical and scientific importance which in my book makes it more deserving of being made into a figure.  Most people have never even heard of Dryptosaurus (even the ones from New Jersey and even the ones who consider themselves dino-nuts) and that is sad. 

"The fossil remains of Dryptosaurus are very incomplete, particularly in the areas most likely to make it stand out as an animal/toy - the head and forelimbs.  Some tyrannosauroids have longer snouts, some have shorter snouts, most (if not all?) have horns/ridges/crests that make them look visibly different to each other."

Dryptosaurus had unique claw and hand proportions amongst all known tyrannosauroids.  No other known tyrannosauroid had claws that big on its hands.  It and Appalachiosaurus are actually considered evolutionary offshoots from the rest of tyrannosauroidea because they are so different probably from their geographical isolation on the east coast of the USA.  They are unique amongst other tyrannosauroids even without all the skull material. (and we do have some good jaw fragments and lots of teeth)

"Palaeontologists aren't sure if Dryptosaurus had two or three fingers." 

You will see some reconstructions of it with two but the general consensus by paleontologists who worked with it is that it had three. 

"It's for this reason I'd prefer to see a Dryptosaurus figure if more of its fossils turn up and we get a better idea of its appearance."

DinoLord is correct.  As thrilled as that would make me, it's probably not going to happen.  Spinosaurus and Deinocheirus were both from remote parts of the world where eventually finding more of them wasn't surprising.  Dryptosaurus was from New Jersey which is the most densely populated state in the entire US.  Big funded excavations like they do for Utah, New Mexico, Egypt, Mongolia, or all those other places you see new discoveries coming from are not going to fly here because there is too much human development where you would likely find good Dryptosaurus remains if there are any left. (Barnsborro is the name of the town if you were curious)  Also the fossil sites we DO have left (and we do have a lot) are marine from the Cretaceous or other time periods.  If they do discover more of it I will be happy to look back on this and admit I predicted wrong but sadly I doubt that day will ever come. 

"Dryptosaurus seems like it might get made by CollectA, maybe if it was suggested, as they seem to do less known dinosaurs more often than the other lines."

That's the problem.  A dinosaur like Dryptosaurus shouldn't be "less known".  If Collecta makes one I will surely buy it but their track record with theropods I am not a fan of.  Dan LoRusso would do a far superior job if he chose to do so. 

I suggest you read the recent paper by Steve Brussatte and Mark Norell where they went back and re-described Dryptosaurus.  They know a lot more about it than you might think.  It is fragmentary but at the same time it isn't THAT fragmentary.  prehistoric models and reconstructions loved in pop culture (Quetzalcoatlus!) have been made off of much less.  The parts we DO have are important enough and distinctive enough to get a good idea of what it looked like in life and it is unique amongst other tyrannosauroids.  Dryptosaurus deserves to be up there with Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Spinosaurus, and Carnotaurus.  It is scientifically and historically important.  It looks cool.  It's unique.  It deserves a good figure.

"There is a Dryptosaurus model now!: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2567.0"  I saw that last week and might contact him.  I still want Drypto toys to be seen on store shelves though. 

PS: I feel the same way about Hadrosaurus. Yes I am aware of the Marx figure. 

[Gwangi]

I understand your passion Gryph. Us east coast residents have very few dinosaurs to brag about, we gotta represent the ones we do have. How am I supposed to ever do an east coast diorama without east coast models? 

Not to mention the "Leaping Laelaps" piece by Charles Knight is one of my all time favorite pieces of classic paleo-art. I had a magazine clipping of that picture on my wall all while I was growing up.

[Daspletodave]

We all have our favorite dinosaurs we'd like to see in toy form. As already stated, some dinosaurs with scant remains have been made into toys - Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus for instance. Other dinosaurs known from COMPLETE remains, like Centrosaurus, have never been made into toys.
I think the sculptors, like Dan LoRusso, have a lot of influence, but ultimately the toy companies decide what is popular and what will sell.
It is a business after all.
Meanwhile it doesn't hurt to offer suggestions and represent.
What I can't stand is people who shoot down other people's suggestions.

[Sim]

It was not hostility it was passion  Please understand that on a thread lead by Dan who is asking for suggestions for what he could sculpt in the future and you go and give reasons why someone else's idea should NOT be considered where he can see it (maybe not your intent but remember that was this thread's intent- to give him ideas) made me a bit annoyed especially since the reasons you give are not completely true (i explain that below).  Maybe it made no difference and he never intended to do Drypto anyway or maybe he does and your comment didn't stop him.  We may never know.  But if it doesn't get made I would feel really frustrated if it was because of your comment.  Note i didn't list ten animals like he said we could and so many others did.  I only listed three.  I wouldn't have bothered unless i was VERY passionate about the idea of them being made into figures.  No hard feelings.  No hostility.  I try to be friends with everyone on here.  Just please understand where I was coming from there.

Dan said he was going to stay away from fragmented/speculative dinosaurs.  I commented on this, saying I was glad.  The reason I pointed out that it's not known if Diamantinasaurus had armour, and that "Lambeosaurus laticaudus" was provisionally assigned to Lambeosaurus, and now has an official classification - Magnapaulia, was because I thought a forum like this is a good place to share and learn things, and if I was thinking things that were incorrect, I'd like to learn what is correct!  I expanded on Magnapaulia as it seemed like everyone suggesting it thought it was basically a huge Lambeosaurus lambei – which it isn't.  The majority of suggestions for Lambeosaurus in this thread have been for "Lambeosaurus laticaudus", which is Magnapaulia, or for a Lambeosaurus that is 15m long, which again is Magnapaulia.  I thought it was a shame that people didn't know what they were suggesting (regarding Magnapaulia), so I tried to explain what "L. laticaudus"/Magnapaulia is.  You said, "Dryptosaurus (roughly 20 feet)- This dinosaur has been known for so long and NOBODY ever made a model of it.  It more than deserves a model."  I thought the reason it hadn't been made into a figure was due to it being known from fragmentary remains, so I said this in case you hadn't thought of that being a possible reason.  Some of the suggested dinosaurs are known from fragmentary remains, but I haven't commented on them, which I would've if I'd been giving reasons why other peoples' suggestions shouldn't be considered.

Dan researches each figure he makes thoroughly, so he'd know exactly what is known of a dinosaur before making it into a figure.  Even before my first post in this thread, he said both here and in the suggestions for the Terra line thread that he doesn't want to do dinosaurs known from fragmentary remains.  For these reasons I don't think anything I've said about Diamantinasaurus, Magnapaulia or Dryptosaurus will make Dan decide to not make them into figures.  If anything, I think the posts where you've explained more about Dryptosaurus have made it more likely for it to be made into a figure!  As far as I'm aware, I don't think I've said anything that's not true, and I'll respond to what you've said below.

"What this means is that there are many other dinosaurs, including other tyrannosauroids, that are known from more complete remains, consequently often making them a better choice for a figure that shows an extinct animal."

But they are not Dryptosaurus.  Dryptosaurus has more historical and scientific importance which in my book makes it more deserving of being made into a figure.  Most people have never even heard of Dryptosaurus (even the ones from New Jersey and even the ones who consider themselves dino-nuts) and that is sad.

I think usually the dinosaurs with 'more' importance are the ones known from more complete remains, as they tell us a lot about the dinosaur's ecology, appearance, anatomy, behaviour and sometimes even its growth.  They also provide a lot of information for classifications and help us to learn more about their relatives known from less complete remains.  I'm not sure if it'll make you feel better, but I've known of Dryptosaurus since I was a kid.  And I've never been to America.

"The fossil remains of Dryptosaurus are very incomplete, particularly in the areas most likely to make it stand out as an animal/toy - the head and forelimbs.  Some tyrannosauroids have longer snouts, some have shorter snouts, most (if not all?) have horns/ridges/crests that make them look visibly different to each other."

Dryptosaurus had unique claw and hand proportions amongst all known tyrannosauroids.  No other known tyrannosauroid had claws that big on its hands.  It and Appalachiosaurus are actually considered evolutionary offshoots from the rest of tyrannosauroidea because they are so different probably from their geographical isolation on the east coast of the USA.  They are unique amongst other tyrannosauroids even without all the skull material. (and we do have some good jaw fragments and lots of teeth)

I'd overlooked the size of Dryptosaurus' hand claw, thanks for pointing that out!  It is big!  Although megaraptorans are now believed to be tyrannosauroids, and Megaraptor's hand claw is bigger than Dryptosaurus'.

"Palaeontologists aren't sure if Dryptosaurus had two or three fingers." 

You will see some reconstructions of it with two but the general consensus by paleontologists who worked with it is that it had three.


I suggest you read the recent paper by Steve Brussatte and Mark Norell where they went back and re-described Dryptosaurus.  They know a lot more about it than you might think.

Oops, I meant to say palaeontologists aren't sure if Dryptosaurus had two or three FUNCTIONAL fingers!  I read the paper, although due to having limited time and the highly technical nature of the paper, I had to skim through some parts.  I've read that Brusatte et al. observed a similarity in the shape of the available phalanges of Dryptosaurus with those of derived tyrannosaurids and they noted that Dryptosaurus may have had only two functional digits.  I wasn't able to find that part in the paper though.

We all have our favorite dinosaurs we'd like to see in toy form. As already stated, some dinosaurs with scant remains have been made into toys - Spinosaurus and Megalosaurus for instance. Other dinosaurs known from COMPLETE remains, like Centrosaurus, have never been made into toys.
I think the sculptors, like Dan LoRusso, have a lot of influence, but ultimately the toy companies decide what is popular and what will sell.
It is a business after all.
Meanwhile it doesn't hurt to offer suggestions and represent.
What I can't stand is people who shoot down other people's suggestions.

I think (can't find the post right now) Dan said Battat let him choose what dinosaurs to make for the first 6 in the Terra line, but that the dinosaurs had to be within a size range.  I get the impression this is still the case with new Battat dinosaur additions.  I hope you're not referring to me as someone who's shot down other people's suggestions, as I haven't done that.


It wasn't my intention to say why someone else's suggestion shouldn't be considered.  Looking back now though, I can see that some of the things I said about dinosaurs others suggested, which I thought would've been helpful, ended up causing upset instead.  I can now also see that the things that caused upset didn't need to be said.  I'm sorry for the upset I caused.

[Gwangi]

On the subject of fragmentary remains, I wonder what the criteria is for how complete a species must be before being made into a model? I only ask because Dan said he wanted to avoid animals only known from scant material and looking at the Dryptosaurus skeleton I can't help but recall what is known for the already produced Terra Nanshiungosaurus.



Now of course, he is not going to answer that. I'm just making an observation. Where does one draw the line on fragmentary?

[tyrantqueen]

That's a good point...maybe he meant species that are known only from teeth and isolated vertebra? I know in the UK, much of our sauropod species are known from just that.

[Gryphoceratops]

"Dan said he was going to stay away from fragmented/speculative dinosaurs."

Yes but there is such a range of what you can consider truly fragmentary or speculative.  Like stated above me Nanshiugosaurus was made.  I don't consider Dryptosaurus to be THAT fragmentary.  Like people have been saying commonly known reconstructions and great models have been made based on much less. 

"I think usually the dinosaurs with 'more' importance are the ones known from more complete remains, as they tell us a lot about the dinosaur's ecology, appearance, anatomy, behaviour and sometimes even its growth.  They also provide a lot of information for classifications and help us to learn more about their relatives known from less complete remains.  I'm not sure if it'll make you feel better, but I've known of Dryptosaurus since I was a kid.  And I've never been to America."

Like I stated Dryptosaurus was the first meat-eater ever discovered in america, and second dinosaur discovered in america (recognized by science at least).  It and Hadrosaurus were also the first dinosaurs ever to be depicted on two legs. (do you know how much that must have stirred folks back then?)  Like I said earlier, Dryptosaurus was also the first dinosaur ever to be depicted as athletic and fast, not a lumbering plodder.  Back then Dryptosaurus was actually the most complete out of all the dinosaurs (Hadrosaurus, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, and Hylaeosaurus were the others.  Iguanodon has since been more fully understood but at the time it was known from mostly teeth.)  Please understand, for the late 1800s all the information that was gained thanks to the known bones of Dryptosaurus was HUGE. 

I know a paper came out suggesting megaraptor was a tyrannosauroid.  Is is considered officially though?  I remember when it came out a number of credible paleontologists were unsure about it still.  Even so it doesn't make Dryptosaurus any less interesting. 

I know you didn't mean any harm.  I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from.

[Sim]

"Dan said he was going to stay away from fragmented/speculative dinosaurs."

Yes but there is such a range of what you can consider truly fragmentary or speculative.  Like stated above me Nanshiugosaurus was made.  I don't consider Dryptosaurus to be THAT fragmentary.  Like people have been saying commonly known reconstructions and great models have been made based on much less. 

I knew what the fossil remains for Nanshiungosaurus were and that some other dinosaurs in the Terra and original Boston MOS lines have incomplete remains.  I said, "Dan said he was going to stay away from fragmented/speculative dinosaurs." as part of clarifying that I wasn't giving reasons why someone else's idea shouldn't be considered.

"I think usually the dinosaurs with 'more' importance are the ones known from more complete remains, as they tell us a lot about the dinosaur's ecology, appearance, anatomy, behaviour and sometimes even its growth.  They also provide a lot of information for classifications and help us to learn more about their relatives known from less complete remains.  I'm not sure if it'll make you feel better, but I've known of Dryptosaurus since I was a kid.  And I've never been to America."

Like I stated Dryptosaurus was the first meat-eater ever discovered in america, and second dinosaur discovered in america (recognized by science at least).  It and Hadrosaurus were also the first dinosaurs ever to be depicted on two legs. (do you know how much that must have stirred folks back then?)  Like I said earlier, Dryptosaurus was also the first dinosaur ever to be depicted as athletic and fast, not a lumbering plodder.  Back then Dryptosaurus was actually the most complete out of all the dinosaurs (Hadrosaurus, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, and Hylaeosaurus were the others.  Iguanodon has since been more fully understood but at the time it was known from mostly teeth.)  Please understand, for the late 1800s all the information that was gained thanks to the known bones of Dryptosaurus was HUGE. 

I completely agree all these dinosaurs have been and still are important, I wasn't disagreeing on that!  I feel that most of the time, dinosaurs known from more complete remains have a bit more overall importance than those known from fragmentary remains, as we're able to learn more from more complete remains.  For example, more complete dinosaur fossils were able to confirm some were fast, as well as give us a better idea of what Dryptosaurus, Hadrosaurus and other dinosaurs with incomplete remains looked like.  That's how I feel about it anyway!

I know a paper came out suggesting megaraptor was a tyrannosauroid.  Is is considered officially though?  I remember when it came out a number of credible paleontologists were unsure about it still.  Even so it doesn't make Dryptosaurus any less interesting. 

I think megaraptorans are now considered most likely to be tyrannosauroids.  The paper describing a juvenile Megaraptor supports it being a tyrannosauroid.  There's a thread about it on this forum: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2376.0  I wonder how closely related Dryptosaurus is to megaraptorans?  Some people in the thread had similar thoughts!

[loru1588]

I took a leap of faith with the Nanshiungosaurus because most therazinosaurid skulls are extremely similar in my eyes. Dryptosaurus may very well be a tyrannosaurid, however, with all the skull variations in some of the newly unearthed tyrannosaurus ( Qianzhousaurus, Nanuqsaurus, Lythronax, & Yutyrannus ), I would would need more skull info to take a shot at it and feel comfortable with reproducing Dryptosaurus.