Great Dinosaur Figures Screwed Over By New Discoveries

[suspsy]

I pride myself on keeping up to date on all the latest dinosaur information, and I'm sure most people if not everyone here are no different. As a result, unfortunately, I find that whenever a certain dinosaur/prehistoric figure is rendered out of date or inaccurate by a new paleontological discovery, I find myself feeling a good deal of disdain for that figure. The Carnegie Tylosaurus, for example, has been one of my favourites ever since it came out, but now that we know mosasaurs possessed tail flukes, I've become less enamoured with it. That goes double for the Carnegie Spinosaurus in light of the Sereno/Ibrahim findings. Same goes for the CollectA Deinocheirus.

Does anyone else feel this way?

[John]

Well,not exactly.While I do prefer models to be as accurate as possible,I don't stop liking my older models as they become more dated over time.In a case like Velociraptor for instance,any new model I get of one now would need to be modern and up to date complete with feathers,but I am still quite fond of the now outdated ones I got in the mid 90's from Tamiya's plastic kits.The new additions of my collections just get more up to date as time goes on.

[tyrantqueen]

The CollectA Agustinia?

It kind of sucks, but it's something you have to deal with as it comes with the territory. And having older depictions can still be fun, to look back upon and compare.

[Arul]

The Carnegie Tylosaurus, for example, has been one of my favourites ever since it came out, but now that we know mosasaurs possessed tail flukes, I've become less enamoured with it.

If mosasaur tail flukes, is that mean tylosaur tail flukes too ? I love carnegie tylo too   

[Takama]

List of Creatures with Great figures rendered inaccurate due to new discovery's

Deinocheirus (Now a ducked billed Ornithomime with a hump): CollectA

Spinosaurus(Now a Bizzare Beast): Carnegie Collection 2009,DK Saurozoic, Sideshow,

Edmontosaurus (Cock Combed): Wild Safari

Agustinia (Simply was not an Armourd Sauropod): CollectA Deluxe

[sauroid]

i dont mind outdated renderings as long as they were produced during the time when paleontological breakthroughs regarding certain species werent known/available yet. you cant just like ONLY accurate dino/prehistoric figures, thats just too anti-toy collecting. just my humble opinion.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Unsure your age Suspy, but I think generally what you are describing somewhat vanishes as you get older. As each new layer of revelations come, the set of figures you had that demonstrated current thinking become more and more dated. This is the nature of science and especially with dinosaurs. I grew up with marx and Mpc dinosaurs in the 70's as well as Aurora models and none of them really hold up well by todays standards, however I love them for the fact they marked a point in life when things were simpler . If it bothers you now, wait until you get another thirty years on your collection and then look at how many of them fail to meet the test of time. I would gamble that many of the hard held ideas of todays dinosaur mythos will fall by the wayside, as each generation seems to have happen.

[Sim]

It's unfortunate, but prehistoric animal figures becoming outdated by new findings is inevitable due to the nature of palaeontology.  Some have stood the test of time very well though, like some of the Battat dinosaurs.  I prefer accurate figures, but there are some outdated ones I still like.  I think some figures considered outdated aren't necessarily.  One Microraptor having black feathers doesn't mean every Microraptor was definitely the same colour.  One Edmontosaurus regalis being discovered to have a crest doesn't mean Edmontosaurus annectens had the same too.  Perhaps Microraptor's colour and Edmontosaurus' crest were only on one gender?  Many animals are differently coloured or have a crest depending on their gender.  E.g.: Peacock, Turkey.  The Andean condor is also a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_condor  Even in very closely related animals, there can be big differences, like the Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar and Snow leopard are all different species of the same genus.  Yet they look different, have different lifestyles, male lions have a mane unlike the other 4, snow leopards can't roar unlike the other 4, among other differences...

Due to the limited information about prehistoric animals, inferring from related animals can be very helpful, however I think it's also possible to over infer.  For example I've seen people saying Velociraptor should have feathering like Microraptor, despite a size difference, them living in different environments, and most importantly bodies designed for quite different lifestyles.

I think some things can be safely inferred, like all known coelurosaurs up to a certain size (at least) - having feathers.  I think the best way to go about it is to look at what we do know, like extant animals and what's known about extinct ones and think about it logically.  I think it's safe to say the CollectA Deinocheirus is outdated, for example.  I think making a figure of something know from fragmentary remains, which Deinocheirus was at the time, means there's more chance for it to become outdated.

Mosasaurs having a stiffened body and a tail fluke makes more sense to me as an efficient way for them to live and hunt, and it seems likely most of the more advanced mosasaurs were like this.  I think the Carnegie Tylosaurus is a really great figure, but I like it less now due to this.

The Carnegie Tylosaurus, for example, has been one of my favourites ever since it came out, but now that we know mosasaurs possessed tail flukes, I've become less enamoured with it.

If mosasaur tail flukes, is that mean tylosaur tail flukes too ? I love carnegie tylo too   

Tylosaurus is a mosasaur.  You can read the current thinking on mosasaur anatomy here, under the "Description" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur

[Manatee]

How about the Invicta Troodon? If only it had feathers... (and, of course, was modeled more after a troodontid rather than an ornithomimosaur.)

[Arul]

Thanks sim  ohh now i know, mosasaur and mosasaurus is defferent  based on what i read from some source, not all mosasaur and tylosaurus have a fluke tail its depend from the sub/species. But i agree with mr.amargasaurus knowledge is always updating. Well if you lil bit dissapointed with tylosaurus carnegie, just think that its the tylosaurus species which didnt have a fluke tail because carnegie not explain its subspecies. Thats the same think i did when a lot people said papo baby t rex isnt accurate (it body is too bulky) so i just think that its a sub-juvenile t rex  well its a toy, when/since we are kid we play a toy with lil bit imagination right ? 

[Pinkamena]

As long as the figure was accurate at the time of production, then no. Paleontology history, it's interesting to compare figures

[Patrx]

Alas, I've had to take several figures off-display for these kinds of reasons. I'm not really much of a toy collector, after all, I simply want to build an educational prehistoric display. Sometimes, I encounter a degree of sentimental attachment and decide to keep the outdated ones around, either by moving them toward the back of the shelf where they're less visible or placing them on display elsewhere. It causes an inconvenient degree of clutter, so I really should develop a system.
Nearly every figure has some sort of anatomical error, so I try to keep the more noticeable issues in mind so I can discuss it with folks who are interested.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Alas, I've had to take several figures off-display for these kinds of reasons. I'm not really much of a toy collector, after all, I simply want to build an educational prehistoric display. Sometimes, I encounter a degree of sentimental attachment and decide to keep the outdated ones around, either by moving them toward the back of the shelf where they're less visible or placing them on display elsewhere. It causes an inconvenient degree of clutter, so I really should develop a system.
Nearly every figure has some sort of anatomical error, so I try to keep the more noticeable issues in mind so I can discuss it with folks who are interested.

I keep a seperate shelf for this I call the "retro room" where figures go that have finally been made obsolete by present science. You would be surprised how many eventaully find their way back into the main collection given time

[DinoLord]

You would be surprised how many eventaully find their way back into the main collection given time

Have any examples? I can't think of many figures this would apply to besides the old Wild Safari Spinosaurus.

Most of the inaccurate stuff I have is JP-based. However I do have a few figures that have not stood the test of time, like the Kinto Desktop Spinosaurus.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

You would be surprised how many eventaully find their way back into the main collection given time

Have any examples? I can't think of many figures this would apply to besides the old Wild Safari Spinosaurus.

Most of the inaccurate stuff I have is JP-based. However I do have a few figures that have not stood the test of time, like the Kinto Desktop Spinosaurus.

I will have to look for some specifics from my shelves, but my first thoughts ran to the Carnegie psittacosaurus, which I believe they retired due to the lack of tail quills, or because the hands would seem to be pronated.Along comes another opinion and says the quills might be a trait of a single species for instance, or perhaps based on sexual dimorphism.....for display. A paper is released demonstrating many psittacosaurs are found with their hands in a permanently pronated position and voila....it becomes a fairly accurate figure again. I believe there are also a few sauropods I can name if i check the shelf carefully. You may well be able to do this with any Spinosaurus figure soon however if they manage to debunk the current paper

[DinoLord]

Interesting; had not thought of the Psittacosaurus. If you can think of some sauropod examples I'd love to hear them.

[alexeratops]

Wait, what? Agustinia? I own the collecta one. Since when is it inaccurate? And how so?

[DinoLord]

Agustinia is no longer thought to have the rows of long spikes on its back.

[alexeratops]

Thank you. That stinks! I liked him as one of the few armored sauropods...

[Yutyrannus]

Well, it does seem like several sauropods (mainly titanosaurs) had some sort of armour, there is even evidence of Alamosaurus having scutes.