Rearing Sauropods

[Sim]

Small wonder that Carnegie downsized their new Diplo and Brachio to 1/50 scale. Large sauropod toys take up too much space, cost too much (hurts sales) and cause production delays (remember the much-delayed Papo Brachio)?

The 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus is still 1:40 scale, only the 2012 Brachiosaurus is 1:50 scale.  Regarding the bolded part, I haven't seen anything which suggests that's true.  It's true they take up quite a bit of room, but that isn't a problem for everyone.  Their large size often helps them to look impressive, which can be a draw to people.  Many, including myself, were disappointed with the 2012 Carnegie Brachiosaurus because we found it too small.

Imagine how impressive the Battat Diplo would be if they had made it in a "normal" pose with all four feet on the ground, neck and tail fully extended. It would have been HUGE.

That's one of the reasons I'll buy one in the reissue to have modify.

That sounds cool!  I hope you'll show photos of it!  I don't like rearing poses on dinosaur figures, especially on theropods, so I've wondered what the Battat Diplodocus would look like in a walking pose.


I think at least some sauropods probably reared up to reach food higher up when necessary.  I also found the way Argentinosaurus defended itself against Mapusaurus in Planet Dinosaur convincing, where the Argentinosaurus reared up and moved forward while coming down, crushing the Mapusaurus with its forefeet.

[Quen]

Whos bigger between collecta diplo or collecta jobaria ?

The Jobaria is bigger. It is 30cm tall, while the diplodocus is 24cm tall; measurements from Amazon.

[DinoLord]

Large sauropod toys take up too much space, cost too much (hurts sales) and cause production delays (remember the much-delayed Papo Brachio)?

Regarding the bolded part, I haven't seen anything which suggests that's true.  It's true they take up quite a bit of room, but that isn't a problem for everyone.  Their large size often helps them to look impressive, which can be a draw to people.  Many, including myself, were disappointed with the 2012 Carnegie Brachiosaurus because we found it too small.

But it's important to remember that us collectors are not the toy companies' main audience; kids are. As someone who was denied a lot of good dinosaur toys as a kid, I can attest to the fact that parents are often hesitant to buy big sauropod toys due to both the large size and the high cost.

[Takama]

Whos bigger between collecta diplo or collecta jobaria ?

The Jobaria is bigger. It is 30cm tall, while the diplodocus is 24cm tall; measurements from Amazon.

Take a look at my Signature

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I still can't figure why the CollectA Jobaria has such a sunken chest...I was all ready to buy it too when it was announced.

[Sim]

Large sauropod toys take up too much space, cost too much (hurts sales) and cause production delays (remember the much-delayed Papo Brachio)?

Regarding the bolded part, I haven't seen anything which suggests that's true.  It's true they take up quite a bit of room, but that isn't a problem for everyone.  Their large size often helps them to look impressive, which can be a draw to people.  Many, including myself, were disappointed with the 2012 Carnegie Brachiosaurus because we found it too small.

But it's important to remember that us collectors are not the toy companies' main audience; kids are. As someone who was denied a lot of good dinosaur toys as a kid, I can attest to the fact that parents are often hesitant to buy big sauropod toys due to both the large size and the high cost.

My parents got me the old Carnegie Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus when I was a kid, which makes me think sometimes big sauropod toys might not get bought because of their size and/or cost, but sometimes their size is also what sometimes helps them get bought.  What I meant in my previous post is that I don't think it's always true that large sauropod toys take up too much space or cost too much thus hurting sales.

[CityRaptor]

When it comes to shelf-space, Sauropods are probably the worst offenders among Dinosaurs.  Ofcourse it all depends on how much one is willing to pay and from a parent's perspective that might be too much if the kid is just having a Dinosaur phase instead of something serious.

[Daspletodave]

Small wonder that Carnegie downsized their new Diplo and Brachio to 1/50 scale. Large sauropod toys take up too much space, cost too much (hurts sales) and cause production delays (remember the much-delayed Papo Brachio)?

The 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus is still 1:40 scale, only the 2012 Brachiosaurus is 1:50 scale.  Regarding the bolded part, I haven't seen anything which suggests that's true.  It's true they take up quite a bit of room, but that isn't a problem for everyone.  Their large size often helps them to look impressive, which can be a draw to people.  Many, including myself, were disappointed with the 2012 Carnegie Brachiosaurus because we found it too small.

Imagine how impressive the Battat Diplo would be if they had made it in a "normal" pose with all four feet on the ground, neck and tail fully extended. It would have been HUGE.

That's one of the reasons I'll buy one in the reissue to have modify.

That sounds cool!  I hope you'll show photos of it!  I don't like rearing poses on dinosaur figures, especially on theropods, so I've wondered what the Battat Diplodocus would look like in a walking pose.


I think at least some sauropods probably reared up to reach food higher up when necessary.  I also found the way Argentinosaurus defended itself against Mapusaurus in Planet Dinosaur convincing, where the Argentinosaurus reared up and moved forward while coming down, crushing the Mapusaurus with its forefeet.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble - but the 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus is NOT 1/40 scale. It may have said that on the hang tag, but the Carnegie hang tags are notorious for being wrong!
Compare the Battat and Carnegie diplos side by side and the poor Carnegie is dwarfed. Even the Carnegie Camarasaurus is larger than their Diplodocus (and Diplo was a much larger dino in real life).

[Sim]

There are 4 known species of Diplodocus, so the 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus could be one of the smaller species?  Not all individuals of the same species end up being the exact same size as an adult either (sometimes, but not always, due to gender).  In any case, the 2008 Carnegie Diplodocus was said by Carnegie to be in 1:40 scale so I think their intention was to make it in that scale.

[Bokisaurus]

Based on skeleton, some sarupods are believed to be capable of rearing up. I believe Jobaria is one that was well studied recently and concluded that it can rear up. The CollectA figure looks to be based on the skeleton mount that is rearing ( national geographic?). If I am correct, the comparison was made with elephants.

[Daspletodave]

Based on skeleton, some sarupods are believed to be capable of rearing up. I believe Jobaria is one that was well studied recently and concluded that it can rear up. The CollectA figure looks to be based on the skeleton mount that is rearing ( national geographic?). If I am correct, the comparison was made with elephants.

Dinosaur skeletons have been manipulated in the past. Iguanodon's tail bones were broken (on purpose) so they could display the dino in the now-discredited "kangaroo" pose. Many scientists don't believe in the rearing Barosaurus display - done entirely with fibreglass castings.
And let's not forget there are BIG differences between an elephant and a Diplodocus- elephants are mammals with almost unlimited strength and energy, they weigh a lot less, and don't have much of a tail.
The Diplodocus was a reptile, weighed a LOT more, and had a bulky tail. You have to question if it possessed the brains and the energy to lift itself off the ground. Then theres that tail - all the rearing sauropod toys depict the tail curled up like a snake, with the beast supporting its weight on that tail. I don't think that is realistic. Given the size of the tail vertabrae (especially the bones closest to the rump) I don't think sauropod tails were that flexible - only the very end was flexible. I think a rearing sauropod would have snapped its own tail in half if it had attempted such a maneuver.
Rearing sauropods are a staple of artists and toy makers, but they haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Gwangi]

I still can't figure why the CollectA Jobaria has such a sunken chest...I was all ready to buy it too when it was announced.

Yes, it is very odd and off putting. I still have the model and I love it aside from that one flaw.

Sauropods may be the worst offenders when it comes to shelf space but honestly I find them easier to display than a lot of other dinosaur toys, ceratopsians, stegosaurs and ankylosaurus in particular. Those three groups are always made around the same size, with heads low to the ground. The way I display mine the larger models are in the back row with smaller in the front but when I was displaying them based on relatedness I had a hard time getting those guys positioned in ways that you could still see their heads. Not so with sauropods. Not only can you tangle sauropods together but their varying sizes and the way they hold their necks makes it easier to display them in a way where they all get noticed. A weird tangent to get on I know, just thought I would share. But now I display them by company so it's not really a problem ATM.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I was speaking in another thread about ideas that Jurassic Park helped popularize, or reinforce once the movie demonstrated them as possible. This one is an idea that goes back into the seventies at least and really gained steam with Bakker's "Dinosaur Heresies " book. Once the movie also showed a rearing sauropod , we find ourselves stuck with the image, almost like an internet meme that refuses to go away.

    The reality is many sauropods were probably capable of rearing...to some degree, even if for an instant for some. In fact diplodocoids have very unique sleigh shaped chevrons the bottom of their tails that would serve this purpose quite well. If you are going to follow in Bakker's footsteps however with this point, you might also clamor for rearing stegosaurus , as he also advocated that.
    The logic behind stating sauropods did not likely rear or stand in this position are quite logical ......you have to balance the expense of rearing with the return for those few highest branches from a tree. To get into the position, a sauropod would be expending a massive amount of energy , so unless it was really unable to find lower level foods, or found a whole forest with branches above its head, what is the point? So while the Brachiosaurus in the movie has been made forever an iconic image , it is a ridiculous one.....why would an animal with that mass raise itself on hind legs to eat one bite from the highest part of a tree when there is such biomass lower to the ground at cheaper expense to consume?
  If the argument is given for defense, it does not make alot of sense. You commit the tail and legs to just helping the animal stand and raise the arms out of reach high above any attacker. You also expose the underside and flanks to slashing attacks . A dinosaur that size would not be using height to intimidate an opponent that it already is much larger then either.
    The other argument given, for production might have some credibility, however again you force the legs and tail into a position where they become useless except to stand with, and limit any movement , making mating somewhat a difficult concept. The male would have to be the one rearing but I am almost certain such a pose would requite the female to prop itself upon, rather than rearing along on two legs.
  You can make a good argument for many of the animals being capable of...but there are not many arguments that can be given for the why......or even how. Is such an image possible?? Yes....but likely...? It makes for a compelling image, but does not really seem likely

[tyrantqueen]

I know the Brachiosaurus scene in JP is wrong. But I still love it. I dunno, I guess it just doesn't bother me that much.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I still can't figure why the CollectA Jobaria has such a sunken chest...I was all ready to buy it too when it was announced.

Yes, it is very odd and off putting. I still have the model and I love it aside from that one flaw.

Sauropods may be the worst offenders when it comes to shelf space but honestly I find them easier to display than a lot of other dinosaur toys, ceratopsians, stegosaurs and ankylosaurus in particular. Those three groups are always made around the same size, with heads low to the ground. The way I display mine the larger models are in the back row with smaller in the front but when I was displaying them based on relatedness I had a hard time getting those guys positioned in ways that you could still see their heads. Not so with sauropods. Not only can you tangle sauropods together but their varying sizes and the way they hold their necks makes it easier to display them in a way where they all get noticed. A weird tangent to get on I know, just thought I would share. But now I display them by company so it's not really a problem ATM.

Your right. I have many of my sauropods all displayed together..some are taller, some standing, it all just WORKS so well..lol

[Dinoguy2]

Regarding whether or not sauropods could rear, here's what the actual biomechanics science shows:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fbXwAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA237&dq=sauropod+tripodal&ots=0U1OGt7Xtd&sig=X-QH7QuYwRtn7tS6-Wb6pD86Ns8

Diplodocus could rear easily and without spending very much energy or effort (Darren Naish has even suggested on his podcast that it would be very little problem for them to walk bipedally if they needed to). Brachiosaurus and titsnosaurs could not rear, their spines And tails could not support the forces necessary.

Heinrich Mallison (see paper linked above) concluded that not only could diplodocids rear, they were so well adapted to a tripodal posture this might have been their normal feeding position!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Regarding whether or not sauropods could rear, here's what the actual biomechanics science shows:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fbXwAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA237&dq=sauropod+tripodal&ots=0U1OGt7Xtd&sig=X-QH7QuYwRtn7tS6-Wb6pD86Ns8

Diplodocus could rear easily and without spending very much energy or effort (Darren Naish has even suggested on his podcast that it would be very little problem for them to walk bipedally if they needed to). Brachiosaurus and titsnosaurs could not rear, their spines And tails could not support the forces necessary.

Heinrich Mallison (see paper linked above) concluded that not only could diplodocids rear, they were so well adapted to a tripodal posture this might have been their normal feeding position!

I had been well aware of the possibility for Diplodocoids rearing but I somewhat question how you make a dinosaur raise to the vertical that high with little expenditure of energy...there has to be a cost involved to move x amount of mass against gravity to a vertical plane, no matter what kind of pencil you use to do the math.The movement may not have required effort...but energy, I think is another issue entirely.
It is nice to see another underlining of the idea that Brachiosaurids have no business being placed in a rearing posture, and that is likely impossible they could have. I was not aware that titanosaurs had been found unable to do so, but it does make sense.

   The issue I see with even diplodocoids being rearing animals is simple...why expend the effort and energy at all when there is alot of biomass closer to the ground? Aside from the issue of making yourself unable to use your legs, or tail for defense and exposing your entire belly to attacks? On the other hand, given the sleds on the tail verts, something might well have been going on there, hard to say. The undersides of those verts do look quite highly specialized.Could this be some sort of primitive feeding mechanism left intact from prosauropods, or sauropodomorphs?