The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Halichoeres]

@Gothmog the Baryonyx is correct. The stem/crown terminology goes back to Willi Hennig when he formalized phylogenetic systematics. All extinct taxa, neglecting oddities like hybridization, belong to exactly one stem and as many crowns as you care to circumscribe. The crown group is 1) the common ancestor of all living representatives of your designated group, plus 2) all descendants of that common ancestor, even if some descendants are extinct. So, for example, the passenger pigeon is a crown-group pigeon, a crown-group neognath, a crown-group bird, but might form part of the stem-group for the genus Patagioenas.

A sister group and a stem group aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, you can think of the array of smaller clades along the stem as a succession of sister groups. The sister group to crown birds is some very birdlike thing like maybe Vegavis, although I think there's controversy about its placement. The sister group to theropods is possibly, as SBell points out, the sauropodomorphs, although it could be some minor saurischian lineage that doesn't properly belong to either.

so by that logic, if crocodilians went extinct today, then tomorrow they will also become stem birds, and so will every archosauromorph ever. And lets take it a step further and say every lepidosauromorph and every turtle went extinct. Will they also become stem birds?

Yes, that's correct! Very astute. The date of extinction does not matter, only the fact of extinction. I used to joke that if you gave me a shotgun and three months in New Zealand, I could greatly restrict the definition of the crown Lepidosauria. (I was wisely advised to leave the tuataras alone.)

I whipped up this tree to demonstrate. The dagger (†) denotes extinct genera. It's simplified (no silesaurids or herrerasaurids, for example), but should demonstrate the principle.

The last common ancestor (LCA) of crocodiles and birds defines the crown archosaurs, which includes everything descended from that LCA, even if extinct. The LCA of ostriches (which I should have included, oh well), pheasants, and passerines defines the crown-group birds. So despite Dromornis being extinct, it's a crown bird. The stem-birds are everything outside of the crown birds, yet closer to them than to any other crown (the next-nearest crown is crocodiles). In other words, that binary split from the LCA of birds and crocs gives rise to two branches; everything on the upper branch that isn't a crown bird is by definition a stem bird; everything on the lower branch that isn't a crown crocodile is by definition a stem crocodile. It might seem perverse, or like trolling, to refer to a pterosaur as a stem-bird, but it's definitely a correct usage of the term. As Gothmog said, it doesn't imply direct ancestry, but it does specify relation to a living radiation. These terms are a way of placing past diversity in the context of living diversity. They let you contextualize the breadth of extinction on a particular lineage. Turns out the bird lineage has had a lot of extinction, wiping out the majority of its morphological and ecological disparity. (Of course, this is true of the crocs as well.)

I think it's common to conflate stem terminology with the term 'basal,' which most precisely refers to things that are close to the direct ancestry of the group you're interested in. While a hadrosaur is a stem-bird, it isn't a basal bird. A basal bird could refer to something like Hesperornis or Ichthyornis or an enantiornithine. Sometimes people also use basal to refer to members of depauperate extant lineages, but this usage is at best controversial and I discourage it when I teach evolution.

Some other funny consequences of the stem/crown concept:
Mosasaurs are crown-lizards.
Some analyses find that the closest living relatives of plesiosaurs are turtles, which would make plesiosaurs stem-turtles.
Many shark-like Paleozoic fishes are actually stem-chimaeras (Cladoselache, Stethacanthus, Helicoprion).

[Stegotyranno420]

@Halichoeres , good to know, thanks for clearing things up. This is one reason I like the DTF. You can always get help from someone who has experience in a subject.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Wait, the Safari Baryonyx is 1:30, not 1:35? It might be just barely oversized for my preferences then. 

[Leyster]

A truly great and useful thread! I admit I was inspired a lot by yours when I decided what format use for my collection

[SidB]

Wait, the Safari Baryonyx is 1:30, not 1:35? It might be just barely oversized for my preferences then. 

Maybe you should hold on for a bit - this may be closer to 1/32, we'll have to wait and see. Also, since dinosaurs had "indeterminate growth", it could truly represent an old, large individual. Then too, as you know, a lot of figures touted as 1/35 aren't really exactly that. I'm sure that you know the worst culprits (e.g., IToys's Paracertherium), but some are more borderline. My collection is basically 1/35-1/40, but I've had to ease up on this standard over the last few years to admit some really fine figures (e.g., the 'minor' Safari ceratopsians, that are more in the 1/24-1/30 range, but still small enough to not be annoying, size-wise.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Have you ever learned of the existence of a band, found their music enjoyable, catchy but not earthshattering, but then found out that their fans are awful? To the point where it's hard to enjoy the band? Sometimes theropods feel like that. When I step back, though, and consciously set aside the people whose enjoyment of prehistory only extends to "who would win in a fight?", I can appreciate this very fine work by Mr. Watson. Replaces the resting version with the goofy grin by CollectA.

Haha, yes. But the older i got, the less i cared about People and what they say and i listen to the Music just for myself. But it is true, regarding the Theropod or Dinosaur Fanbase. But we all have been younger with different stages of Main Interests. So its okay to me. At first i was not sure about that Daspleto, but i really like it now. It grew on me. A perfect candidate for a Repaint.

Baryonyx looks a lot like the Favourite, but i can afford and get the Safari. Moreover i prefer the Safari overall. Yes the Teeth and so on, but the Muscles (tailbase) and the whole feeling to it just is better in my Opinion. Glad, that everyone can have a personal Opinion. Same with the always ongoing Scalation Discussion. I just don't get it. Animals vary, and we hardly know a lot. Discussing, if a Figure is 1/30, 1/32 or 1/35 does not make any sense to me at this size. But everyone has a preference in whats interesting or important

Sorry for the wooden english.

[Halichoeres]

Wait, the Safari Baryonyx is 1:30, not 1:35? It might be just barely oversized for my preferences then. 

@Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)  I wouldn't worry. I'm definitely using the lower end of the size estimates; I think it could pass for 1:35 or thereabouts, as S @SidB points out. I give point estimates here, but I should probably get in the habit of giving a better idea of the variance.

A truly great and useful thread! I admit I was inspired a lot by yours when I decided what format use for my collection

That's very flattering! I'm so glad that people find it useful.

Baryonyx looks a lot like the Favourite, but i can afford and get the Safari. Moreover i prefer the Safari overall. Yes the Teeth and so on, but the Muscles (tailbase) and the whole feeling to it just is better in my Opinion. Glad, that everyone can have a personal Opinion. Same with the always ongoing Scalation Discussion. I just don't get it. Animals vary, and we hardly know a lot. Discussing, if a Figure is 1/30, 1/32 or 1/35 does not make any sense to me at this size. But everyone has a preference in whats interesting or important

Sorry for the wooden english.

First, nothing wrong with your English



The two figures are strikingly similar! And I'm really having a hard time picking between them. As @Sim and @Flaffy point out, the Safari definitely doesn't have enough teeth. When I first started reading the original description of Baryonyx, and got to the part that showed that there is no complete maxilla, I thought, 'well then how could we possibly know how many teeth it had?' And I still think we can't; nevertheless, the Safari has too few even in the known portions. I agree with you on the overall level of musculature. So this is down to which extremely trivial error I'm less willing to live with. It really is a luxury to be able to split hairs this finely.

[Loon]

Definitely agree with your point on the teeth. Something like that is really splitting hairs, especially when Safari's is superior in almost every other way.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Splitting Hairs it is Having both is great then^^

So, maybe the Safari Baryonyx lost Teeth while catching slippery Fish and a few Rocks got in its way. Takes time to regrow the new Teeth. I am a fan of accuracy aswell, but i can overlook the amount of Teeth in this case. Its not, that it looks like a toothless Animal or on the other Hand a Sand Tiger Shark with its Mouth just being teeth.

Overall Sculpt and Appearance win for me. I always wanted the Favourite, but now my mainfocus is on the Safari.( And we still have the CollectAs. But i just have the small one and to me... its a Suchomimus.)

And if i had both: The look lovely together. I guess they could be hanging out together at the Lake. Theres enough Fish.

[Loon]

So, maybe the Safari Baryonyx lost Teeth while catching slippery Fish and a few Rocks got in its way. Takes time to regrow the new Teeth.

So, the Favorite one must not be fishing much if at all then, given its pristine, full mouth of teeth. Makes sense. Araki's Dinosaurs all tend to look like they haven't eaten in months.

Also, @Halichoeres, I was looking up pictures of the PNSO Microraptor, as I want to replace my Safari version with it. I saw your post from 2017 about the smaller PNSO one, and since you're a better judge of accuracy than me, I wanted to know your reason for picking PNSO's over Safari's.

[Sim]

I can't tell if you're joking Loon, but the WS Baryonyx looks like it doesn't have any space for more teeth, the Favorite one is better in this regard.  There's no evidence Baryonyx lost its teeth on rocks while fishing.  The musculature of the Favorite looks fine to me as well.  The way I see it these two toys are different interpretations of the same animal.  The WS has a shorter snout, while the Favorite has a longer snout.  Both are possible and neither is superior to the other.  I'm finding this thread has become a bit disrespectful.  "split/splitting hairs" "Araki's Dinosaurs all tend to look like they haven't eaten in months."

As for Microraptor, my opinion is the real animal would have probably looked more like the WS version than the PNSO versions.  If you look at the first post of this thread, Halichoeres has picked the WS version over PNSO's.

[Loon]

Yes, I was joking about the teeth. I was just going off of the scenario put forth by Kapitaenosavrvs. And yes, I've heard about the teeth. Some say that you can't go near a Safari Baryonyx without hearing someone complain about the teeth (also a joke).

Aside from that, which really is "splitting hairs",  I find Safari's overall superior, far more attention is made to making it look like an animal and not just some shrink-wrapped skeleton. That's what I really can't stand about any of Araki's Dinosaurs, and the Baryonyx, while alright in some reapects, is not much better. I can see why you might think that's a "disrespectful" thing to say, and maybe it is, but it's my honest opinion, sorry.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

So, the Favorite one must not be fishing much if at all then, given its pristine, full mouth of teeth. Makes sense. Araki's Dinosaurs all tend to look like they haven't eaten in months.

Absolutely. You never know. Maybe the Favorite Bayonyx was found and adopted by Iguanodons and he never knew he needs Meat and/or Fish. That poor guy.

Edit:

That's what I really can't stand about any of Araki's Dinosaurs

To be fair, the Tyrannosaurus Skeleton he made looks fine...

I stop now. The jokes were something i missed here the last Weeks. A bit of positivity and not taking everything too serious.

Edit No.2: 

@Halichoeres What i forgot to say: Your Pics of the Daspleto and Baryonyx with that grey, carpetlike backdrop, the higher contrast and that lightning( can't describe.) remind me of some Pictures of Toy Ads in printed Catalogs or Comic Books/ Issues from the 80s. I really do not know why exactly, but i love it. Maybe its the Carpet? As a German, i think of the 70s/80s/early 90s, when thinking of Carpets. They aren't that common anymore here.

[Halichoeres]

@Sim I didn't intend 'splitting hairs' as a slight; I just mean that we're spoiled for choice now with Baryonyx figures (CollectA, Mojo, and even Schleich made reasonable versions). I won't pretend that it doesn't rankle me that the great majority of taxa for which this is true are large theropods. And I think I've always been pretty flippant in this thread. But I wasn't trying to insult anyone or anything.

@Loon Yeah, I bought the smaller PNSO Microraptor because I thought it was closer to the size of the minis; I would like an accurate small version of the animal. Currently my only Microraptor is Safari's, as Sim points out. It lacks iridescence, but the head, wings, tail, and feather tracts all put it above the other available figures. Maybe the BotM one is comparable, but I prefer static figures to action figures, unless an action figure is overwhelmingly superior to available static figures.

@Kapitaenosavrvs thank you! Believe it or not, that's just poster paper under bright but diffuse light. When there's a lot of variation in the depth of field, I run photos through an HDR filter, which is probably producing the effect you describe. It has the side effect, now that you mention it, of making the paper look rather like carpet.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

@Kapitaenosavrvs thank you! Believe it or not, that's just poster paper under bright but diffuse light. When there's a lot of variation in the depth of field, I run photos through an HDR filter, which is probably producing the effect you describe. It has the side effect, now that you mention it, of making the paper look rather like carpet.

I am Sorry... (We just have to Imagine it as a generic Tyrannosaurus rex )

[Halichoeres]

@Kapitaenosavrvs That is just perfect early 90's graphic design. I could definitely see that in a mail-order catalog or a comic book.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now time for the big annual update! Six years into my prehistoric collection, I'm at:

658 pieces,
representing 607 taxa,
from 92 different companies and several independent artists,
with release dates ranging from the mid-1950s to just last month.
But the majority are still from just six companies:
Safari Ltd: 102
CollectA: 85
Kaiyodo: 60
PNSO: 41 (first time in the #4 spot!)
Favorite Co: 34
Yowie: 24
These rankings will be thrown into Chaos upon release of the Life game.

I still have a lot of things in boxes since my last move, but I recently invested in a small curio cabinet to house my life-sized aquatic animals:


Cambrian and Ordovician


Silurian and early Devonian


the rest of the Devonian


Carboniferous


Permian and Mesozoic

Some pterosaurs and friends live on top:



And the rest of my shelves:


±1:2


±1:3 aquatics


±1:6


±1:8


±1:13


±1:12-1:15


±1:20


±1:30


±1:40 Paleozoic and Triassic


±1:40 Jurassic and Cretaceous


±1:40 landlubbers


±1:65

[RobinGoodfellow]

I simply love your collection 

[Crackington]

Wow! I agree with @RobinGoodfellow , what a wonderful collection! I remember you saying that you were getting a cabinet, but this looks great, with the models nicely spaced out and plenty of viewing room. Brilliant! 👍👍👍

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I always enjoy seeing your collection, it is beautiful

[Faelrin]

It truly is amazing how diverse your collection is, from species, to companies (big or small), and from time.