The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Halichoeres]

Mesozoic miscellany!


Haolonggood Stegosaurus ungulatus
Scale: 1:28
Released: 2024
Upper Jurassic of Laurasia
Etymology: Gr. "roof lizard"
Wasn't exactly hankering for a new Stegosaurus, but this is a beauty. And S. ungulatus is very distinct from S. stenops, so I'm okay with having both in my collection (I guess I could have had the Battat all along, but it doesn't rise to this level).


Stegosauruses


Toy Monster Monolophosaurus (Jurassic World Captivz)
Scale: 1:45
Released: 2024
Middle Jurassic of Laurasia
Etymology: Gr. "one-crested lizard"
I don't love blind packed figures, and these have a lot of wasteful packaging, but I feel better about this one, having gotten it in a trade. It's pretty decent for the size!


I'm keeping the Safari figure, but it's nice to have a small version of the animal as well.


CollectA Placerias
Scale: 1:20
Sculptor: presumably Matthias Geiger
Released: 2024
Upper Triassic
Etymology: Gr. "broad"
CollectAs second dicynodont, and it's an improvement on the first in most respects. So glad to have CollectA to visit the clades and periods that most companies won't touch. This replaces my Tyco Placerias (and it stops my periodic dithering about the unofficial WWD Placerias of uncertain manufacture).


Redondasaurus is probably too ambitious.


I also recently got How to Build Lego Dinosaurs on a whim after stumbling upon it in a book store. I took it home and built some of the more interesting organisms in it (with some minor color subsitutions based on the pieces I had at hand).


Melanorosaurus
Scale: 1:35 (but this being Lego, don't take it too seriously)
Upper Triassic
Etymology: Gr. "black mountain lizard" after a mountain in South Africa
Surprisingly solid, and with articulated legs. It's borrowing some pieces from a Lego dragon I have. Not much about it makes it specifically Melanorosaurus-y; you could use it as a variety of sauropodomorphs.


Scutellosaurus
Scale: 1:5
Lower Jurassic of Laurasia
Etymology: Gr. "little shield lizard"
This is an adorable build. If I build it again, I think I'll lengthen the tail and replace the tiles on the back with something a little spikier to represent the armor. It's so galling that there are no figures of this animal except for a nigh-impossible-to-find blind bag figure from the 90s.


Longisquama
Scale: slightly larger than life size
Middle to Late Triassic
Etymology: L. "long scale"
This is the one that made me buy the book. I love the use of hockey sticks to make its back ornaments. This one also uses dragon pieces, so can't be built at the same time as Melanorosaurus. I actually have a Longisquama by Moose, but frankly this is a better representation. If it weren't Lego, this would replace it permanently on the shelf.


The book also had some simple but interesting plant builds.


Osmundastrum
Scale: 1:20 - 1:40
Late Triassic - present
Etymology: After the fern genus Osmunda, whose own etymology is uncertain, plus L./Gr. "star"
A lot of modern plants that people think of as ancient get inappropriately plopped into Mesozoic scenes, but Osmundastrum fossils are genuinely indistinguishable from the modern cinnamon fern O. cinnamomeum, which still grows right here in North America, as well as in eastern Eurasia. This is built as the book suggests except that the orientation of the fiddleheads is corrected.


But I still didn't find it very fern-y, so I tried one like so:


Inspired by the book, here are a couple other simple ones of my own:


Matonidium. I have a flat metal version of this genus, but this one conveys its interesting shape a bit better.


Sanfordiacaulis. There's probably a better way to build this. I ran out of attachment points before I ran out of things to use as branches.

And my pan-prehistoric botanic garden:

[Libraraptor]

After your comparisons, do you still consistently give up the weaker figure? That would be really, really hard for me

[Faelrin]

The lego stuff is very creative with its use of existing parts for fascinating end results. Glad to see some flora as well.

[Halichoeres]

After your comparisons, do you still consistently give up the weaker figure? That would be really, really hard for me

Yes, nearly always. It keeps my collection relatively manageable. I'm not sentimental about figures except when they are gifts; to me their utility is in faithfully representing the organisms they represent.

The lego stuff is very creative with its use of existing parts for fascinating end results. Glad to see some flora as well.

Yeah, the book was really fun to flip through. A lot of the techniques will be familiar if you've ever had any of the Lego Creator animal sets.

I've edited the post to include etymologies, which I'd overlooked.

[bmathison1972]

I don't really need more than one representative of a dino genus in my collection, but I also broke down and got the Haolonggood S. ungulatus to have alongside the Safari S. stenops!

Edit: curious, what do you mean by the Placerias an improvement 'in most respects' over their Lisowicia? I assume it has something to do with general features of the group as a whole?

[ceratopsian]

I can see why the Longisquama tempted you to get the book. It's fabulous!

[Primeval12]

Hot take, I prefer the Captivz Monolophosaurus to Safari's. The detail on such a tiny figure is incredible. 

[Halichoeres]

Edit: curious, what do you mean by the Placerias an improvement 'in most respects' over their Lisowicia? I assume it has something to do with general features of the group as a whole?

The most obvious thing is the placement of the ear opening. I think you could argue for a slightly lower position for Placerias, but it's better than the Lisowicia, whose ear opening is smack in the middle of a plate of solid bone. If I'm not mistaken, both genera lacked true tusks, instead having flanges of bone that served a similar purpose. I think the Placerias, with the flange covered in keratin, is much likelier than the skin-encased one on Lisowicia. I also prefer the paint job on the Placerias, but that's obviously more subjective.

Hot take, I prefer the Captivz Monolophosaurus to Safari's. The detail on such a tiny figure is incredible. 

Not a crazy take. The Captivz figures really are quite nice. Makes me wish they'd make some none-JP/JW figures one day.

[bmathison1972]

Thanks. BTW when it comes to color I much prefer the Lisowicia 

[crazy8wizard]

Also the placerias has what appears to be hair which is pretty novel for a dicynodont!

[Primeval12]

My friend likes Thomas and I was just informed that this Sauropod is meant to represent Pelorosaurus based on the show. I doubt it's in scale but you may want to add it to the list

Funnily enough, there was also a Lexivosaurus... Strange toy to be made for Thomas...  I like the sculpt too!

[Halichoeres]

Thanks. BTW when it comes to color I much prefer the Lisowicia 

Fair enough!

Also the placerias has what appears to be hair which is pretty novel for a dicynodont!

That is a nice touch.

@Primeval12 Now that's an interesting one. Do you happen to know if the show it appears in at any point identifies it as a Pelorosaurus? I ask because I once went down a rabbit hole on one of those fandom sites, which had given genus names to nearly every creature appearing in The Good Dinosaur. But that seemed to be the judgment of a single devoted fan, rather than based on anything the animators said or did. I'd bet that the combination of dinosaur + train has yielded more merch than just this one, so if this is based on an animal actually named in the show, I might try to see what else there is. Thanks for the lead!

[triceratops83]

I think this is my favourite thread on the whole blog.

If Gregory S Paul has his way, Stegosaurus ungulatus would be a distinct genus. I'm not a fan of splitting species into new genera though. Like, I'm happy to have Brontosaurus back for example, but hell if I could differentiate it from Apatosaurus. My go to example is the two Australian crocodile species, Crocodylus porosus and C. Johnstoni, which are different enough that were they fossils, they would be considered different genus. Paul lumps some things, like Centrosaurus, to splitting things like Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan. Go figure.

[Sim]

Takara Tomy Stygimoloch (part of a desk accessory set)
Scale: 1:30-1:35
Released: 2018
Maastrichtian of North America
It might not be obvious from looking at it, but the rocks on this figure's base are arranged to hold a smartphone. I won't be using it that way, of course. Man, I've been buying a lot of Stygimoloch lately (though officially there are now only two in my collection, this one and the Ania, also by Takara Tomy).

Is this Stygimoloch an action figure or a non-articulated figure?

[Halichoeres]

I think this is my favourite thread on the whole blog.

If Gregory S Paul has his way, Stegosaurus ungulatus would be a distinct genus. I'm not a fan of splitting species into new genera though. Like, I'm happy to have Brontosaurus back for example, but hell if I could differentiate it from Apatosaurus. My go to example is the two Australian crocodile species, Crocodylus porosus and C. Johnstoni, which are different enough that were they fossils, they would be considered different genus. Paul lumps some things, like Centrosaurus, to splitting things like Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan. Go figure.

Why, thanks, I'm so glad you enjoy it!

Yeah, unfortunately paleontologists are constrained to work with little or no genetic data. C. johnstoni looks pretty different from other Crocodylus, but putting it in a different genus would break the genus's monophyly as demonstrated by genetics. It's much harder to make good arguments for monophyly from bones. And making the arguments the way Paul does is not really worth the effort!

Sim, that Stygimoloch is a static figure, but it is also a capsule figure. The seams you see are where the pieces fit together. If I recall correctly, its feet fit into the base by means of a peg. It's in a box right now so I can't confirm for certain, but that's how I remember it.

[Sim]

Thanks Tim!  I would like to have a Stygimoloch and I can't quite decided between the one I quoted, the newer Mattel mini figure and the Eikoh.  I might need to get all three and see which I like most.

[bmathison1972]

Thanks Tim!  I would like to have a Stygimoloch and I can't quite decided between the one I quoted, the newer Mattel mini figure and the Eikoh.  I might need to get all three and see which I like most.

I am also considering a Stygi, but I want it small so it can pair well with my Safari Pachycephalosaurus as a juvenile (not an expert in the area, but from what I have read up on, it's an immature Pachy).

[Sim]

Stygimoloch being an immature Pachycephalosaurus has been widely accepted, but what has emerged is that Stygimoloch remains come from higher up in the fossil beds than those where without-a-doubt Pachycephalosaurus remains come from.  As a consequence, there's disagreement on whether the Stygimoloch fossils represent juvenile Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis or a second species of Pachycephalosaurus, which would be P. spinifer.  In the Princeton Field Guide To Dinosaurs third edition, Gregory Paul holds the view that Stygimoloch is a second species of Pachycephalosaurus and that Dracorex is the juvenile of this species and not P. wyomingensis, due to coming from the same stratigraphic level if I remember right...  I personally don't have a firm opinion on the matter, and I'm fine with considering Stygimoloch its own species... and genus, I don't share the need to have it be a second species of Pachycephalosaurus...

Back to figures, I too am looking for a small Stygimoloch figure as I would like it to go well with my PNSO Pachycephalosaurus.  I had the Papo version, but I hate its curved tail pose as it isn't consistent with pachycephalosaurian tails being stiffened by bony splints.  Safari's would have been my next choice, but it's bigger than the PNSO Pachycephalosaurus.  It might suit you though as it's smaller than the most recent Safari Pachycephalosaurus.  For me though, it's come down to the three Jurassic World figures I mentioned.

[Primeval12]

Thanks Tim!  I would like to have a Stygimoloch and I can't quite decided between the one I quoted, the newer Mattel mini figure and the Eikoh.  I might need to get all three and see which I like most.

I recommend the Captivz one!

[Concavenator]

Considering Safari's Stegosaurus is based off on Sophie (and so it'd come at about 1:25 for said specimen), and that HLG's S. ungulatus is in 1:28... they don't look too out of place next to each other.

Regardless of chronological inconsistencies, I think that Placerias would scale relatively well with many BotM figures.