The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[postsaurischian]

Do you know what line, if any, it is from?

Sorry, no.

[SBell]

This Hyperodapedon (its belly is actually inscribed with the synonym Scaphonyx sanjuanensis) is supposedly part of the Dawn of
the Dinosaurs line. It came from Yahoo Auctions Japan, but I don't know anything else about it. It's about 1:3-1:4. I would
trade it for the capsule version if anyone is interested.

It's not part of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs line. Only a capsule version was made.

By the way Clawmark Toys still has two of the skeletons: http://www.clawmarktoys.com/product-category/dinos/page/6/

The large vinyl was indeed made for the same Japanese expo as the capsule and large resin figures (Frenguellisaurus, Exaerteodon, Saurosuchus), called the Dawn of the Dinosaurs exhibit. There is also a really cool exhibit guide book. And there is likely a whole lot of other merchandise form that show that we'll never know about.

[Halichoeres]

So...is it Potanichthys, or has Potanichthys been synonymized with Thoracopterus? And then...which higher-level classification is it part of? The references online are all over the place!

I don't think Tintori demonstrated that Potanichthys is a synonym of Thoracopterus. Xu and Zhao cite as synapomorphies the number of supraorbitals, the morphology of the premaxillae, and the level of scalation on the trunk. HOWEVER, I might be biased because I'm personally acquainted with one of the authors on Potanichthys (which is why I recognized it so quickly). They're both in the Peltopleuriformes. I think a more specific assignment is probably premature; Tintori is correct to point out that the existing phylogeny is inadequately sampled on critical branches.

This Hyperodapedon (its belly is actually inscribed with the synonym Scaphonyx sanjuanensis) is supposedly part of the Dawn of
the Dinosaurs line. It came from Yahoo Auctions Japan, but I don't know anything else about it. It's about 1:3-1:4. I would
trade it for the capsule version if anyone is interested.

It's not part of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs line. Only a capsule version was made.

By the way Clawmark Toys still has two of the skeletons: http://www.clawmarktoys.com/product-category/dinos/page/6/

The large vinyl was indeed made for the same Japanese expo as the capsule and large resin figures (Frenguellisaurus, Exaerteodon, Saurosuchus), called the Dawn of the Dinosaurs exhibit. There is also a really cool exhibit guide book. And there is likely a whole lot of other merchandise form that show that we'll never know about.

Good to know! I was definitely not sure, but the reason I initially thought it was part of the same line was that it was marked with the specific species featured in the Expo (like all of them, an animal from Ischigualasto, Argentina). Are you aware of any other vinyl models?

The whole capsule series of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs series is pretty cool--one one of the few where even the skeletons are worth picking up!

Man, you make it sound so easy. I've been hunting these for over a year and I only have four non-skeleton figures and four skeleton figures.

[Megalosaurus]

I love the triassic ones. I still need to get several bullyland ones.

[SBell]

So...is it Potanichthys, or has Potanichthys been synonymized with Thoracopterus? And then...which higher-level classification is it part of? The references online are all over the place!

I don't think Tintori demonstrated that Potanichthys is a synonym of Thoracopterus. Xu and Zhao cite as synapomorphies the number of supraorbitals, the morphology of the premaxillae, and the level of scalation on the trunk. HOWEVER, I might be biased because I'm personally acquainted with one of the authors on Potanichthys (which is why I recognized it so quickly). They're both in the Peltopleuriformes. I think a more specific assignment is probably premature; Tintori is correct to point out that the existing phylogeny is inadequately sampled on critical branches.

This Hyperodapedon (its belly is actually inscribed with the synonym Scaphonyx sanjuanensis) is supposedly part of the Dawn of
the Dinosaurs line. It came from Yahoo Auctions Japan, but I don't know anything else about it. It's about 1:3-1:4. I would
trade it for the capsule version if anyone is interested.

It's not part of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs line. Only a capsule version was made.

By the way Clawmark Toys still has two of the skeletons: http://www.clawmarktoys.com/product-category/dinos/page/6/

The large vinyl was indeed made for the same Japanese expo as the capsule and large resin figures (Frenguellisaurus, Exaerteodon, Saurosuchus), called the Dawn of the Dinosaurs exhibit. There is also a really cool exhibit guide book. And there is likely a whole lot of other merchandise form that show that we'll never know about.

Good to know! I was definitely not sure, but the reason I initially thought it was part of the same line was that it was marked with the specific species featured in the Expo (like all of them, an animal from Ischigualasto, Argentina). Are you aware of any other vinyl models?

The whole capsule series of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs series is pretty cool--one one of the few where even the skeletons are worth picking up!

Man, you make it sound so easy. I've been hunting these for over a year and I only have four non-skeleton figures and four skeleton figures.

Okay...so are they holosteans? Or chondrosteans? I have seen references to them as both depending on which genus they are in...or are they something else entirely?

For other merch, I am not completely sure--there are 3 resins for sure, the capsules, the vinyl Scaphonyx and the book. But it just seems like more should be out there.

And as for the DotD figures--it helps to have got the set (plus a couple of spares) when they first came out!

[Halichoeres]

Okay...so are they holosteans? Or chondrosteans? I have seen references to them as both depending on which genus they are in...or are they something else entirely?

Oh, I see. I would say that the balance of evidence suggests that they're neither. The most recent cladistic analysis that includes multiple thoracopterid taxa recovers them as stem-neopterygians, so they're equally closely related to gars, bowfins, cichlids, and trout. But they're closer to all four of those than to chondrosteans. That said, the Triassic was clearly a really important time for actinopterygian diversification, but it's desperately undersampled. These Chinese deposits (and some stuff from North America too!) will probably help to clarify the situation, but it'll take time, and it will surely disrupt what we think we know.

[SBell]

Okay...so are they holosteans? Or chondrosteans? I have seen references to them as both depending on which genus they are in...or are they something else entirely?

Oh, I see. I would say that the balance of evidence suggests that they're neither. The most recent cladistic analysis that includes multiple thoracopterid taxa recovers them as stem-neopterygians, so they're equally closely related to gars, bowfins, cichlids, and trout. But they're closer to all four of those than to chondrosteans. That said, the Triassic was clearly a really important time for actinopterygian diversification, but it's desperately undersampled. These Chinese deposits (and some stuff from North America too!) will probably help to clarify the situation, but it'll take time, and it will surely disrupt what we think we know.

That's...a verydiplomatic science answer! I kind of figured it wouldn't be a cut and dry thing. I found a few references to being closer-ish to bowfin and gar. Until something more concrete, I'll just list them in my system as Holosteans. It's not like there are so many models of that group that I won't be able to find and change it!

[Halichoeres]

Some Paleozoic animals! (Ordovician-Permian)


Linde Sphenacodon (Early Permian). What I'd really like is the Chialu version--or for CollectA, Safari, Favorite, etc. to make an updated version. Meanwhile, this one will do. About 1:35


Kaiyodo Meganeura (Late Carboniferous). I like the embossed wings, even if they're a little simple. About 1:8.


Innovative Kids Arthropleura. I think this is the largest known terrestrial arthropod ever, probably a product of much higher partial pressure of oxygen during the Carboniferous. How big was Arthropleura? This one is about 1:40 for a large specimen.


Schleich Dunkleosteus. You might recognize this photo from the review I wrote of it on the blog. It's a really nice looking figure, but it's just as inaccurate as any Schleich dinosaur. Maybe Schleich should limit themselves to non-dinosaurs, because they get a little more leeway with them, including from me--I have 7 Schleich figures, and 5 are non-dinosaurs. About 1:30


Yowie Groenlandaspis of the Devonian. I've had this forever, but I've never shown a picture of it here. It's about 1:1, and much more accurate than the Cog Ltd (aka Tedco, Dino Horizons, etc.) version, even if it's more cartoony.


Kaiyodo Psychopyge (Dinotales 1) of the Devonian.  1:2-1:3


Kaiyodo Pterygotus (Capsule Q). This genus persisted for a really long time, from the Early Silurian to the Late Devonian. As you might expect, there was a lot of size evolution during that time, but this one is about 1:25 based on a very large individual.


Kaiyodo Eurypterus (Dinotales) of the Silurian. Another variable genus, but for a large one this would be about 1:19.


There is almost nothing from the Silurian available as figures, even though it's when a lot of major vertebrate and other animal groups got their start.


Kaiyodo Triarthrus of the Ordovician. I still like 1:40 for big dinosaurs, but I'm glad I quit being a strict 1:40 collector so soon after I started collecting, or I wouldn't have awesome stuff like this 1:1 trilobite.

[suspsy]

Please review all of those ones you haven't already, Halichoeres. They look great and the blog needs greater variety.

[Halichoeres]

Please review all of those ones you haven't already, Halichoeres. They look great and the blog needs greater variety.

I'll see what I can do!

[Halichoeres]

Cambrian bilaterians! I recently decided to start collecting arthropods, which really swelled my Cambrian collection.


Kaiyodo Anomalocaris (Leaps in Evolution). This is my favorite of the roughly eleventy billion Anomalocaris figures available. Usually with the Paleozoic, beggars can't be choosers, but this is the Tyrannosaurus of the Cambrian. About 1:12.


Safari Sidneyia, looking very ostentatious all in bronze. One of the largest chelicerates of its era. This one is about 1:2.


Favorite Canadaspis. Falls somewhere on the arthropod or crustacean stem, hard to say. It certainly looks like a crustacean. About 1:1.


Favorite Olenoides, a pretty nice trilobite. This is one of few trilobite genera with preserved soft tissue, so it's told us a lot about the squishy parts of their anatomy. About 1:1


Kaiyodo Opabinia (Capsule Q). This genus is almost as frequently made as Anomalocaris. I guess that makes it the Triceratops of the Cambrian? About 1:1.


Safari Naraoia. Apparently it was originally mistaken for a crustacean because of its continuous carapace, but once some specimens were taken to pieces, they proved to be chelicerates related to trilobites. A little larger than 1:1.


The Cambrian, life size.


Safari Tricrepicephalus. I basically bought this Toob because I want Safari to make more Toobs. But despite being the most recent prehistoric toob, I think it's also the crudest. This little trilobite is about 1.5× life size.


Favorite Pikaia. A big improvement on the Cog Ltd version, or the ROM version, which this replaced. The gill basket and antennae are correctly oriented relative to the myomeres. The ROM was partially upside-down, which was a little annoying. If I hadn't expanded my collection to include arthropods, this guy and the Yujin Haikouella would be all I had from the Cambrian. About 2.5× life size.


Favorite Marrella, one of the insanely ornate trilobites. [EDIT: not a trilobite, instead a member of another weirdo extinct arthropod group called...Marrellamorpha]. Must've been pretty hard to swallow for most predators. This one is about 3× life size.


Safari Sanctacaris, probably a stem-chelicerate. For the most part I like the Cambrian Toob figures, but maybe a little more variety in the color schemes would have been nice. About 5× life size.


The Cambrian, larger than life (except the Sidneyia, which I included by mistake--call it a juvenile).

[Halichoeres]

Theropods of the Cretaceous!


CollectA Deinocheirus (standard version). First one available based on the new material, so I don't regret buying it, but I will probably replace it with either the Safari (a nicer sculpt in my view) or the CollectA Deluxe (potentially a better fit scale-wise). This one replaced the old CollectA Deluxe that looked like a beefy Ornithomimus, and is about 1:50.


Favorite Zhuchengtyrannus. I would prefer that it had feathers, but it's still a nice sculpt. The only non-miniature version of a genus based on chunks of jaw. About 1:50.


Favorite Bistahieversor. Another featherless tyrannosaur, which I nevertheless prefer to the CollectA version that it replaced. About 1:45.


CollectA Lythronax. I don't love the punk rock hairdos that CollectA tends to give its tyrannosaurs, but this is still a nice figure. About 1:40-1:45.


Favorite Tarbosaurus. Finally got this one, from Favorite Co's other sculptor, Hirokazu Tokugawa, who tends to put a little more flesh on the bones. Replaced the Kanna Dinosaur Center resin version. About 1:40.


CollectA Beishanlong. Another non-1:40 deluxe model (it's actually about 1:25). I'm okay with having one toy based on a secretary bird, but I hope the pattern doesn't become too widespread.


With some other feathered dinos at around the same scale.


Colorata Deinonychus. Really nice except for the incomplete wings. Replaced the Kabaya version, which had the same problem but also a too-short tail. About 1:20.


Papo Baryonyx. It looks better than the initial photos, to my eye. I am still hoping that someone puts out an improved version (Safari Ltd, ideally). About 1:20.


Colorata Microraptor. Colors don't quite correspond to what is known, but who knows, maybe there was a species with this pattern. The wings are also wrong, but I love the pose and the cycad base. About 1:13.


PNSO Confuciusornis. Nicest enantiornithine on the mass market! The coloration is subtle but deceptively detailed. About 1:6.

[Sim]

Colorata Microraptor. Colors don't quite correspond to what is known, but who knows, maybe there was a species with this pattern. The wings are also wrong, but I love the pose and the cycad base. About 1:13.

That Microraptor figure's tail fan is inaccurate to BMNHC PH881, which is the specimen of Microraptor that had its colouration discovered.  This is a photo of that specimen: http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/02microraptor-fossil2-sm.jpg

In this blog post http://mostlyopenocean.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/colour-of-dinosaurs.html it shows how the authors of the paper on Microraptor's colouration examined previously described Microraptor specimens and found they too had the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.  The reconstruction of Microraptor in the second image in that blog post is based on BMNHC PH881 and shows what Microraptor's tail fan looks like - it's at the end of the tail, narrow and with two long streamers right at the back of the tail fan.  I can think of one more Microraptor specimen that preserves the tail fan well, and again it has the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.

The Colorata Microraptor has the kind of tail fan that's a feature of outdated Microraptor reconstructions - a tail fan that starts about halfway along the tail, is wide and doesn't have streamers.  I have a feeling these reconstructions of the tail fan might be a meme started by the very inaccurate reconstruction of Microraptor in the paper that names Microraptor gui: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10939061_Four-winged_dinosaurs_from_China  There are photos that show the tail fans of two Microraptor specimens in that paper, one being the Microraptor gui holotype... and both of these specimens were ones found to have the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.  So the tail fan of that 2003 reconstruction, which other Microraptor reconstructions often have... is inaccurate to the fossil specimens it's based on.  One can even compare that reconstruction to photos in the same paper and see its tail fan doesn't match the fossils!  Not that reconstructions that are inaccurate to fossils shown within the same paper hasn't happened before...

[stargatedalek]

Odd that the colours should end up being a near perfect ringer for Anchiornis though.

[Halichoeres]

Colorata Microraptor. Colors don't quite correspond to what is known, but who knows, maybe there was a species with this pattern. The wings are also wrong, but I love the pose and the cycad base. About 1:13.

That Microraptor figure's tail fan is inaccurate to BMNHC PH881, which is the specimen of Microraptor that had its colouration discovered.  This is a photo of that specimen: http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/02microraptor-fossil2-sm.jpg

In this blog post http://mostlyopenocean.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/colour-of-dinosaurs.html it shows how the authors of the paper on Microraptor's colouration examined previously described Microraptor specimens and found they too had the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.  The reconstruction of Microraptor in the second image in that blog post is based on BMNHC PH881 and shows what Microraptor's tail fan looks like - it's at the end of the tail, narrow and with two long streamers right at the back of the tail fan.  I can think of one more Microraptor specimen that preserves the tail fan well, and again it has the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.

The Colorata Microraptor has the kind of tail fan that's a feature of outdated Microraptor reconstructions - a tail fan that starts about halfway along the tail, is wide and doesn't have streamers.  I have a feeling these reconstructions of the tail fan might be a meme started by the very inaccurate reconstruction of Microraptor in the paper that names Microraptor gui: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10939061_Four-winged_dinosaurs_from_China  There are photos that show the tail fans of two Microraptor specimens in that paper, one being the Microraptor gui holotype... and both of these specimens were ones found to have the same kind of tail fan as BMNHC PH881.  So the tail fan of that 2003 reconstruction, which other Microraptor reconstructions often have... is inaccurate to the fossil specimens it's based on.  One can even compare that reconstruction to photos in the same paper and see its tail fan doesn't match the fossils!  Not that reconstructions that are inaccurate to fossils shown within the same paper hasn't happened before...

I think the way I described the tail when I reviewed this set was "slightly misshapen," which is probably too generous. I definitely didn't go into this kind of detail.

You identify a common problem. Many paleontologists don't task scientific illustrators with reconstructing the the animals they're describing, instead relying on someone they know who happens to know how to draw or paint. Then they don't vet the result sufficiently and you end up with mistaken ideas abroad in the world. I have a lot of problems with the Sereno lab's output, but one thing that I think he does right is keeping a dedicated scientific illustrator on staff. So if there's a problem with the reconstruction, it's because the science was mistaken, not because the artist wasn't properly guided.

Odd that the colours should end up being a near perfect ringer for Anchiornis though.

It is a pretty close match!

[Halichoeres]

Schleich Saichania (mini version). This is the best of Schleich's many Saichania figures (it replaced the World of History solo version). The head is a huge improvement, and they include the forelimb armor. It's still meristically flawed, and the tail is too short. Once the tail is corrected for, it's just about 1:40.


Jasman Brachylophosaurus (also sold as Maiasaura). It'll work until someone makes a decent Brachylophosaurus. About 1:60.


PNSO Shantungosaurus. What a staggeringly large animal. This behemoth of a figure is about 1:35. Replaced the Sega Dinosaur King version.


PNSO Mandschurosaurus. About 1:18 based on measurements of three limb elements of the very fragmentary holotype.


Favorite Pentaceratops. Replaced the Schleich version, which was mostly fine except for the feet. About 1:40.


CollectA Mercuriceratops. I can spot a lot of flaws with this figure, but collector's compulsion made me buy it. I'm glad that this year's assortment from CollectA was from more completely known animals, especially the ceratopsians. About 1:30.


Safari Einiosaurus. Finally someone made one! It's CollectA's bad luck that they released their almost-as-good version the same year. I love the texture on this one (and I prefer un-quilled ceratopsids). About 1:25.


Planeta DeAgostini Arrhinoceratops. The only version of this animal that I'm aware of, and the last DeAgostini figure I was looking for! About 1:25.


Kaiyodo Protoceratops (Dinotales 5). The warm color version really is better than the cool color version. About 1:20.

[Jose S.M.]

Nice figures! The mini Saichania looks cute!

[BlueKrono]

I must reveal my ignorance, but I'd like to learn... What's wrong the Deinonychus's arms? Also, I've never heard of ankylosaur forelimb armor. When did that happen? Was it prevalent amongst the species? And lastly, I just wanted to say that the false eyes on the Protoceratops are brilliant, with widespread modern precedents (or would that be antecedents?).

[Libraraptor]

As to the Linde Sphenacodon: Even if I found a more decent version out there, I would keep it. I always admire that you can consequently decide for one piece per species only.

[Halichoeres]

Nice figures! The mini Saichania looks cute!

Thanks!

I must reveal my ignorance, but I'd like to learn... What's wrong the Deinonychus's arms? Also, I've never heard of ankylosaur forelimb armor. When did that happen? Was it prevalent amongst the species? And lastly, I just wanted to say that the false eyes on the Protoceratops are brilliant, with widespread modern precedents (or would that be antecedents?).

We don't actually have feather impressions from Deinonychus, but remains of relatives like Microraptor and Zhenyuanlong make the Colorata figure's feather distribution seem unlikely. Like other maniraptorans, it would have had vaned feathers extending all the way to the digits rather than stopping at the wrist.

A famous mount of Saichania in Ulaanbaatar shows these big osteoderms down the front of the forelimb, but apparently only the head definitely belongs to Saichania. According to Arbour & Currie 2013 (Cretaceous Research 46: 24), the rest of the body is indeterminate and might be referrable to Pinacosaurus. There's another paper that seems to deal more thoroughly with the postcranial remains of Pinacosaurus (Burns et al 2015 J. of Paleontology 89:168), but I don't have access to it. So at least some ankylosaurids from the Upper Cretaceous of eastern Eurasia had forelimb armor, but I am not sure which. Kaiyodo's Saichania has the forelimb osteoderms, as do the Kanna Dinosaur Center versions, but I'd say the person to ask is Victoria Arbour.

Here's the mount in Mongolia:

As to the Linde Sphenacodon: Even if I found a more decent version out there, I would keep it. I always admire that you can consequently decide for one piece per species only.

It can be really difficult to control myself!