The best figure of every species, according to Halichoeres

[Halichoeres]

Ornithodirans of the Jurassic!


Recently, on another thread, we were discussing dinosaur genera that have never been made, and one that came up was Anchisaurus. Imagine my surprise when I stumbled across this one from Gosnell. You could argue that it doesn't count, as it's an Anchisaurus in name only: it's quadrupedal, and is so crude and cartoonish that any other identifying feature would be obscured. In fact these have shown up a lot lately on eBay, and many listings call it Brachiosaurus or some other proper sauropod, but the belly actually says Anchisaurus. Someone, please make a real Anchisaurus so I can get rid of this thing.


Joy City Ltd Pterodactylus, from the same seller that sold me the Odontochelys. Small pterosaurs are made so rarely, except Dimorphodon, and when they are made they're usually awfully crude. Someone needs to rectify this with a set of really good miniatures. I'm giving up hope on a Safari pterosaur Toob, since they're discontinuing 3 of their 5 interesting prehistoric Toobs, but maybe PNSO or Favorite could step up? This one is far from my worst pterosaur mini, though--Dinowaurs, anyone? This replaced my Starlux Pterodactylus, and is about 1:8.


Waiphoon (or some knockoff) Scaphognathus. As a taxonomic completist, I'm happy to have it, but its limbs are missing essentially the entire complement of metacarpals and most of the carpals. Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well by reasonably mainstream companies, which I argue makes them more poorly represented than any dinosaur group. The Wikipedia list of pterosaur genera contains 213 entries; even if you throw out synonyms, cases of mistaken identity (e.g. Ornithodesmus), and disputed genera like Geosternbergia, that's an awful lot of diversity that's being mostly ignored, compelling me to fill my shelves with these rare but imperfect attempts. About 1:4.


IToy "Dilophosaurus sinensis," a species whose holotype has since been reassigned to Sinosaurus triassicus, because it was initially thought to be from a Triassic stratum. This figure isn't a very good representation of either genus, instead being a thoroughgoing JP Dilophosaurus with the merciful exception of the frill: pronated hands, straight mandible and maxilla, reasonably good crests. Sinosaurus crests looked pretty different and in particular probably didn't have the backward pointing projections at the rear. Maybe in time PNSO will get around to making a real Sinosaurus. This one's about 1:25 as Sinosaurus. Its feet don't fit well onto its base (which looks grassy but which I'm choosing to interpret as covered in a carpet of lycopods), and it doesn't stand well off its base either.


Favorite Archaeopteryx, a welcome and unexpected addition to the Dinosaur Soft Model line. If you force Araki to sculpt something that unequivocally has feathers and wings, he acquits himself well. Replaced the Papo Archaeopteryx, which is a really attractive toy but looked less like an Archaeopteryx and more like a JP raptor dressed as a pheasant. About 1:4.


CollectA Gigantspinosaurus, a really nice little figure with a strange pattern. The asymmetric pigment distribution doesn't look like anything I can ever remember seeing, but maybe you could get it with Barr body chimerism (like a calico cat, for example). Good looking toy, though. About 1:30.


With some relatives at the same scale. Honestly, stegosaurs all look pretty similar in most of the aspects that aren't speculative. If I'd never seen these before and had no identifying marks, I seriously doubt I could sort correctly them into their respective genera.

[Ravonium]

That Anchisaurus looks like the result of a crazed geneticist trying to mutate a giraffe so it becomes a dinosaur.

[Halichoeres]

That Anchisaurus looks like the result of a crazed geneticist trying to mutate a giraffe so it becomes a dinosaur.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Sim]

Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well by reasonably mainstream companies, which I argue makes them more poorly represented than any dinosaur group. The Wikipedia list of pterosaur genera contains 213 entries; even if you throw out synonyms, cases of mistaken identity (e.g. Ornithodesmus), and disputed genera like Geosternbergia, that's an awful lot of diversity that's being mostly ignored, compelling me to fill my shelves with these rare but imperfect attempts.

I personally wouldn't count the ones on the list that are only known from so little that their appearance has to be basically invented.  I don't think pterosaurs as a group are more poorly represented than some dinosaur groups, e.g.: Troodontidae, Heterodontosauridae, Compsognathidae, Alvarezsauria, non-sauropod sauropodomorphs.

With some relatives at the same scale. Honestly, stegosaurs all look pretty similar in most of the aspects that aren't speculative. If I'd never seen these before and had no identifying marks, I seriously doubt I could sort correctly them into their respective genera.

I tend to find that when enough of a stegosaur's plate/spine arrangement is known, it is actually quite distinctive.  Looking at the figures in the photo above, I think Dacentrurus and Lexovisaurus aren't known from enough to make figures of them that are recognisable as these genera.  As for the others, I would work out the genera of the figures as follows: Miragaia based on the combination of the neck length and neck plate shapes.  Kentrosaurus, well, its anatomy corresponds to that of a reconstructed Kentrosaurus skeleton and doesn't correspond to other stegosaurs known from good remains e.g. Tuojiangosaurus.  I think its shoulder spikes point outwards too much, but that can be explained by it being by Schleich who is known to not give importance to reconstructing prehistoric animals correctly.  For the Gigantspinosaurus, as far as I know, no other stegosaur is known to have shoulder spikes like Gigantspinosaurus's with regards to shape and with regards to the huge size in relation to the rest of the body.

[Tylosaurus]

@ Halichoeres
That Schleich Kentrosaurus actually looks good goodness, so they can make good figures it seems 
As for that CollectA Gigantspinosaurus yeah a fantastic model that is, I'll pick up mine some other time though 

As for the CollectA Lexovisaurus, that too also seems to be one of a kind, no one ever attempted to make one of those from I can recall.
Nice adds man 

[Halichoeres]

Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well by reasonably mainstream companies, which I argue makes them more poorly represented than any dinosaur group. The Wikipedia list of pterosaur genera contains 213 entries; even if you throw out synonyms, cases of mistaken identity (e.g. Ornithodesmus), and disputed genera like Geosternbergia, that's an awful lot of diversity that's being mostly ignored, compelling me to fill my shelves with these rare but imperfect attempts.

I personally wouldn't count the ones on the list that are only known from so little that their appearance has to be basically invented.  I don't think pterosaurs as a group are more poorly represented than some dinosaur groups, e.g.: Troodontidae, Heterodontosauridae, Compsognathidae, Alvarezsauria, non-sauropod sauropodomorphs.

It seems I have chosen my phrasing carelessly. When I said groups, I ought to have said, "major groups," although that's still a little squishy. Even a genus is a group. I definitely didn't have individual relatively depauperate families in mind when I said "group." But I would note that of the groups you mentioned, each has at least one reasonably high-quality figure either available or in the works, with the exception of Heterodontosauridae (I know only of the pretty crappy Inpro version), whereas there are many families of pterosaurs that have never been attempted at all, let alone executed well. That's arguing on the terrain that you've given me. I have established elsewhere that I find families and higher taxonomic ranks problematic units of analysis when it comes to questions of diversity. I would use clade age, duration, and taxic richness, and on those criteria, I doubt that there is a way to delimit a taxon of true dinosaurs both comparable to pterosaurs and also more poorly represented as toys. It's true that there are many pterosaurs known from scrappy remains, but that applies with equal force to small theropods, many of which are erected on the basis of isolated maxillae or toe bones.

On the forum there is a tendency (I am guilty myself) to claim that one's favorite group is underrepresented as toys. Honestly, if your favorite group isn't Tyrannosauridae, Ceratopsidae, or Lambeosaurinae, pretty much everyone is right. Anybody whose favorite isn't a dinosaur is pretty much automatically MORE right, but the simple fact is that more people like dinosaurs, so that's just how it's going to be (I have particular sympathy for fans of lophotrochozoans). I have thought about trying to use a dinosaur phylogeny to try to quantitatively identify the DINOSAUR group that is most ignored. Would you (or anyone else) be interested in the results of that kind of analysis? It would be a fun project to distract me from writing my goddamn dissertation.

With some relatives at the same scale. Honestly, stegosaurs all look pretty similar in most of the aspects that aren't speculative. If I'd never seen these before and had no identifying marks, I seriously doubt I could sort correctly them into their respective genera.

I tend to find that when enough of a stegosaur's plate/spine arrangement is known, it is actually quite distinctive.  Looking at the figures in the photo above, I think Dacentrurus and Lexovisaurus aren't known from enough to make figures of them that are recognisable as these genera.  As for the others, I would work out the genera of the figures as follows: Miragaia based on the combination of the neck length and neck plate shapes.  Kentrosaurus, well, its anatomy corresponds to that of a reconstructed Kentrosaurus skeleton and doesn't correspond to other stegosaurs known from good remains e.g. Tuojiangosaurus.  I think its shoulder spikes point outwards too much, but that can be explained by it being by Schleich who is known to not give importance to reconstructing prehistoric animals correctly.  For the Gigantspinosaurus, as far as I know, no other stegosaur is known to have shoulder spikes like Gigantspinosaurus's with regards to shape and with regards to the huge size in relation to the rest of the body.

I'm sure they were very distinctive in life. You're right that more of the difficulty arises from the fact that, for example, they are often found disarticulated, or the fact that dinosaurs found in Britain are virtually guaranteed toys regardless of how terrible the actual fossils are. I might have been able to pick out Gigantspinosaurus, and maybe, just maybe Miragaia based on the neck, but I would be quite helpless on the remainder. Guess that just means I need to learn more about stegosaurs.

@ Halichoeres
That Schleich Kentrosaurus actually looks good goodness, so they can make good figures it seems 
As for that CollectA Gigantspinosaurus yeah a fantastic model that is, I'll pick up mine some other time though 

As for the CollectA Lexovisaurus, that too also seems to be one of a kind, no one ever attempted to make one of those from I can recall.
Nice adds man 

Thanks, Tylo! I know of one other Lexovisaurus, which was a mail-away premium associated with the Zoo Tycoon game, but I haven't seen many copies, so this is practically speaking the only one.

[SBell]

I'd never heard of Gosnell...and yet it turns out I have one.



Not sure if it is meant to be a strange ray...or a strange rhenanid. I lean towards the later myself! Iff only because it looks less like a ray, and as a company they are not exactly accurate!

[BlueKrono]

Halichoeres - I would be interested in seeing an analysis of toy representation amongst dinosaurs (and even other groups if you're feeling really ambitious). But then, the responsible BlueKrono feels the need to say: "Do your homework!"

[Halichoeres]

I'd never heard of Gosnell...and yet it turns out I have one.



Not sure if it is meant to be a strange ray...or a strange rhenanid. I lean towards the later myself! Iff only because it looks less like a ray, and as a company they are not exactly accurate!

That is vaguely reminiscent of a rhenanid (unlike my "Anchisaurus"). No name on the belly, huh?

Halichoeres - I would be interested in seeing an analysis of toy representation amongst dinosaurs (and even other groups if you're feeling really ambitious). But then, the responsible BlueKrono feels the need to say: "Do your homework!"

Decisions, decisions...

[Sim]

Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well by reasonably mainstream companies, which I argue makes them more poorly represented than any dinosaur group. The Wikipedia list of pterosaur genera contains 213 entries; even if you throw out synonyms, cases of mistaken identity (e.g. Ornithodesmus), and disputed genera like Geosternbergia, that's an awful lot of diversity that's being mostly ignored, compelling me to fill my shelves with these rare but imperfect attempts.

I personally wouldn't count the ones on the list that are only known from so little that their appearance has to be basically invented.  I don't think pterosaurs as a group are more poorly represented than some dinosaur groups, e.g.: Troodontidae, Heterodontosauridae, Compsognathidae, Alvarezsauria, non-sauropod sauropodomorphs.

It seems I have chosen my phrasing carelessly. When I said groups, I ought to have said, "major groups," although that's still a ittle squishy. Even a genus is a group. I definitely didn't have individual relatively depauperate families in mind when I said "group." But I would note that of the groups you mentioned, each has at least one reasonably high-quality figure either available or in the works, with the exception of Heterodontosauridae (I know only of the pretty crappy Inpro version), whereas there are many families of pterosaurs that have never been attempted at all, let alone executed well. That's arguing on the terrain that you've given me. I have established elsewhere that I find families and higher taxonomic ranks problematic units of analysis when it comes to questions of diversity. I would use clade age, duration, and taxic richness, and on those criteria, I doubt that there is a way to delimit a taxon of true dinosaurs both comparable to pterosaurs and also more poorly represented as toys.

Well, I misunderstood what you meant by dinosaur group, since you said "any dinosaur group".  Yes, even a genus is a group, but what you said didn't make me think you were referring to that kind of group too, since dinosaur genera often only contain one species and diversity within genera is relatively minimal.  The use of "any" made me think you were comparing pterosaurs as a group to, well, any dinosaur group (excluding (often) monotypic groups) to emphasise how poorly represented pterosaurs are.

"whereas there are many families of pterosaurs that have never been attempted at all, let alone executed well."  Out of interest, which families are they?

It's true that there are many pterosaurs known from scrappy remains, but that applies with equal force to small theropods, many of which are erected on the basis of isolated maxillae or toe bones.

I think that applies to theropods in general, not just small ones, and many species only being known from extremely fragmentary remains can be found among dinosaurs in general.  Like with pterosaurs, I personally wouldn't count dinosaurs that are only known from so little that their appearance has to basically be invented.

On the forum there is a tendency (I am guilty myself) to claim that one's favorite group is underrepresented as toys. Honestly, if your favorite group isn't Tyrannosauridae, Ceratopsidae, or Lambeosaurinae, pretty much everyone is right. Anybody whose favorite isn't a dinosaur is pretty much automatically MORE right, but the simple fact is that more people like dinosaurs, so that's just how it's going to be (I have particular sympathy for fans of lophotrochozoans).

It's interesting to hear which groups you feel aren't underrepresented.  It's very similar to what I've been thinking.  I personally feel the prehistoric groups that aren't underrepresented as toys are Tyrannosauroidea, Ceratopsidae, Hadrosauridae, Allosauroidea and Spinosauridae.  If for just one year, no toy company made any species from those groups, I think what they'd make instead could be very interesting, allowing the underrepresented groups to get the attention they need.  I can't imagine this ever happening though!

I think you're right that there is a tendency to say one's favourite group is underrepresented as toys, thus showing interest in figures being made of the species one likes.  I try to be unbiased when I say a group is or isn't underrepresented in toys.  For example, of the five neglected dinosaur groups I listed in my previous post, only two are among the groups I like more, Troodontidae and to a lesser extent the non-sauropod sauropodomorphs.  Similarly, even though I'd still really like a good modern toy representation of Baryonyx, I don't feel Spinosauridae is underrepresented in toys, as I expressed above.  This doesn't contradict what you said though, as I have more motivation to say how a group of animals is underrepresented in toys if the underrepresented group is one I like a lot.

I have thought about trying to use a dinosaur phylogeny to try to quantitatively identify the DINOSAUR group that is most ignored. Would you (or anyone else) be interested in the results of that kind of analysis? It would be a fun project to distract me from writing my goddamn dissertation.

It makes me think that some species that have toy representation are only represented by figures that really don't look like an accurate representation of the animal.  I'm referring to the figures where if someone wants a nice modern representation of the animal, those figures can't fulfil that due to being conspicuously inaccurate and/or cartoony.  It might be like what you said earlier, "Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well".  I feel these conspicuously inaccurate/unrealistic representations don't make a group less neglected, since the group still isn't getting the good toy versions it needs.  I'm just somewhat concerned that a quantitative analysis might suggest some potentially misleading things that one wouldn't want.  Besides that though, I think the results of such an analysis could be interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised if the largest gaps of unrepresented non-bird dinosaurs are in Sauropodomorpha.  I'm struck by how the non-sauropod part of Sauropodomorpha contains a lot of genera, a lot of groups (higher than genus level) and yet... all except Plateosaurus get minimal or no attention.  And even then, the only figure I can think of of a non-sauropod sauropodomorph that is a good modern representation is the small Kaiyodo Plateosaurus...

Good luck with your dissertation.

[SBell]

I'd never heard of Gosnell...and yet it turns out I have one.



Not sure if it is meant to be a strange ray...or a strange rhenanid. I lean towards the later myself! Iff only because it looks less like a ray, and as a company they are not exactly accurate!

That is vaguely reminiscent of a rhenanid (unlike my "Anchisaurus"). No name on the belly, huh?

Not that I noticed--and having checked again, it's just the name of a Chinese city and a lot number.

[Halichoeres]

Well, I misunderstood what you meant by dinosaur group, since you said "any dinosaur group".  Yes, even a genus is a group, but what you said didn't make me think you were referring to that kind of group too, since dinosaur genera often only contain one species and diversity within genera is relatively minimal.  The use of "any" made me think you were comparing pterosaurs as a group to, well, any dinosaur group (excluding (often) monotypic groups) to emphasise how poorly represented pterosaurs are.

"whereas there are many families of pterosaurs that have never been attempted at all, let alone executed well."  Out of interest, which families are they?

I think that's a reasonable interpretation, I should have been more precise. Missing pterosaur families (leaving aside, of course, what "family" means) include: Wukongopteridae, Istiodactylidae, Boreopteridae, Ctenochasmatidae, Lonchodectidae, and Chaoyangopteridae. There might be others. Most of these have at least one distinctive taxon known from excellent remains.

It's true that there are many pterosaurs known from scrappy remains, but that applies with equal force to small theropods, many of which are erected on the basis of isolated maxillae or toe bones.

I think that applies to theropods in general, not just small ones, and many species only being known from extremely fragmentary remains can be found among dinosaurs in general.  Like with pterosaurs, I personally wouldn't count dinosaurs that are only known from so little that their appearance has to basically be invented.

That will be a tricky thing to account for if I were to analyze "underrepresentedness." All clades have taxa based on garbage remains, but some are definitely more prone to it than others for ecological or taphonomic reasons. I wonder how badly I would be misled by operating on the simplifying assumption of a uniform distribution of dubious taxa.

On the forum there is a tendency (I am guilty myself) to claim that one's favorite group is underrepresented as toys. Honestly, if your favorite group isn't Tyrannosauridae, Ceratopsidae, or Lambeosaurinae, pretty much everyone is right. Anybody whose favorite isn't a dinosaur is pretty much automatically MORE right, but the simple fact is that more people like dinosaurs, so that's just how it's going to be (I have particular sympathy for fans of lophotrochozoans).

It's interesting to hear which groups you feel aren't underrepresented.  It's very similar to what I've been thinking.  I personally feel the prehistoric groups that aren't underrepresented as toys are Tyrannosauroidea, Ceratopsidae, Hadrosauridae, Allosauroidea and Spinosauridae.  If for just one year, no toy company made any species from those groups, I think what they'd make instead could be very interesting, allowing the underrepresented groups to get the attention they need.  I can't imagine this ever happening though!

I think you're right that there is a tendency to say one's favourite group is underrepresented as toys, thus showing interest in figures being made of the species one likes.  I try to be unbiased when I say a group is or isn't underrepresented in toys.  For example, of the five neglected dinosaur groups I listed in my previous post, only two are among the groups I like more, Troodontidae and to a lesser extent the non-sauropod sauropodomorphs.  Similarly, even though I'd still really like a good modern toy representation of Baryonyx, I don't feel Spinosauridae is underrepresented in toys, as I expressed above.  This doesn't contradict what you said though, as I have more motivation to say how a group of animals is underrepresented in toys if the underrepresented group is one I like a lot.

I have thought about trying to use a dinosaur phylogeny to try to quantitatively identify the DINOSAUR group that is most ignored. Would you (or anyone else) be interested in the results of that kind of analysis? It would be a fun project to distract me from writing my goddamn dissertation.

It makes me think that some species that have toy representation are only represented by figures that really don't look like an accurate representation of the animal.  I'm referring to the figures where if someone wants a nice modern representation of the animal, those figures can't fulfil that due to being conspicuously inaccurate and/or cartoony.  It might be like what you said earlier, "Only about ten pterosaur genera have been made well".  I feel these conspicuously inaccurate/unrealistic representations don't make a group less neglected, since the group still isn't getting the good toy versions it needs.  I'm just somewhat concerned that a quantitative analysis might suggest some potentially misleading things that one wouldn't want.  Besides that though, I think the results of such an analysis could be interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised if the largest gaps of unrepresented non-bird dinosaurs are in Sauropodomorpha.  I'm struck by how the non-sauropod part of Sauropodomorpha contains a lot of genera, a lot of groups (higher than genus level) and yet... all except Plateosaurus get minimal or no attention.  And even then, the only figure I can think of of a non-sauropod sauropodomorph that is a good modern representation is the small Kaiyodo Plateosaurus...

Good luck with your dissertation.

Interesting that you predict the Sauropodomorpha to be gappiest. I would have predicted the non-hadrosaur Ornithopoda. If I do this, I think it would be fun to have people place bets.

Anyway, you highlight another interesting challenge to clade comparison. I agree that an inaccurate or cartoonish version is not very much better than no version at all, although people draw that threshold in different places. If you'll forgive my saying so, I think you're much, much harder to satisfy than I am in that respect. I don't just mean that I have a Yowie Prenocephale and a Dinosaur Train Zhejiangopterus, as I think most of us agree that more realistic versions of those would be welcome. But even with basal sauropodomorphs, where you say that the Kaiyodo Plateosaurus is the only game in town, I would have classified several other figures as at least minimally acceptable, like the CollectA and Carnegie Plateosaurus figures and even the PNSO Lufengosaurus, despite its emaciation. That is, incorrect or implausible details that I find mildly annoying, but forgivable in the absence of a better alternative, will completely ruin a figure for you. I was pretty happy with the Carnegie Velociraptor until the Safari version came out, even though I knew its feathers weren't right.

I'll think about how or whether to account for that. Might be a while. Meanwhile, thanks for the well wishes. Back to writing...

[stargatedalek]

Interesting that you predict the Sauropodomorpha to be gappiest. I would have predicted the non-hadrosaur Ornithopoda. If I do this, I think it would be fun to have people place bets.

In terms of sheer species known vs species made, I think birds probably still have the title for least represented, even excluding modern birds. But in terms of groupings I think birds are fairly well covered. Sauropodomorpha is probably a safe bet, but I wouldn't underestimate ornithopods or Ceratosauria either.

Well, I misunderstood what you meant by dinosaur group, since you said "any dinosaur group".  Yes, even a genus is a group, but what you said didn't make me think you were referring to that kind of group too, since dinosaur genera often only contain one species and diversity within genera is relatively minimal.  The use of "any" made me think you were comparing pterosaurs as a group to, well, any dinosaur group (excluding (often) monotypic groups) to emphasise how poorly represented pterosaurs are.

"whereas there are many families of pterosaurs that have never been attempted at all, let alone executed well."  Out of interest, which families are they?

I think that's a reasonable interpretation, I should have been more precise. Missing pterosaur families (leaving aside, of course, what "family" means) include: Wukongopteridae, Istiodactylidae, Boreopteridae, Ctenochasmatidae, Lonchodectidae, and Chaoyangopteridae. There might be others. Most of these have at least one distinctive taxon known from excellent remains.

You forgot the CollectA Guidraco, I would say even with that one figure Boreopteridae is better represented than most.

[Halichoeres]

I think there are about 80 genera of Mesozoic birds at least as crownward as enantiornithines, so that is a potential candidate. It's probably even worse in the Cenozoic.

I forgot Guidraco was a boreopterid, thanks!

[Sim]

Ctenochasmatidae is also represented since Pterodaustro has figure representation.  As for Lonchodectidae, it seems to me all the pterosaurs classified in this family are known from very poor remains, meaning it isn't worthwhile making them into figures?  I agree with you though that there isn't enough good figure representations of pterosaur species.  I'd really like to see an Istiodactylus figure!  Istiodactylus is very interesting and unusual for a pterosaur, both in its appearance and what is thought of its ecology.

That will be a tricky thing to account for if I were to analyze "underrepresentedness." All clades have taxa based on garbage remains, but some are definitely more prone to it than others for ecological or taphonomic reasons. I wonder how badly I would be misled by operating on the simplifying assumption of a uniform distribution of dubious taxa.

There's also the fact that poor remains aren't the only thing that can make taxa dubious and/or not worthwhile making into a figure.  Other reasons can be if taxa are only known from juvenile specimens (especially if the juveniles don't look distinctive), or if it appears they are probably synonyms of other taxa (sometimes due to being different growth stages).  I think these things are relevant when considering underrepresentedness, especially being known only from poor remains because as you said, some groups are more prone to this than others.

Anyway, you highlight another interesting challenge to clade comparison. I agree that an inaccurate or cartoonish version is not very much better than no version at all, although people draw that threshold in different places. If you'll forgive my saying so, I think you're much, much harder to satisfy than I am in that respect. I don't just mean that I have a Yowie Prenocephale and a Dinosaur Train Zhejiangopterus, as I think most of us agree that more realistic versions of those would be welcome. But even with basal sauropodomorphs, where you say that the Kaiyodo Plateosaurus is the only game in town, I would have classified several other figures as at least minimally acceptable, like the CollectA and Carnegie Plateosaurus figures and even the PNSO Lufengosaurus, despite its emaciation. That is, incorrect or implausible details that I find mildly annoying, but forgivable in the absence of a better alternative, will completely ruin a figure for you. I was pretty happy with the Carnegie Velociraptor until the Safari version came out, even though I knew its feathers weren't right.

I'll think about how or whether to account for that. Might be a while. Meanwhile, thanks for the well wishes. Back to writing...

Hehe, it's okay, I think it's true that I'm much harder to satisfy than you when it comes to figures.  I feel that if a figure differs conspicuously from what it's meant to represent, it just doesn't work as a good modern representation of the animal for me.

Regarding the non-sauropod sauropodomorph figures...

  (image from the DTB CollectA Plateosaurus review)
  (image source)

I actually think the CollectA Plateosaurus looks very nice.  The reason I felt it wasn't a good modern representation of Plateosaurus is because its head didn't seem to look like the head of Plateosaurus, as can be seen when comparing it to the Carnegie figure or Scott Hartman's skeletal.  Its head shape also didn't correspond to a number of Plateosaurus skulls I looked at.  After some more searching, I've seen one Plateosaurus skull drawing on Paleofile here that seems close to the CollectA figure's head.  It's only labelled "UTI", so I haven't been able to find out more about it, or if there is very significant individual variation among Plateosaurus skulls.  The CollectA figure is inaccurate in having pronated hands at least.  If its head shape isn't incorrect, I can consider this figure a good modern representation of Plateosaurus.

With the Carnegie Plateosaurus, the problem, for me, is in the hands.  It's great that they aren't pronated!  But, its fingers are uniform which is so wrong for Plateosaurus.  If the figure at least had the large thumb claw, I could've seen it as a good modern representation of Plateosaurus.  As it is, the way I feel about it is like I would for an Iguanodon figure with uniform fingers, lacking thumb spikes.

As for the PNSO Lufengosaurus, even though it is so shrink-wrapped and it has pronated hands, I can see it as a good modern representation of the animal.  This doesn't come easily, but I can see it like you said, as having details that are forgivable in the absence of a better alternative.


I think it's true that whether a figure is considered accurate enough to be a satisfactory modern version of an animal can vary from person to person.  Personally, I can overlook inaccuracies if they aren't very noticeable, like a sauropod's hands not being U-shaped, or the second and third fingers of a dromaeosaurid/oviraptorosaur/troodontid not being connected.  Inaccuracies that are very conspicuous though prevent me from feeling a figure is a good modern representation.  Examples of this are an incorrectly shaped head, or a dromaeosaurid/oviraptorosaur/troodontid not having primary feathers or worse being featherless.

Two other things that come to my mind when considering groups that are neglected are:

1. When genera from some groups are made into figures, they tend to be represented very accurately.  In contrast, when figures are made of genera from some other groups, they tend to have conspicuous inaccuracies.

2. Some genera have more than one good modern figure representation.  It's interesting to consider how this is relevant.

[Lanthanotus]

[...]

I actually think the CollectA Plateosaurus looks very nice.  The reason I felt it wasn't a good modern representation of Plateosaurus is because its head didn't seem to look like the head of Plateosaurus, as can be seen when comparing it to the Carnegie figure or Scott Hartman's skeletal.  Its head shape also didn't correspond to a number of Plateosaurus skulls I looked at.  After some more searching, I've seen one Plateosaurus skull drawing on Paleofile here that seems close to the CollectA figure's head.  It's only labelled "UTI", so I haven't been able to find out more about it, or if there is very significant individual variation among Plateosaurus skulls.  The CollectA figure is inaccurate in having pronated hands at least.  If its head shape isn't incorrect, I can consider this figure a good modern representation of Plateosaurus.

With the Carnegie Plateosaurus, the problem, for me, is in the hands.  It's great that they aren't pronated!  But, its fingers are uniform which is so wrong for Plateosaurus.  If the figure at least had the large thumb claw, I could've seen it as a good modern representation of Plateosaurus.  As it is, the way I feel about it is like I would for an Iguanodon figure with uniform fingers, lacking thumb spikes.

As for the PNSO Lufengosaurus, even though it is so shrink-wrapped and it has pronated hands, I can see it as a good modern representation of the animal.  This doesn't come easily, but I can see it like you said, as having details that are forgivable in the absence of a better alternative.

[...]

If you look for the almost perfect Plateosaurus, get the Kaiyodo rendition, the only real downside is its small size as it is somewhat lost between "normal" sized toy models ands some of its details can only really be appreciated when using magnifying glasses.

[Halichoeres]

Ctenochasmatidae is also represented since Pterodaustro has figure representation.  As for Lonchodectidae, it seems to me all the pterosaurs classified in this family are known from very poor remains, meaning it isn't worthwhile making them into figures?  I agree with you though that there isn't enough good figure representations of pterosaur species.  I'd really like to see an Istiodactylus figure!  Istiodactylus is very interesting and unusual for a pterosaur, both in its appearance and what is thought of its ecology.

Oh, whoops, missed that one. I don't actually know all that much about pterosaur taxonomy, so I just skimmed the chapter headings in Mark Witton's book and I forgot that Pterodaustro is in the Ctenochasmatidae. Lonchodectes and kin I can pretty much take or leave. But yeah, I think we're generally in agreement that pterosaur diversity is spottily represented at best.

Two other things that come to my mind when considering groups that are neglected are:

1. When genera from some groups are made into figures, they tend to be represented very accurately.  In contrast, when figures are made of genera from some other groups, they tend to have conspicuous inaccuracies.

2. Some genera have more than one good modern figure representation.  It's interesting to consider how this is relevant.

1. Yeah, there might be a systematic (in both senses) bias in how good figures are just because they have attracted more attention. There's probably equal bias in which errors are salient to collectors. I mean, most of us by now are attuned to un-feathered maniraptorans or theropods with pronated hands, but maybe less uniformly so to merely inadequately feathered maniraptorans. Incomplete primaries, for example, bother me less than they bother others, though naturally I'd prefer they be complete. I might--or might not!--be more attuned to things that affect the hydrodynamics of aquatic animals. Anyway, I would say that sauropods, tyrannosaurs, and ceratopsids are usually handled competently. I think that's mostly true of maniraptorans now, too, although it wasn't true even quite recently.

2. I honestly think this is true for only a couple of dozen taxa. But it might be worth accounting for. I find that taxa that have been made many times have also been intensively studied by amateurs like us (well, most of us). I think that leads to people identifying more and more trivial errors, with the result that it feels like all the available figures are lacking in some respect or another. I think Stegosaurus and Triceratops are examples of that. There are many, many (MANY) taxa that I would LOVE to have a figure of that is as nice as the Favorite Stegosaurus (either one, really, though the one on my shelf is the Series 1). I wouldn't know that the plate count is slightly off if it were a less-attempted taxon. There are no doubt many glaringly wrong things about my figures of which I am blissfully unaware because there hasn't been this relentless nitpicking that you get with more popular species.

If you look for the almost perfect Plateosaurus, get the Kaiyodo rendition, the only real downside is its small size as it is somewhat lost between "normal" sized toy models ands some of its details can only really be appreciated when using magnifying glasses.

Definitely a winner, and the one Sim mentioned previously as the only good modern depiction of an early sauropodomorph.

[Zhuchengotyrant]

I'd never heard of Gosnell...and yet it turns out I have one.



Not sure if it is meant to be a strange ray...or a strange rhenanid. I lean towards the later myself! Iff only because it looks less like a ray, and as a company they are not exactly accurate!

I had a whole set, including the Anchisaurus, a Tyrannosaurus, a Triceratops, and Tuojiangosaurus. There were more but I could not find them. I also can't supply pictures because I gave them to my cousin a while back. The Anchisaurus was bad, the T.rex looked like a super skinny generic theropod, the Triceratops looked like a Styracosaurus that mated with a chameleon, and the Tuojiangosaurus looked like a Scelidosaurus with a tail club(? Have no idea how they thought of that ?).  They were bad, even for kid toys! 

[Halichoeres]

I had a whole set, including the Anchisaurus, a Tyrannosaurus, a Triceratops, and Tuojiangosaurus. There were more but I could not find them. I also can't supply pictures because I gave them to my cousin a while back. The Anchisaurus was bad, the T.rex looked like a super skinny generic theropod, the Triceratops looked like a Styracosaurus that mated with a chameleon, and the Tuojiangosaurus looked like a Scelidosaurus with a tail club(? Have no idea how they thought of that ?).  They were bad, even for kid toys! 

Yeah, they're pretty terrible. But I'm pretty compulsive in the service of taxonomic completeness.

And now for tetrapods of the Triassic!


Yowie "Queensland dicynodont." There's a quadrate known from Queensland, which resembles the quadrate of Kannemeyeria from southern Africa. That wasn't too far from Australia at the time, so this could represent a very close relative. A 2003 paper ascribed skull fragments from the Cretaceous to a dicynodont, which would be very surprising, but others have suggested that the remains belong instead to a baurusuchian crocodile, the interpretation that your Bayesian priors should strongly favor. In any event, this figure is older than that so obviously represents the Triassic animal. As a Kannemeyeria, it would be about 1:45.


Paleo-Creatures Teleocrater rhadinus by Jetoar. First figure of a non-ornithodiran avemetatarsalian, and hence the most stemward stem-bird in my collection. Jetoar calls it 1:35, which I haven't confirmed, but it looks plausible.


Paleo-Creatures Saurosuchus galilei by Jetoar. One of the nicest figures in the line, to my mind, in part because its texturing actually looks passably crocodilian. Sold as 1:35; it looks a little large to me, but I haven't measured it.


These guys weren't contemporaries, separated by something like 10 million years, but there's precious little from the Triassic, so they're destined for the same bit of shelf.


Dawn of the Dinosaurs "Scaphonyx" sanjuanensis, which is now considered a species of Hyperodapedon. This is probably the rarest figure I've ever spotted in a mixed lot on an auction site. My impression of the Dawn of the Dinosaurs line is that it had such a short run and such a niche appeal that every collector who managed to get the figures will hang on to them forever, while all other copies ended up in the hands of children. This one clearly was among the latter, and has the paint rubbed off in a few places. In theory I suppose I could touch it up with a bit of acrylic, but I probably never will. Happy to have this despite its slightly battered state. About 1:20.


With some other archosauromorphs.


Gerrothorax, hand-cast by sculptor Hirokazu Tokugawa. It came with a little information card explaining that he deliberately made the eyes much smaller than most reconstructions, based on comparison with giant salamanders. I didn't really know this until he pointed it out, but giant salamanders have huge orbital openings in their skulls, but pretty small eyes. So yeah, this seems like a defensible reconstruction. I still would love to have the Play Visions version, though. This little beauty is about 1:15-1:20 (there are many specimens spanning tens of millions of years--Gerrothorax was unusually long-lasting for a tetrapod genus).


Drepanosaurus, another Tokugawa original. Both these figures came with brightly colored braided yarn so that they could be used as zipper pulls or other baubles. I took off the yarn because I'd rather have them sit next to my other animals. This is a gorgeous little sculpture with incredible detail, from the clawed tail tip, to the wrinkled skin, to the leaf it's perched on. I'd love to see a series of Favorite mini models based on Tokugawa's sculpts of Triassic animals. This is the right size for the purpose, about 1:4.


Tiny Triassic critters.

[Jetoar]

 Thanks Halichoeres for sharing images of my figures. I am glad that you like them  .