David Silvas New Kickstarter: Articulated Dinosaur TOYS

[Flaffy]

So as of now, the Safari 2017 velociraptor is the more accurate one? due to it having large wings?

[Daspletotyrannus]

Cool Protoceratops skull, but shouldn't the nasal opening be see through? I still like it though.

Maybe it would've been too fragile to sculpt at that scale?

Maybe. Still a nice skull, but would of been nice to right.  I know when he does the ceratopsian next I will be getting the Protoceratops.

[stargatedalek]

So as of now, the Safari 2017 velociraptor is the more accurate one? due to it having large wings?

And also because of the bulk of the feathers and the way they flow more naturally (which was sacrificed for articulation).

[Dinoguy2]

I've come across an article about Zhenyuanlong in which Stephen Brusatte (one of the palaeontologists who named and described Zhenyuanlong) says this about Zhenyuanlong and then Velociraptor: "It's a dinosaur with huge wings made up of quill pen feathers, just like an eagle or a vulture. The movies have it wrong — this is what Velociraptor would have looked like too."  This is the article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/velociraptor-cousin/

What Stephen Brusatte says about Velociraptor also having huge wings to me seems consistent with Velociraptor mongoliensis being known to have quill knobs - meaning it at least had huge secondaries.  I've let David know about this in the main comments section on Kickstarter, where I went into more detail about my thoughts and said I respect that he doesn't want to explore the Velociraptor having larger secondaries for this production run.

Not like this is anything new... we've known about the quill knobs/large wings for 10 years and I've been saying this since the first pics came out. I fear a lot of "research" done for these figures has been done by looking at skeletals and old paleo art.

It's worth noting that Zhenyuanlong does NOT have quill knobs, which is why Brusatte implies this is what average sized dromie wings should look like. Velociraptor wings should really be larger than Zhen's.

[Dinoguy2]

Well, it certainly looks better and less blue than previous shots... But that still doesn't fix the underfluffiness of the microraptor.
The neck is the most distracting for some reason.

It was "underfluffed" in the earliest stages.  I don't see why everyone concerned about that didn't flood David with messages saying, "Hey this is inaccurate or wrong, fix it".  I'm personally happy I picked this little sucker.

Are we getting paid to do research for this line or what? No? Oh, then it's his job to make the figures accurate. There are plenty of accurate representations of this species available online. Doing research means gaining an understanding of which are better and which are worse and why, not just going with the first Google image hit. Sorry to sound harsh but I'm not sure why this line is being given more of a pass than any other. The new Safari versions of Velociraptor and Microraptor are orders of magnitude more scientifically rigorous than these and a heck of a lot cheaper. Just compare them - the BoM micro has far more in common with the 12 year old Safari one than the new one, which will actually be older when the BoM comes out.

(Whoops, sorry for the double post)

[Flaffy]

What about concavenator? It has quill knobs.

[stargatedalek]

What about concavenator? It has quill knobs.

In theory it has them. I personally like to stick with the idea that it does since the markings are very consistent with quill knobs whereas if they are muscle sites (which they very well could be) they are abnormal (albeit not hugely abnormal). And quite frankly I absolutely detest the idea that these were anchors for "literal quills" or spines of some description. Firstly it's silly to invent a new form of integument solely for the sake of containing feathers within certain taxa, but more pertinently to your question, it doesn't make sense given the way feathers evolved.

We "know" that feathers evolved first as highly filamentous structures, similar to modern emu and cassowary, and then evolved into "modern" shafted feathers. Quill knobs are designed to anchor shafts of feathers in places where either the feathers are so large as to require extra support or are in a place where they are subjected to abnormally high stresses. An animal could use quill knobs to support large display feathers, or to reinforce feathers that could have potentially suffered damage (IE stress points on the wings of particularly fast or agile birds).

Velociraptor throws a small wrench into this idea, ironically it's because quill knobs make sense for dromaeosaurs. They make so much sense that an animal finding itself in frequent struggles with prey is actually weirder for not having them, so this means Velociraptor wasn't using them for support and rather for display or all dromaeosaurs would have them.

Now after taking both of these into account some points immediately stick out about Concavenator, if these are quill knobs than either these primitive feathers are attached in some unusual way or shafted feathered evolved and disappeared at least three times, and given no other Allosauroidea show quill knobs that Concavenator was doing something unusual.

While we're talking about feathers in Allosauroidea, it's worth noting that a few people have at times argued that Yutyrannus could potentially be a charcarodontosaur (although I personally doubt it).

TLDR; Probably, but Concavenator was super weird.

[Sim]

There's a number of things I want to reply to, and I've been typing up one reply.  I just wanted to quickly reply to a few things.

What about concavenator? It has quill knobs.

It looks like it might not have quill knobs.  Quoted from the Concavenator Wikipedia page:

Some paleontologists have expressed not being convinced by the conclusions of Cuesta, Ortega and Sanz. Mickey Mortimer pointed out the ulnar bumps appear to actually be on the anterolateral surface of the bone, rather than the posterolateral as Cuesta et al. claimed, and that crocodilians are a better reference than birds for reconstructing the muscles of Concavenator and other non-maniraptoran theropods. Mortimer maintained the ulnar bumps are most likely part of an intermuscular line.[7][8] Andrea Cau compared the forearm of Concavenator to the articulated forearms of Allosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus and showed that this Concavenator specimen's forearm is dislocated and the ulnar bumps are on the anterior surface of the ulna and not the posterolateral surface. He pointed out this means that due to not being on the same part of the ulna, the ulnar bumps are not homologous to the quill knobs of paravians as claimed in both the original 2010 description of Concavenator and the 2015 results by Cuesta et al. Cau argued there are also other things that contradict the hypothesis that the ulnar bumps are quill knobs: the ulnar bumps of Concavenator are connected by a crest on the bone while paravian quill knobs are separate from each other, and the ulnar bumps of Concavenator are irregularly spaced while paravian quill knobs are uniformly spaced. Cau added that phylogenetics also make it unlikely an allosauroid like Concavenator would have quill knobs. He concluded that his interpretation was the ulnar bumps were part of the crest on the anterior side of the ulna perhaps for insertion of the musculature that connected the ulna and radius, pointing out that Balaur has a crest on the anterior side of its ulna which is homologous with that of Concavenator and has no relation with remiges.[9]

I agree with Mickey Mortimer and Andrea Cau about this.  What Andrea Cau explained can be seen here, the comparison with the forearms of Allosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus says a lot: http://theropoda.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/le-papille-ulnari-di-concavenator-non.html

Velociraptor throws a small wrench into this idea, ironically it's because quill knobs make sense for dromaeosaurs. They make so much sense that an animal finding itself in frequent struggles with prey is actually weirder for not having them, so this means Velociraptor wasn't using them for support and rather for display or all dromaeosaurs would have them.

There's evidence for different hunting behaviour among different dromaeosaurids, which isn't surprising given their diversity.  It's mentioned in the reply I'll be posting soon, with a link to some examples.

While we're talking about feathers in Allosauroidea, it's worth noting that a few people have at times argued that Yutyrannus could potentially be a charcarodontosaur (although I personally doubt it).

I don't think Yutyrannus is a charcharodontosaur.  I think Dinoguy2 summed it up very well:

these opinions are unpublished and not backed up by any data; no analysis to date has found the species outside tyrannosauroidea

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yutyrannus&type=revision&diff=731930715&oldid=731867516

[The Atroxious]

Are we getting paid to do research for this line or what? No? Oh, then it's his job to make the figures accurate. There are plenty of accurate representations of this species available online. Doing research means gaining an understanding of which are better and which are worse and why, not just going with the first Google image hit. Sorry to sound harsh but I'm not sure why this line is being given more of a pass than any other. The new Safari versions of Velociraptor and Microraptor are orders of magnitude more scientifically rigorous than these and a heck of a lot cheaper. Just compare them - the BoM micro has far more in common with the 12 year old Safari one than the new one, which will actually be older when the BoM comes out.

(Whoops, sorry for the double post)

I have to agree with this. The detail in the sculpting of these figures is top-notch, but everything beyond that seems hastily thrown together instead of carefully thought through and designed. Many of the figures look good, but there are so many problems with the line that make me just this side of uncomfortable about paying the prices asked. The Safari models do indeed seem to have more thought and care put into them than the Beasts of the Mesozoic figures, which surprises me. Usually one expects mass-market figures to be the worse of the two. I, too, wonder why so many people are cutting these figures so much slack, despite being higher in price and lower in quality than other figures on the market, or soon to be.

[Flaffy]

I treat this line the same as I treat any other company.
I will always check the figures accuracy before purchasing them, and there are certainly a few things inaccurate about the figures.
Zhenyuanlong imo being the worst offender.
Some very minor issues I can look past, but when the tibia is half the length of the actual one, then I have a problem.
I wouldn't say these figures are lower quality, especially with the fabulous details and articulation. But I do have a problem with some of the figures from this line claiming to be accurate.

[Sim]

@Sim Hopefully we won't give David a headache from reading our long posts back to back, eh? I kind of feel bad for dumping so much stuff there earlier, but I felt I had to get all that ceratopsian stuff off my chest, before I forgot.

You shouldn't feel bad.  I think what you've said about the ceratopsian filaments is something interesting that's worth considering and discussing, and it's better to talk about it earlier than when it's too late to make changes to a figure.  I understand the feeling of wanting to get something off the chest, that's how I was feeling about those things I said about Velociraptor's wings.  I hope it hasn't been too much for David, in particular what I said.  I think David is interested in this kind of stuff though, I think he wants to have as much knowledge as he can on the prehistoric animals he sculpts.  I also think sometimes, if people don't discuss/mention some information about prehistoric animals, these things won't be considered or incorporated into a prehistoric animal figure.  That's why I think often it's worth saying something if it might lead to a figure being better.

You did make a good point about the quill knobs thing though. Would this apply to other dromaeosaurids as well, or would this only apply to those with quill knobs, like Velociraptor? Are the primaries too small as well? This may also count for any figure that's sharing that part, like the Dromaeosaurus I think. At least in regards to the secondaries, at least the two Dromaeosaurus figures and Balaur figure are getting the larger Zhenyuanlong secondaries come production time, from what I recall.

Thanks!  I'm not an expert on quill knobs, but I felt it was worth sharing what I said.  The raptor prey restraint study suggested that method of predation for Deinonychus.  As far as I'm aware the ulna of Deinonychus is known, but I've never seen it mentioned it has quill knobs.  The feather impressions in the fossils of Zhenyuanlong and Microraptor show these two dromaeosaurids have large wings on their forelimbs and the ulna is known for both, but I've never seen it mentioned they have quill knobs.  Extant birds also show that quill knobs aren't necessary to have large secondaries or to fly.  The impression I'm getting is that wings were often advantageous for dromaeosaurids, probably in things like predation and ascending/descending steep surfaces, and in a few species flight.  I think all of these things would've been possible for a dromaeosaurid even if it didn't have quill knobs.  However dromaeosaurids are a diverse group, so I don't think wings would have been used in the same ways in every species.  I think it's also possible wings could have been used in predation differently depending on the type of dromaeosaurid.  I found the comments by CyFyM and Scott Hartman about how some dromaeosaurids might/might not have hunted here interesting: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/179491659/3412517827

As far as I know, quill knobs are only where secondaries attach.  I think the size of the primaries is more open to speculation.

At least in regards to the secondaries, at least the two Dromaeosaurus figures and Balaur figure are getting the larger Zhenyuanlong secondaries come production time, from what I recall.

The Dromaeosaurus, Balaur and Linheraptor figures are all getting the larger Zhenyuanlong secondaries.

[Faelrin]

Come to think of it, was Archaeopteryx another with large wings without quill knobs? I remember a while back reading somewhere that it didn't have them either, though I can't remember the source, and if it was valid or not. Thanks for the information though. I have heard about the RPR method (on Emily Willoughby's site), but it does make sense that not all would have needed to use it, depending on their diet and hunting strategies. I had a feeling I was forgetting one of them (Linheraptor), for which of the other figures are getting the Zhenyuanlong secondaries.

You also make another good point about discussing these things earlier in the process rather then later. Perhaps when the time begins for the ceratopsian series (or after the raptor series gets done), the current research on them can be discussed more thoroughly, like skin impressions and all that, quills or no quills, the wrist orientation, etc. I know I have a lot to read up on ceratopsians in particular, but at least I know a little bit about them to help get me started.

[Dinoguy2]

You are correct. Despite being known from several exquisitely preserved specimen s, Archaeopteryx has never been found with quill knobs, meaning it probably lacked them in life, not just because of erosion or something as is possible with worse dromie specimens like Deinonychus (remember, not all Velociraptor specimens preserve these either).

Not all modern birds have quill knobs either. They're usually associated with high wing loading due to the demands of a certain flight or display behavior.

[suspsy]

@Sim Hopefully we won't give David a headache from reading our long posts back to back, eh? I kind of feel bad for dumping so much stuff there earlier, but I felt I had to get all that ceratopsian stuff off my chest, before I forgot.

You shouldn't feel bad.  I think what you've said about the ceratopsian filaments is something interesting that's worth considering and discussing, and it's better to talk about it earlier than when it's too late to make changes to a figure.  I understand the feeling of wanting to get something off the chest, that's how I was feeling about those things I said about Velociraptor's wings.  I hope it hasn't been too much for David, in particular what I said.  I think David is interested in this kind of stuff though, I think he wants to have as much knowledge as he can on the prehistoric animals he sculpts.  I also think sometimes, if people don't discuss/mention some information about prehistoric animals, these things won't be considered or incorporated into a prehistoric animal figure.  That's why I think often it's worth saying something if it might lead to a figure being better.

On what page is all this ceratopsian stuff? I'd be curious to read it.

[Faelrin]

I left a comment on the page prior (the wip desert pack pic post), and a more lengthy one on the kickstarter regarding my thoughts on the quills thing. I'll copy and paste it below for anyone to read it.

Great looking skull and desert pack sculpts. Nice touch with the bite marks. It will be fun to pose the Velociraptor biting it, finishing off its meal, etc. I'm also even more excited for the ceratopsian series, since I saw the mention that it may have a 1/6 scale Protoceratops. I'd love to have one of those alongside the Velociraptors (and Mononykus) to pose them off in the "fighting dinosaurs" pose (and maybe a Styracosaurus or two, and Triceratops or two, etc).

From looking at the comments for the Protoceratops skull sculpt on the FB page, I did see mention of quills, and I know this is way too early but I'm wondering what type of quills the ceratopsians might have in the ceratopsian series? Will they be more like the small subtle spike-like things on the Styracosaurus "Ceratopsian Series" silhoette, or will they be like the Psittacosaurus specimen's tail integument? Assuming its the latter, I'm not sure how much evidence there is for or against it currently being on other ceratopsians right now (maybe someone more knowledgeable on this subject can pitch in, now, or when the time comes for the ceratospian series), but in Triceratops' case, although not yet published, there are distinctive impressions from the Lane specimen, and I've seen several instances where its been suggested (and depecicted), that it may not have had quills due the way its integument possibly was, though again its as of now unpublished, so take that as you will (Saurian's current Triceratops design does not incorporate them: http://arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Saurian-Triceratops-Lifecycle-589354279. I know there's also this article by Mark Witton that discusses the Lane impressions: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html).

I'm sure they'll look awesome either way, when the time comes, as your model kits and both the JP Pachyrhinosaurus and the sadly scrapped JP Styracosaurus have proven to be so far (not to mention this very line as well). I apologize for the long post as well.

[Sim]

I don't think the 2017 Wild Safari Velociraptor and Microraptor are more accurate or better than the Beasts of the Mesozoic versions.  I think these Velo and Micro from both Safari and BotM are by far the best toy representations of these dromaeosaurids in terms of looking like the animals when they were alive.  I think they are all very good figures, and I don't think any is entirely better than the other.  Going by photos of these figures, these are my opinions...:


Velociraptor

- I think the wing feathers are better on the Safari figure than the BotM figure, since they are bigger.  Are they big enough for Velociraptor though?  As mentioned earlier, Velociraptor has quill knobs, and dromaeosaurid feather impressions show their wings could get very big.  I think the available evidence is showing clearly that Velociraptor most likely had larger wing feathers than the 2017 Safari figure.  I think the wings of Velociraptor probably looked similar to the wings of Zhenyuanlong.

- Mark Witton has written this excellent blog post about how likely it might be that a prehistoric animal had exposed teeth when the mouth was closed: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/exposed-teeth-in-dinosaurs-sabre-tooths.html  The Safari Velociraptor looks like it doesn't have lips, so it would have exposed teeth when the mouth is closed.  I don't think this is plausible for Velociraptor.  The BotM Velociraptor will have lips, which allow its teeth to be covered when the mouth is closed, so I think this is one area where it's better than the Safari figure.


Microraptor

- I think the feathering on the back half of the head, the neck and the body is better and more convincing on the Safari figure than the BotM figure, due to being greater in extent.

- Microraptor was a small animal that lived in a rather cold climate.  Its forelimbs were adapted for flight with very long primary feathers attaching to its second fingers, and alula feathers attaching to its first fingers.  Why then would the rest of Microraptor's fingers be bare like on the Safari figure?  In the paper about mummified Cretaceous bird wings found in amber, it was shown the clawed finger of one of the birds is covered in feathers even where it's bare on the Safari Microraptor, as seen in photo c here: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12089/figures/3
I don't find it convincing that in life Microraptor's fingers were bare like on the Safari figure.  The BotM Microraptor has fully feathered fingers, so in this area I think it's better than the Safari figure.

- The claws on the Safari Microraptor are very blunt and look quite blobby.   Not all dinosaur toys have their claws reduced to the same extent, so it's possible to compare claws of figures for accuracy.  If the claws of the BotM Microraptor resemble what has been shown in photos of it so far, then they will definitely be more accurate than the Safari Microraptor's.


I think in 2017 it will be possible to have a Velociraptor figure that's more accurate than the 2017 Safari Velo and the BotM Velo...  If one uses the Beasts of the Mesozoic Build-A-Raptor sets to build a Velociraptor with the Zhenyuanlong primaries and secondaries, and the feathered hands parts.  Result: A Velociraptor with lips, huge wings and fully feathered hands. 

[Shadowknight1]

Nice analyses Sim.  I'm getting both versions of both animals, so doesn't bug me.  Though personally,  I prefer the colors of David's Micro better.  Something about the bright yellow on the WS Micro is slightly offputting.  But only slightly.

[Flaffy]

Thanks Sim!
I plan to get the BotM velociraptor after the revisions in the second production run (if it happens).
What about the tail feathers of the velociraptor? Did it have a small(ish) tail fan like the BotM one? Or did it have something that resembles the safari version?

[stargatedalek]

A bit off focus, but the Saurian Triceratops does incorporate the Lane impressions (at least the art does I don't recall if the in game model does). The exact shape the impressions would have formed in life is unclear and Saurian chose to depict them as round domes.

[Faelrin]

I remember there being a post on dinogoss about the wings and tail styles (they even mention the BotM back when the campaign was still on). Here's the post: http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2016/05/youre-doing-it-wrong-microraptor-tails.html I tried bringing this up before, but it was overlooked, probably because I might not have linked this post. I'd like to make a custom some day using that Zhenyuanlong tail. A shame only two make use of that gorgeous tail, far too late to gripe about that now. Maybe if the larger scale raptors are done then maybe they could make use of it, or rather something similar to it. The Safari Velociraptor may be ahead in this regard. Also of note, the Saurian Dakotaraptor also makes use of this style of tail.

On the topic of the Lane impressions, while I hope there will be something published on them prior to the ceratopsian series, would it be justified to use those as a reference for the Triceratops? I already made note of it and that they were unpublished in my kickstarter comment. Also what's the thoughts on the Psittacosaurus integument being on the larger ceratopsians, if he were to go with that? I think they may look fine on a Protoceratops, but may be out of place on something that already has a prominent display structure (frills and horns). I know there's no evidence for or against right them right now being on larger ceratopsians, except potentially Triceratops (unless there is evidence for it on the larger ceratopsians, then I want corrected).