David Silvas New Kickstarter: Articulated Dinosaur TOYS

[Dobber]

I keep thinking it looks like it is wearing on old medieval executioners hood.

Chris

[Silvanusaurus]

I keep thinking it looks like it is wearing on old medieval executioners hood.

Chris

I cannot unsee it now. I guess someone had to do all that killin'... the dinosaurs took public execution too far and now look at them.
Really makes you think...   

[Dobber]

I keep thinking it looks like it is wearing on old medieval executioners hood.

Chris

I cannot unsee it now. I guess someone had to do all that killin'... the dinosaurs took public execution too far and now look at them.
Really makes you think...

I know right? Once you see it it can't be unseen! 

I think I'm leaning more towards the Fans choice version now. Previewed here:



Chris

[LophoLeeVT]

the zhejulong looks fine to me....

[Silvanusaurus]

I know right? Once you see it it can't be unseen! 

I think I'm leaning more towards the Fans choice version now. Previewed here:



Chris

The colours on that version look much more appealing to me. Also, is that the Dromaeosaurus in the bottom left image?

[Dinoguy2]

Guys, dromaeosaurids don't have beaks!  There was a discussion about this on page 27 of this thread (starting in Reply #520  and ending in Reply #526).

Although, while we're on that topic... What bothers me quite a bit in this series is how on some of the figures the snout gets noticeably darker at the front, which seems to be inspired by the beaks of some birds.  I find this doesn't translate well to beakless dromaeosaurids and it makes them look a lot like they have a beak or a mammal nose.  The figures I find this is very noticeable in are the Tsaagan and Velociraptor osmolskae (blue one), and in some photos of it, the original Dromaeosaurus (brown one).  I think it's possible to have the snout get darker at the front in a way that doesn't make these animals look like they have a beak or a mammal nose, which I think is achieved in some of the figures, including the original Dromaeosaurus in some photos.

I've found it hard to tell how the darker colouration on the original Dromaeosaurus's snout actually looks like.  In some photos it looks like the same colouration runs all the way down its snout and it looks great! E.g.: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoNxHicWIAAKNM3.jpg:large
In other photos it looks like it abruptly becomes much darker right at the start of the upper jaw which gives it a beak/mammal-nose look that spoils the figure for me.
Example 1: https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/013/162/796/00d8ed5f0e2e960b7a740069ed8fd656_original.JPG?w=639&fit=max&v=1469415137&auto=format&q=92&s=6f353f7969bb0598bed715bfdad7712f
Example 2: https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/013/162/803/79a5ff26b58d924ba589470594c404bd_original.JPG?w=639&fit=max&v=1469415182&auto=format&q=92&s=eac9ada0ff44c09f459f66022af33bb5
In the comments on the Kickstarter update, I asked David for confirmation on what the colouration of the Dromaeosaurus's snout actually looks like since it's one I've been (really) wanting to get.  David replied that he'll include some more pics of Dromaeosaurus in the next update.  A new photo of it he posted on Facebook has been helpful to get a better idea of how its snout looks and I'm hopeful there's a good chance it has a look I like.

Yeah, looks like the final nail in the coffin of ol' Zhenyuanlong for me. Without the uniqueness of being extra feathery and bird-ish it doesn't really seem to stand out any more.

I actually find the Zhenyuanlong's bare lips extending back past the snout feathers makes it look extra bird-ish.  It definitely looks much more bird-ish than it did in the concept art!

Just like there was no way he was going to have big feathers on the upper arm like in Jonathan's artwork.

Wouldn't the Zhenyuanlong figure have been inaccurate if it had those big feathers on the upper arm?  It was mentioned earlier in this thread the Zhenyuanlong fossil shows it didn't have such large feathers on the upper arm, in Reply #499: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3573.msg138772#msg138772

And I'd have the pupil facing towards the front of the snout, but that's just personal preference.

In dinosaurs, the pupil would be held in the center at all times by the sclerotic ring with only a little wiggle room.  How much the pupil faces towards the front of the snout would therefore be dependent on the direction the eye sockets face.

Disappointed with the zhenyuanlong... I loved the original concept art, adored the package art, but the figure... It feels rushed and incomplete.

Well, the Zhenyuanlong is incomplete in that photo.  The description for that photo on Facebook is: "Putting the final touches on the Zhenyuanlong prototype now. More pics soon!"

And what's with that random tuff of white on its head?

The bird that's the inspiration for the Zhenyuanlong's colouration has it too...: https://fryap.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/red-billed-blue-magpie-status-in-singapore/

Concerning the feathers on the upper arm, I was talking about the humerus feathers, which it lacked. The "upper arm" in the package art is the ulna. The humerus is flush with the torso in the package art and not even visible. So the long upper feathers people are talking about are the secondaries. In Zhen, the secondaries are almost equally long as the primaries, as shown in both the package art and fossil. The figure has the same Microrsptor-shaped wings as all the other figures, with long pointed primaries and short secondaries (this shape makes sense for a flying animal, not so much for display in a ground species).

So yeah, the wings are demonstrably and totally inaccurate in the Zhen figure. Disappointing since it's one I bought. I wouldn't care about the articulation as it would probably not be that mobile in life anyway. Not a deal breaker for me since in my opinion the rings are the worst part of all these figures, I just had picked Zhen since I thought it had the best chance of actually having accurate dromaeosaurid wings since they are completely I on and you could just copy the fossil. So while all the figures are probably inaccurate based on inference, Zhen is now the only one that's definitely inaccurate based on evidence.

Oh well.

[Nanuqsaurus]

I know right? Once you see it it can't be unseen! 

I think I'm leaning more towards the Fans choice version now. Previewed here:



Chris

The colours on that version look much more appealing to me. Also, is that the Dromaeosaurus in the bottom left image?

The fans choice colors on the Zhenyanlong look better indeed. And yeah that's the fans choice Dromaeosaurus too! It's beautiful! Archeroraptor looks great as well.

[Flaffy]

Poor old Zhen... Should we tell David about the wings? I really had high hopes for Zhen...

[Dinoguy2]

Poor old Zhen... Should we tell David about the wings? I really had high hopes for Zhen...

Presumably he knows because he said it was for articulation purposes. Not sure why though, the secondary feathers should slide over the primaries just as easily no matter how long they are. It's just a hinge joint.

(I actually just changed my order on Backerkit from Zhen to a Tsaagan, which I always liked partly because it's now the only one without Microraptor wings. At least the unique feather style implies it was doing something related to display even if they're not that large. If I'm paying $50 each for feathered dinosaur toys I'd like them to be accurate).

[Sim]

I still maintain that that was largely an argument of semantics and that dromaeosaurs could reasonably be described as possessing beaks. Note I mentioned hardened skin similar to armored catfish in my initial comment before being reaffirmed that they had, well, hardened skin...

I'd meant to bring it up at the time but I think this thread slipped my mind.

Well, I've never seen any expert say dromaeosaurids had beaks.  A distinction appears to be made between hardened/cornified skin, and beaks.

[Dinoguy2]

I still maintain that that was largely an argument of semantics and that dromaeosaurs could reasonably be described as possessing beaks. Note I mentioned hardened skin similar to armored catfish in my initial comment before being reaffirmed that they had, well, hardened skin...

I'd meant to bring it up at the time but I think this thread slipped my mind.

Well, I've never seen any expert say dromaeosaurids had beaks.  A distinction appears to be made between hardened/cornified skin, and beaks.

Exactly. Crocodile heads are completely covered in keratinized skin. Nobody says crocs have beaks. It's not an argument of semantics, it's an argument of definition. You think cornfield skin should count as a beak, but it already has its own name and nobody uses the word beak that way.

[Patrx]

It's interesting, regardless of weather the artist goes for bare skin, keratinized skin, or even reticulae on the snout the feathering on the face always seems to terminate in an position along the snout analogous to a beak. But, isn't it just as likely that short feathers continued all the way along the snout, perhaps excluding the area around the external nares? That's how the fur of most mammals works, no?

[Dinoguy2]

It's interesting, regardless of weather the artist goes for bare skin, keratinized skin, or even reticulae on the snout the feathering on the face always seems to terminate in an position along the snout analogous to a beak. But, isn't it just as likely that short feathers continued all the way along the snout, perhaps excluding the area around the external nares? That's how the fur of most mammals works, no?

Yes, and some fossils show the feathering exactly as you say, like Sinornithosaurus. People draw it terminating just past the orbit because they're copying people who copied people who copied Greg Paul, who started drawing it this was to make them look more bird like long before actual feathered dinosaurs were ever discovered.

In other words, like many things in paleoart, it's a meme from the 80s that refuses to die.

[Patrx]

It's interesting, regardless of whether the artist goes for bare skin, keratinized skin, or even reticulae on the snout the feathering on the face always seems to terminate in a position analogous to a beak. But, isn't it just as likely that short feathers continued all the way along the snout, perhaps excluding the area around the external nares?

Yes, and some fossils show the feathering exactly as you say, like Sinornithosaurus. People draw it terminating just past the orbit because they're copying people who copied people who copied Greg Paul, who started drawing it this was to make them look more bird like long before actual feathered dinosaurs were ever discovered.

In other words, like many things in paleoart, it's a meme from the 80s that refuses to die.

Alas, even if it does eventually fade out of style in most paleoart, toys and sculptures will probably hold to it even longer. It seems some of these figures could be said to have "gotten it right", though - or, at least, pretty close!

[stargatedalek]

It's interesting, regardless of weather the artist goes for bare skin, keratinized skin, or even reticulae on the snout the feathering on the face always seems to terminate in an position along the snout analogous to a beak. But, isn't it just as likely that short feathers continued all the way along the snout, perhaps excluding the area around the external nares? That's how the fur of most mammals works, no?

Yes, and some fossils show the feathering exactly as you say, like Sinornithosaurus. People draw it terminating just past the orbit because they're copying people who copied people who copied Greg Paul, who started drawing it this was to make them look more bird like long before actual feathered dinosaurs were ever discovered.

In other words, like many things in paleoart, it's a meme from the 80s that refuses to die.

While I would consider it a trope, it's far from a meme. A meme is something with no basis in fact spread purely via reuse. Several different people in several different decades have individually come to the conclusion of the bird-like facial covering for dromaeosaurs because they were bird like in other ways. It's far better than depicting bald headed vulture-like dromaeosaurs, for which evidence is actually stacked against (this evidence coming from vultures).

Looking at Sinornithosaurus I actually get a different impression. To me these feathers running along the top of the snout look similar to the dip seen along the dorsal surface of some modern birds beaks. To me this looks similar but more extreme.

The best photo I could find was of this goose, but I think it should still suffice.

I still maintain that that was largely an argument of semantics and that dromaeosaurs could reasonably be described as possessing beaks. Note I mentioned hardened skin similar to armored catfish in my initial comment before being reaffirmed that they had, well, hardened skin...

I'd meant to bring it up at the time but I think this thread slipped my mind.

Well, I've never seen any expert say dromaeosaurids had beaks.  A distinction appears to be made between hardened/cornified skin, and beaks.

Exactly. Crocodile heads are completely covered in keratinized skin. Nobody says crocs have beaks. It's not an argument of semantics, it's an argument of definition. You think cornfield skin should count as a beak, but it already has its own name and nobody uses the word beak that way.

I concede, even learned something new about crocodiles!

[Sim]

Concerning the feathers on the upper arm, I was talking about the humerus feathers, which it lacked. The "upper arm" in the package art is the ulna. The humerus is flush with the torso in the package art and not even visible. So the long upper feathers people are talking about are the secondaries. In Zhen, the secondaries are almost equally long as the primaries, as shown in both the package art and fossil. The figure has the same Microrsptor-shaped wings as all the other figures, with long pointed primaries and short secondaries (this shape makes sense for a flying animal, not so much for display in a ground species).

So yeah, the wings are demonstrably and totally inaccurate in the Zhen figure. Disappointing since it's one I bought. I wouldn't care about the articulation as it would probably not be that mobile in life anyway. Not a deal breaker for me since in my opinion the rings are the worst part of all these figures, I just had picked Zhen since I thought it had the best chance of actually having accurate dromaeosaurid wings since they are completely I on and you could just copy the fossil. So while all the figures are probably inaccurate based on inference, Zhen is now the only one that's definitely inaccurate based on evidence.

Oh well.

I had noticed the humerus wasn't visible in the package art.  "Upper arm" means the humerus area though, and when I compared the package art to the fossil it looked like the two large arm feathers closest to its body could be on the humerus.  So when having big feathers on the upper arm like in Jonathan's artwork was mentioned, I thought this meant the large feathers continuing onto the humerus.  I may have misunderstood what others were referring to by "upper arm"!

I personally don't think the wings on the figures from this series are so bad..  These photos are of the Zhenyuanlong/Balaur wings with the Balaur hands.  I think some show the wings directly from above or below: https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/012/727/857/0c6530f3ed2e1e543ab0f6cf0f6c9deb_original.jpg?w=639&fit=max&v=1465822656&auto=format&q=92&s=de6702d186b9a191fc1fab6d95be6195

[Dinoguy2]

Concerning the feathers on the upper arm, I was talking about the humerus feathers, which it lacked. The "upper arm" in the package art is the ulna. The humerus is flush with the torso in the package art and not even visible. So the long upper feathers people are talking about are the secondaries. In Zhen, the secondaries are almost equally long as the primaries, as shown in both the package art and fossil. The figure has the same Microrsptor-shaped wings as all the other figures, with long pointed primaries and short secondaries (this shape makes sense for a flying animal, not so much for display in a ground species).

So yeah, the wings are demonstrably and totally inaccurate in the Zhen figure. Disappointing since it's one I bought. I wouldn't care about the articulation as it would probably not be that mobile in life anyway. Not a deal breaker for me since in my opinion the rings are the worst part of all these figures, I just had picked Zhen since I thought it had the best chance of actually having accurate dromaeosaurid wings since they are completely I on and you could just copy the fossil. So while all the figures are probably inaccurate based on inference, Zhen is now the only one that's definitely inaccurate based on evidence.

Oh well.

I had noticed the humerus wasn't visible in the package art.  "Upper arm" means the humerus area though, and when I compared the package art to the fossil it looked like the two large arm feathers closest to its body could be on the humerus.  So when having big feathers on the upper arm like in Jonathan's artwork was mentioned, I thought this meant the large feathers continuing onto the humerus.  I may have misunderstood what others were referring to by "upper arm"!

I personally don't think the wings on the figures from this series are so bad..  These photos are of the Zhenyuanlong/Balaur wings with the Balaur hands.  I think some show the wings directly from above or below: https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/012/727/857/0c6530f3ed2e1e543ab0f6cf0f6c9deb_original.jpg?w=639&fit=max&v=1465822656&auto=format&q=92&s=de6702d186b9a191fc1fab6d95be6195

The problem with the Zhen wings is the proportions. Look at the fossil: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhenyuanlong#/media/File%3AZhenyuanlong.jpg

Notice that the shortest wing feathers trace back to the elbow area. The SHORTEST wing feathers are a little more than half the length of the entire arm. Notice the secondaries on the ulna get steadily longer towards the hand. Now look at the secondary feathers closest to the wrist. They're just as long as most of the primaries, making the whole wing rounded, not long and pointed, in shape.

Finally, notice the length of the longest primaries. They're longer than the entire torso!

The wings on the figure have tiny secondaries that actually get smaller towards the hand, and the entire wing is way too small compared to the body. Zhenyuanlong should have wing proportions more like Archaeopteryx.

(And yes, I notice it to: the wings are wrong on both the package art and the concept art, not just the figure. Continuing the long paleoart tradition of drawing based on preconceptions rather than Googling the fossil).

[Shadowknight1]

I love that the complaining about the wing is happening now when it's far too late to do anything about it.  David already stated that Balaur/Zhenyuanlong would have the longest wings because any longer and they'd hinder arm movement because they'd hit the "ground".  And if you're a backer, why haven't you brought this up on the Kickstarter page where David frequently reads and responds to comments?

*pats Zhen on the head* Don't worry, I like you just how you are.

[Flaffy]

So is zhenyuanlong the only raptor in the series that is heavily inaccurate?
So which raptor in the entire series is the most accurate?

[Dinoguy2]

I love that the complaining about the wing is happening now when it's far too late to do anything about it.  David already stated that Balaur/Zhenyuanlong would have the longest wings because any longer and they'd hinder arm movement because they'd hit the "ground".  And if you're a backer, why haven't you brought this up on the Kickstarter page where David frequently reads and responds to comments?

I remember the post about Zhen and Balaur getting the same wings. Maybe I didn't read it closely enough because for some reason I thought he meant Balaur was getting bigger wings, not Zhen getting smaller wings.

The funny thing is that the issue of the wings hitting the ground mirrors an issue actual paleontologists have written about. We know for a fact that the wings were this long, so how did these animals keep them from hitting the ground? We might be imagining their "standard" poses all wrong. Also, the wings probably did significantly limit arm movement in life. So even the desire to give them super articulated arms in the first place is probably inaccurate.

Like you say, it's a little too late now to bring it up on the KS page so why bother him? I already changed my choice. Just airing my disappointment.

So is zhenyuanlong the only raptor in the series that is heavily inaccurate?
So which raptor in the entire series is the most accurate?

The thing is that Zhen is the only dromaeosaurid that's not a microraptorian where we know what the feathers looked like at all, for certain. The other raptors in the series are probably just as inaccurate, but there's no proof that's the case. What makes Zhen different is that there's an actual fossil you can look at to prove it's inaccurate. http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2016/05/youre-doing-it-wrong-microraptor-tails.html

In terms of skeletal anatomy, they're all accurate AFAIK. It's the feather and wing anatomy that's an issue. Baler's skeletal anatomy was off when it was first announced and I know David has adjusted a few things to make it better. I haven't gone back again to compare it to the fossil and see how much more accurate it is now, so that one might still be the most inaccurate depending on changes to its proportions (did he only fix the toe issue?).