What Would You Like To See From CollectA In 2016?

[suspsy]

Dinosaurs

-definitely a Supreme class Yi qi first and foremost.

-a Triceratops based on the Lane specimen with spines. And no, not a single line down the back that we've become accustomed to from CollectA, but spread out all over the back just like in renditions by Julius Csotonyi, John Conway, Mark Witton, and Luis V. Rey:



-Deluxe Brontosaurus
-Deluxe Troodon
-Deluxe Gallimimus
-Deluxe Deinocheirus

Sea Monsters
-Kronosaurus
-Archelon
-C. megalodon (one that doesn't look like a great white shark)

Mammals
-Arctodus
-Basilosaurus
-Elasmotherium
-Gigantopithecus
-Megatherium

[DinoLord]

I'd love to see more hadrosaurs from them. The Olorotitan and Tsintaosaurus ( ) are both great figures.

[suspsy]

I'd love to see more hadrosaurs from them. The Olorotitan and Tsintaosaurus ( ) are both great figures.

True that. The Deluxe Parasaurolophus is also superb. I love how fat and chunky it is.

A Deluxe Magnapaulia or Shantungosaurus would be swell.

[Concavenator]

This topic is pointless.We already have the 2016 hopes and dreams thread.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Dinosaurs

-definitely a Supreme class Yi qi first and foremost.

-a Triceratops based on the Lane specimen with quills. And no, not a single line down the spine that we've become accustomed to from CollectA, but spread out all over the back just like in renditions by Julius Csotonyi, John Conway, Mark Witton, and Luis V. Rey:



-Deluxe Brontosaurus
-Deluxe Troodon
-Deluxe Gallimimus
-Deluxe Deinocheirus

Sea Monsters
-Kronosaurus
-Archelon
-C. megalodon (one that doesn't look like a great white shark)

Mammals
-Arctodus
-Basilosaurus
-Elasmotherium
-Gigantopithecus
-Megatherium

Incidentally to clarify, the "Lane" specimen also does not have quills at all. It has a set of impressions from the dinosaurs upper rear pelvic area showing scales, and some of the larger ones have a raised area in the center that Bob Bakker SPECULATED could possibly be attachment points for quills. We can reasonably be sure they were not , as the quill structures found in psittacosaurus pentrated below the skin almost to the vert centrums within the tail, and was the only reason someone might possibly even suggest it is possible that a ceratopsian like triceratops might have had quills for any reason. The psittacosaurus specimen does not have quills rising from a raised area of the scale, so you could as easily propose that ceratopsians had wings , or for that matter were mammals. While you can argue there is no evidence proving they did not exist, by the same argument, there is zero evidence to suggest they should be there...

[suspsy]

Oh, absolutely the quills in that depiction by Rey (and other such depictions) are speculative. I don't believe there's a single expert or enthusiast out there who claims otherwise. But by the same token, if the criteria for creating reconstructions of dinosaurs was restricted to what can ONLY be proven by direct fossil evidence, then a lot of them would still be reduced to nothing more than a small pile of fossil bone fragments. And how boring and lifeless that would be.

Dinosaur art, whether it is in the form of a portrait, a life-sized statue, or a plastic toy, will always be largely speculative. And that's part of what makes it so vivid and imaginative and fun. Quills on a depiction of Lane aren't hurting anyone. If they did, then Rey and Csotonyi would be out of work. And they're certainly in the same category as structures such as wings (which would require actual bones).

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Oh, absolutely the quills in that depiction by Rey (and other such depictions) are speculative. I don't believe there's a single expert or enthusiast out there who claims otherwise. But by the same token, if the criteria for creating reconstructions of dinosaurs was restricted to what can ONLY be proven by direct fossil evidence, then a lot of them would still be reduced to nothing more than a small pile of fossil bone fragments. And how boring and lifeless that would be.

Dinosaur art, whether it is in the form of a portrait, a life-sized statue, or a plastic toy, will always be largely speculative. And that's part of what makes it so vivid and imaginative and fun. Quills on a depiction of Lane aren't hurting anyone. If they did, then Rey and Csotonyi would be out of work. And they're certainly in the same category as structures such as wings (which would require actual bones).

I myself think  there is a huge difference between using current speculative art and art that was created when we understood the science less well. We now have a rather good understanding of psittacosaurus quills and we also have a good understanding that Lane likely did not have quills....and certainly not as psittacosaurus did. By the logic you are offering we should continue offering tail dragging theropods and sauropods with legs that angled away from their bodies...because there is nothing wrong with speculative art of course. I am not so sure I agree with the idea that creating inaccurate depictions does not hurt anyone....creating and enforcing false ideas about dinosaurs is misinfomative and does cause misunderstandings that someone then has to work to correct, educate and repair. Even then I see nothing wrong with books that offer speculative art, as long as they make the effort to understand that is what you are being given. Offering models and soliciting people to make inaccurate models just so someone can say oh that looks cool is not particularly productive. And for the record, you might go ask Julius Cstonyi if he would portray a ceratopsian today with quills.....I can tell you on Facebook the Ceratopsian page that is run by perhaps one of the foremost Paleos on ceratopsian dinosaurs, requests people NOT to post images and work that portray ceratopsians with as he calls them "whiskers". For most at least quills on ceratopsian dinosaurs are a dead issue and certainly do not belong in accurate representations of any kind. As I said before, if you wish to speculate do so wildly..give them wings, or make them aquatic like they did with psittacosaurus, or perhaps portray them as tree dwellers as was also done with psittacosaurus. Make speculative art speculative, not a trashbag of disproven science.

[suspsy]

Oh, absolutely the quills in that depiction by Rey (and other such depictions) are speculative. I don't believe there's a single expert or enthusiast out there who claims otherwise. But by the same token, if the criteria for creating reconstructions of dinosaurs was restricted to what can ONLY be proven by direct fossil evidence, then a lot of them would still be reduced to nothing more than a small pile of fossil bone fragments. And how boring and lifeless that would be.

Dinosaur art, whether it is in the form of a portrait, a life-sized statue, or a plastic toy, will always be largely speculative. And that's part of what makes it so vivid and imaginative and fun. Quills on a depiction of Lane aren't hurting anyone. If they did, then Rey and Csotonyi would be out of work. And they're certainly in the same category as structures such as wings (which would require actual bones).

I myself think  there is a huge difference between using current speculative art and art that was created when we understood the science less well. We now have a rather good understanding of psittacosaurus quills and we also have a good understanding that Lane likely did not have quills....and certainly not as psittacosaurus did.

In other words, the possibility of the Lane Triceratops' quills remains open. It's a well-known fact that you don't like the idea, and I respect you for that, but neither you nor anyone else can offer up decisive evidence to disprove the existence of such structures altogether. For my part, I can't offer up any decisive evidence to support their existence, but as I noted before, it's a matter of speculation. If paleontologists like Bakker and Witton and various paleoartists are cool with it, that's good enough for me.

By the logic you are offering we should continue offering tail dragging theropods and sauropods with legs that angled away from their bodies...because there is nothing wrong with speculative art of course.

I'm afraid there's no logic to that comparison. Tail and limb positioning are based on decades of studying actual bones, whereas speculative quills fall in the same category as amount of feathers, colouration, and body fat.

I am not so sure I agree with the idea that creating inaccurate depictions does not hurt anyone....creating and enforcing false ideas about dinosaurs is misinfomative and does cause misunderstandings that someone then has to work to correct, educate and repair.

I understand your reasoning. Goodness knows I've been very harsh on Jurassic World for precisely the reason you described. But correcting or discarding old ideas in the light of new evidence has been happening in paleontology since its very inception. Just look at all the Spinosaurus art and toys that have been rendered obsolete over the years. It's part of the job.

Even then I see nothing wrong with books that offer speculative art, as long as they make the effort to understand that is what you are being given.

And that would ultimately be every dinosaur book ever published. It is all speculative art to some degree.

And for the record, you might go ask Julius Cstonyi if he would portray a ceratopsian today with quills.

I did, last year when I met him in Ottawa. He was at the National Mint promoting the series of dinosaur stamps he had done for Canada Post. And when I asked him, he cited the Lane fossil as his inspiration. And even if I hadn't met him, there's the fact that his quilled Lane art has appeared in numerous books, including this year's Prehistoric Predators by Brian Switek. For that matter, it also features prominently in the Hall of Paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

..I can tell you on Facebook the Ceratopsian page that is run by perhaps one of the foremost Paleos on ceratopsian dinosaurs, requests people NOT to post images and work that portray ceratopsians with as he calls them "whiskers". For most at least quills on ceratopsian dinosaurs are a dead issue and certainly do not belong in accurate representations of any kind. As I said before, if you wish to speculate do so wildly..give them wings

A Facebook page isn't the final authority on the issue of ceratopsid quills. I grant you that it's purely speculative, but unless there exists a fossil or a study that decisively disproves it, it remains an open possibility. And in the mean time it looks neat. And again, it's really not hurting anyone.

And the wings comparison doesn't fly (no pun intended) as I explained earlier.

or make them aquatic like they did with psittacosaurus, or perhaps portray them as tree dwellers as was also done with psittacosaurus. Make speculative art speculative, not a trashbag of disproven science.

Except it's not disproven science.

[stargatedalek]

I myself think  there is a huge difference between using current speculative art and art that was created when we understood the science less well. We now have a rather good understanding of psittacosaurus quills and we also have a good understanding that Lane likely did not have quills....and certainly not as psittacosaurus did.

In other words, the possibility of the Lane Triceratops' quills remains open. It's a well-known fact that you don't like the idea, and I respect you for that, but neither you nor anyone else can offer up decisive evidence to disprove the existence of such structures altogether. For my part, I can't offer up any decisive evidence to support their existence, but as I noted before, it's a matter of speculation. If paleontologists like Bakker and Witton and various paleoartists are cool with it, that's good enough for me.

No offense but that isn't even vaguely what he said.

I myself think  there is a huge difference between using current speculative art and art that was created when we understood the science less well. We now have a rather good understanding of psittacosaurus quills and we also have a good understanding that Lane likely did not have quills....and certainly not as psittacosaurus did.

Absolutely none of this is at all suggesting what you have insinuated.

I'm afraid there's no logic to that comparison. Tail and limb positioning are based on decades of studying actual bones, whereas speculative quills fall in the same category as amount of feathers, colouration, and body fat.

That they most certainly do not, or rather at least not in this case. If you want to speculate how far the quills might have covered Psittacosaurus than yes, that would be in the name of reasonable speculation. But the scaled integument of derived ceratopsians shows us, with a 100% certainty, that they could not have sported dermal quills such as Psittacosaurus. The logic in his comparison is that to give derived ceratopsians dermal quills is something that is truly outdated, proven false by the evidence, just as the idea of leg sprawling sauropods has been.

I did, last year when I met him in Ottawa. He was at the National Mint promoting the series of dinosaur stamps he had done for Canada Post. And when I asked him, he cited the Lane fossil as his inspiration. And even if I hadn't met him, there's the fact that his quilled Lane art has appeared in numerous books, including this year's Prehistoric Predators by Brian Switek. For that matter, it also features prominently in the Hall of Paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

A brief Google search only turned up this piece of art by Csotonyi. Do you by any chance have an example of this piece? I'm very intrigued to see it.

A Facebook page isn't the final authority on the issue of ceratopsid quills. I grant you that it's purely speculative, but unless there exists a fossil or a study that decisively disproves it, it remains an open possibility. And in the mean time it looks neat. And again, it's really not hurting anyone.

And the wings comparison doesn't fly (no pun intended) as I explained earlier.

Except that as both of us have tried to say multiple times in the past there are numerous fossils that actively disprove the idea of dermal spines. I do believe that you yourself have said that it does hurt people:

Goodness knows I've been very harsh on Jurassic World for precisely the reason you described. But correcting or discarding old ideas in the light of new evidence has been happening in paleontology since its very inception. Just look at all the Spinosaurus art and toys that have been rendered obsolete over the years. It's part of the job.

If it "hurts" people to show naked raptors in a monster movie, than surely it must be a grave offense to show an integument form that is physically impossible in media claiming to be accurate. "Wings" wasn't a comparison at all, its metaphorical. I have no comment on the Facebook thing, I don't use Facebook unless prompted to.


The Lane specimen in no way suggests quills. What the specimen shows evidence of are enlarged scale structures, like those of a moloch lizard.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Oh, absolutely the quills in that depiction by Rey (and other such depictions) are speculative. I don't believe there's a single expert or enthusiast out there who claims otherwise. But by the same token, if the criteria for creating reconstructions of dinosaurs was restricted to what can ONLY be proven by direct fossil evidence, then a lot of them would still be reduced to nothing more than a small pile of fossil bone fragments. And how boring and lifeless that would be.

Dinosaur art, whether it is in the form of a portrait, a life-sized statue, or a plastic toy, will always be largely speculative. And that's part of what makes it so vivid and imaginative and fun. Quills on a depiction of Lane aren't hurting anyone. If they did, then Rey and Csotonyi would be out of work. And they're certainly in the same category as structures such as wings (which would require actual bones).

I myself think  there is a huge difference between using current speculative art and art that was created when we understood the science less well. We now have a rather good understanding of psittacosaurus quills and we also have a good understanding that Lane likely did not have quills....and certainly not as psittacosaurus did.

In other words, the possibility of the Lane Triceratops' quills remains open. It's a well-known fact that you don't like the idea, and I respect you for that, but neither you nor anyone else can offer up decisive evidence to disprove the existence of such structures altogether. For my part, I can't offer up any decisive evidence to support their existence, but as I noted before, it's a matter of speculation. If paleontologists like Bakker and Witton and various paleoartists are cool with it, that's good enough for me.

By the logic you are offering we should continue offering tail dragging theropods and sauropods with legs that angled away from their bodies...because there is nothing wrong with speculative art of course.

I'm afraid there's no logic to that comparison. Tail and limb positioning are based on decades of studying actual bones, whereas speculative quills fall in the same category as amount of feathers, colouration, and body fat.

I am not so sure I agree with the idea that creating inaccurate depictions does not hurt anyone....creating and enforcing false ideas about dinosaurs is misinfomative and does cause misunderstandings that someone then has to work to correct, educate and repair.

I understand your reasoning. Goodness knows I've been very harsh on Jurassic World for precisely the reason you described. But correcting or discarding old ideas in the light of new evidence has been happening in paleontology since its very inception. Just look at all the Spinosaurus art and toys that have been rendered obsolete over the years. It's part of the job.

Even then I see nothing wrong with books that offer speculative art, as long as they make the effort to understand that is what you are being given.

And that would ultimately be every dinosaur book ever published. It is all speculative art to some degree.

And for the record, you might go ask Julius Cstonyi if he would portray a ceratopsian today with quills.

I did, last year when I met him in Ottawa. He was at the National Mint promoting the series of dinosaur stamps he had done for Canada Post. And when I asked him, he cited the Lane fossil as his inspiration. And even if I hadn't met him, there's the fact that his quilled Lane art has appeared in numerous books, including this year's Prehistoric Predators by Brian Switek. For that matter, it also features prominently in the Hall of Paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

..I can tell you on Facebook the Ceratopsian page that is run by perhaps one of the foremost Paleos on ceratopsian dinosaurs, requests people NOT to post images and work that portray ceratopsians with as he calls them "whiskers". For most at least quills on ceratopsian dinosaurs are a dead issue and certainly do not belong in accurate representations of any kind. As I said before, if you wish to speculate do so wildly..give them wings

A Facebook page isn't the final authority on the issue of ceratopsid quills. I grant you that it's purely speculative, but unless there exists a fossil or a study that decisively disproves it, it remains an open possibility. And in the mean time it looks neat. And again, it's really not hurting anyone.

And the wings comparison doesn't fly (no pun intended) as I explained earlier.

or make them aquatic like they did with psittacosaurus, or perhaps portray them as tree dwellers as was also done with psittacosaurus. Make speculative art speculative, not a trashbag of disproven science.

Except it's not disproven science.

                           We have Lane which demonstrates a patch of skin, right in the area Collecta insists on placing their Mohawks, and voila no quills. We have a patch of Lane large enough to fairly definitely say that particular dinosaur had no quills. We also have a psittacosaurus which was the original inspiration for the idea, that has quills that are based inside the flesh of the dinosaur. We can prove that psittacosaurus was not related to more derived ceratopsians. We also have dozens of species of ceratopsian that have left skin and scale impressions...literally dozens if not hundreds from all across the ceratopsian line....no quills...not one...not in any species, not in any fossil, except the unrelated psittacosaurus. Not in any preservational environment, not in any country and not once in perhaps the most numerous genus of dinosaurs researched, has a single quill emerged. ......that is about as definitive as it gets for any theory or dinosaur understanding. Much less science has been used to prove much more in the past, so if at that point you suggest it is not pretty solid then I offer that until a triceratops walks up to your front door with no quills , you will refuse to accept the facts we have about this matter. Denying that science is denialist, and nothing more.



                                              Again quills are not speculative, they do exist for some animals and leave traces in those that DID have them....ie Tianyulong, psittacosaurus etc....where they are not found is dinosaurs that did NOT have them . It has nothing to do with bone positions or anything else..we have quills for a number of dinosaurs.What we dont have is a single quill from any ceratopsian that is more evolved then psittacosaurus period. We base this knowledge on of quilled dinosaurs on decades...of research  That means adding them is not speculative , it is simply holding onto an outdated and clearly inaccurate idea. We do have quills for many animals, just no justification for adding them where you are wanting them.
   




                                                                                                                                               Your quote "
   But correcting or discarding old ideas in the light of new evidence has been happening in paleontology since its very inception. Just look at all the Spinosaurus art and toys that have been rendered obsolete over the years. It's part of the job" You bet it is, even when it disagrees with something you want to add or that you think belongs despite the evidence. I could not have said this better....so apply it here.






             I dont think all dinosaur books offer speculative art, because not all dinosaur books offer reconstructions to start with...that is alot of generalizing and it does not hold water very well. Aside from that , as you stated, " Tail and limb positioning are based on decades of studying actual bones" You cannot argue that is all accurate and then attempt to say the books are not.



     
                              You keep going back to Cstonyi and what he said last year about a piece of art he did a few years prior to that ...but now.....ask him...would he offer quills on a ceratopsian today in a Paleo book seriously, unless the idea was to by its nature be entirely speculative and therefore not likely. I have seen him comment alot on the topic in facebook and I think the answer is..not unless he was asked to. This artwork that was done prior to our understanding of Lane and psittacosaurus and you keep using this as your defense...why not use Burians work to defend various inaccuracies and ask they be portrayed in modern figures? Why not grab some work by Knight and use that as inspiration to make models that are inaccurate? Because the science has moved on past that point ....as it has with portrayals of quilled ceratopsians. That isnt speculative art, it is outdated and has become inaccurate.



                                     Are you kidding regarding studies that disprove quills on ceratopsians? There are dozens of papers demonstrating the preservation of scales and skin but NO quills in everything from triceratops, to styracosaurus to just about any other ceratopsian you might wish to check for. Ceratopsian fossils are among the most numerous fossils of dinosaurs found and distrubuted over a wider geographical area than almost any other type of dinosaur, except perhaps duckbills or sauropods. In fact there are more known types of ceratosians found each year...the past century has seen dozens of them, Aside from this many of them are preserved in massive bonebeds miles long and wide....with multiple skin and scale traces...but no quills. They are found in several countries, and any and every type of depositional environ one can ask for...no quills. Not a single animal, not a single one...but scales and skin yes....often and in multiple species.
                           




                                      As for the facebook page I mentioned I somewhat suggest you bring this entire argument to that page and see what you learn.....I invite you to do so. It is haunted by hundreds of academics in the study of ceratopsians , the world over, and you will not find one (1) single scientist that agrees with the idea of a quilled more derived ceratopsian. The page is open to any and all, and is populated by paleos the world over, many names you would know. 



                                           My example of wings perfectly fits...there is no evidence at all to suggest them..none. Yet I suggest you may as well portray them on triceratops as quills because..precisely the same amount of evidence exists. If you are going to hold onto scientific ideals that are no longer valid, give them sprawling legs, and make them all cold blooded too. You cannot disprove either of those ideas either, but most would agree they arent particularly accurate either.....if quills are not disproven it is only for lack of a photgraph of a Nasutoceratops strolling down the street without them. The science involved is fairly .......heavy in the matter.

[suspsy]

That must have been a very brief Google search indeed, stargatedalek, because when I typed in "Julius Csotonyi Triceratops," this was the third image result:



This was on a personal device, so perhaps the results turn up different on a laptop or desktop. But there it is.

[suspsy]

amargasaurus, is it possible for you to please modify your last post so that's it not all jumbled together in one continuous body? I'm stuck using a device at the moment and it's very difficult to properly respond to a post like that.

[stargatedalek]

Those aren't quills, those are large spines extended from modified scales. Call them quills if you really feel the need to confuse people, but those are very clearly not quills, nor are they in line with CollectA does to their ceratopsians.

[Takama]

Wow, We start a thread about what we want to see from CollectA and we get into an argument about a diffrent Topic.

ADMINS   may we split this out of this thread?  I like to learn more about the Spikes on the backs of Ceratopsians

[suspsy]

Those aren't quills, those are large spines extended from modified scales. Call them quills if you really feel the need to confuse people, but those are very clearly not quills

Funny, that's precisely what Julius referred to them as when I met him. And it's what Rey calls them as well. And it's what the spines on porcupines, hedgehogs, and lionfish are often referred to as.

nor are they in line with CollectA does to their ceratopsians.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point. That's why I'd like to see it in that manner instead.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Those aren't quills, those are large spines extended from modified scales. Call them quills if you really feel the need to confuse people, but those are very clearly not quills

Funny, that's precisely what Julius referred to them as when I met him. And it's what Rey calls them as well. And it's what the spines on porcupines, hedgehogs, and lionfish are often referred to as.

nor are they in line with CollectA does to their ceratopsians.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point. That's why I'd like to see it in that manner instead.

Wait...are you comparing the spines from porcupines and lionfish to the ones found on psittacosaurus and stating they are the same?Yeah stargate is right there...those are simply elongated spines projecting from a scale base...and are not quills.

[stargatedalek]

Call them as you please but Google had this to say:

noun
noun: quill; plural noun: quills; noun: quill feather; plural noun: quill feathers

    1.
    any of the main wing or tail feathers of a bird.
        the hollow shaft of a feather, especially the lower part or calamus that lacks barbs.
        a pen made from a main wing or tail feather of a large bird by pointing and slitting the end of the shaft.
        noun: quill pen; plural noun: quill pens
    2.
    an object in the form of a thin tube, in particular.
        the hollow sharp spines of a porcupine, hedgehog, or other spiny mammal.
        panpipes.
        a weaver's spindle.

A lionfish's rays are probably not something that should be called quills either, but I'm not sure on how the venom delivery works, if its like a needle rather than a coating like a rays spines than yes they would be quills. If the Lane specimens stubs really are bases to long spines than they were not hollow.

[suspsy]

Those aren't quills, those are large spines extended from modified scales. Call them quills if you really feel the need to confuse people, but those are very clearly not quills

Funny, that's precisely what Julius referred to them as when I met him. And it's what Rey calls them as well. And it's what the spines on porcupines, hedgehogs, and lionfish are often referred to as.

nor are they in line with CollectA does to their ceratopsians.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point. That's why I'd like to see it in that manner instead.

Wait...are you comparing the spines from porcupines and lionfish to the ones found on psittacosaurus and stating they are the same?Yeah stargate is right there...those are simply elongated spines projecting from a scale base...and are not quills.

Where did I ever mention Psittacosaurus? I've been talking about speculative quills/spines/filaments/structures on Triceratops. And what I said was that the term 'quills' can be and is often used to refer to such structures on different animals such as the ones I mentioned above. They're clearly not the same as what's on the tail of your favourite dinosaur, amargasaurus.

[suspsy]

Call them as you please but Google had this to say:

noun
noun: quill; plural noun: quills; noun: quill feather; plural noun: quill feathers

    1.
    any of the main wing or tail feathers of a bird.
        the hollow shaft of a feather, especially the lower part or calamus that lacks barbs.
        a pen made from a main wing or tail feather of a large bird by pointing and slitting the end of the shaft.
        noun: quill pen; plural noun: quill pens
    2.
    an object in the form of a thin tube, in particular.
        the hollow sharp spines of a porcupine, hedgehog, or other spiny mammal.
        panpipes.
        a weaver's spindle.

An object in the form of a thin tube could describe the structures visible in Csotonyi's Triceratops. But if it really makes you happy, I'm fine with referring to them as spines from hereon.

And now that we've defined terms, I'd like to second Takama's suggestion that this topic be relocated elsewhere.

[stargatedalek]

To actually get back on topic, I'd like the same things I always do, pterosaurs, turtles, avians and inverts!

Just imagine the things possible in the supreme range: meganeura, diplocaulus, sinemys, the list of amazing and underrepresented small extinct life goes on. It way not be the first thing that comes to anyone's mind, but admit it, deep down we'd all probably buy a raphus in that line