Carnegie Collection by Safari Ltd

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Agree with Gwangi, more ceratopsians , more other things in general would have been nice.....

[PaleoMatt]

What Ceratopsians were there besides Triceratops and Styracosaurus?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus, protoceratops.........

[laticauda]

As much as I loved the Carnegies, they were very conservative line, in the animals that they portrayed, the use of colors, and the poses they were put into.  When I first saw the Carnegie line, I had really seen nothing that compared to them.  As time went on, they stayed true to their format, and for the most part, stuck with the tired and true animals that the public knows.  Even if you add in some of the more obscure, Deltadromeus, Sinraptor, Concavenator, and Cryolophosaurus, they were theropods with a very familiar pose.  Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

[PaleoMatt]

Psittacosaurus, protoceratops.........

I always forget basal ones

[Sim]

Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

Those diplodocid skin impressions are from the Howe Quarry.  Howe Quarry diplodocid specimens have been referred to Kaatedocus siberi and Barosaurus sp..  Since Diplodocus isn't known from the Howe Quarry, it's not known to have those spines.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Psittacosaurus, protoceratops.........

I always forget basal ones

Thats alright, basal is my beat !

[Concavenator]

@amargasaurus cazaui: Didn't Forest Rogers tell you like she was doing some dinosaur stuff (after the extinction od the Carnegie Collection?

[Dinoguy2]

Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

Those diplodocid skin impressions are from the Howe Quarry.  Howe Quarry diplodocid specimens have been referred to Kaatedocus siberi and Barosaurus sp..  Since Diplodocus isn't known from the Howe Quarry, it's not known to have those spines.

Yup, and if you read the actual 1990 paper, the only parts of the skeleton the spines are actually found attached to are the whiplash sections of the tail. The idea that they might form a row along the entire back is based on nothing but their similar shape to iguana spines, plus the fact that some hadrosaurs have a single row of flat structures along their backs. IMO it's just as likely they were the Kaatedocus version of a thagomizer.

I'm not aware of any diplodocid figures showing the spines on the whiplash, which is the ONLY part of the body that definitely had them! (And, once again, we're talking about Kaatedocus. The 1990 paper only classified the specimens as "Diplodocid species", not Diplodocus).

[amargasaurus cazaui]

@amargasaurus cazaui: Didn't Forest Rogers tell you like she was doing some dinosaur stuff (after the extinction od the Carnegie Collection?

She did clearly state that, back when the ending to the Carnegie line was announced...but so far zip.

[laticauda]

Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

Those diplodocid skin impressions are from the Howe Quarry.  Howe Quarry diplodocid specimens have been referred to Kaatedocus siberi and Barosaurus sp..  Since Diplodocus isn't known from the Howe Quarry, it's not known to have those spines.

I retract my statement.  You are correct, I was misinformed.  I learn something new everyday.   

[Sim]

Yup, and if you read the actual 1990 paper, the only parts of the skeleton the spines are actually found attached to are the whiplash sections of the tail. The idea that they might form a row along the entire back is based on nothing but their similar shape to iguana spines, plus the fact that some hadrosaurs have a single row of flat structures along their backs. IMO it's just as likely they were the Kaatedocus version of a thagomizer.

I'm not aware of any diplodocid figures showing the spines on the whiplash, which is the ONLY part of the body that definitely had them! (And, once again, we're talking about Kaatedocus. The 1990 paper only classified the specimens as "Diplodocid species", not Diplodocus).

What do you think of these?:

Toyway Diplodocus

Kabaya Seismosaurus

CollectA Diplodocus

[Dinoguy2]

Yup, and if you read the actual 1990 paper, the only parts of the skeleton the spines are actually found attached to are the whiplash sections of the tail. The idea that they might form a row along the entire back is based on nothing but their similar shape to iguana spines, plus the fact that some hadrosaurs have a single row of flat structures along their backs. IMO it's just as likely they were the Kaatedocus version of a thagomizer.

I'm not aware of any diplodocid figures showing the spines on the whiplash, which is the ONLY part of the body that definitely had them! (And, once again, we're talking about Kaatedocus. The 1990 paper only classified the specimens as "Diplodocid species", not Diplodocus).

What do you think of these?:

Toyway Diplodocus

Kabaya Seismosaurus

CollectA Diplodocus

They're fine as far as they go. None have spines on the whiplash but, again, those specimens turned out to be Kaatedocus. We have no clue about Diplodocus skin.

The actual scale size may be off in some of them. The Collecta one has scales that are too large and the Kabaya's may be too small (though the review doesn't give any indication how big the figure is). Once again based on the Kaatedocus quarry, scales could be up to 3cm on individuals possibly up to 14m long. Mark Witton suggests this ratio may mean diplodocids (or, at least, Kaatedocus) had scales that were larger compared to the animal's size than most dinosaurs. In most species the pavement scales would be too small to register on a 1:40 figure, and only feature scales should be sculpted (see the Battat and Safari Carnotaurus for how to do this right). The exceptions appear to be Triceratops and maybe Kaatedocus, which would appear generally bumpier.
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html

[Sim]

They're fine as far as they go. None have spines on the whiplash but, again, those specimens turned out to be Kaatedocus. We have no clue about Diplodocus skin.

The actual scale size may be off in some of them. The Collecta one has scales that are too large and the Kabaya's may be too small (though the review doesn't give any indication how big the figure is). Once again based on the Kaatedocus quarry, scales could be up to 3cm on individuals possibly up to 14m long. Mark Witton suggests this ratio may mean diplodocids (or, at least, Kaatedocus) had scales that were larger compared to the animal's size than most dinosaurs. In most species the pavement scales would be too small to register on a 1:40 figure, and only feature scales should be sculpted (see the Battat and Safari Carnotaurus for how to do this right). The exceptions appear to be Triceratops and maybe Kaatedocus, which would appear generally bumpier.
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html

I'm not sure if on some of the figures the spines become too small to be considered the spines on the whiplash you said you hadn't seen in a diplodocid figure?

In the review of the Toyway figure, Laticauda says, "Along the spine beginning at the wide hips, is a line of narrow, pointed, keratinous spines that run the full length of the tail getting smaller and smaller till ends in small bumps."  I think I can make them out in some of the photos in the review, and in the photo of this figure in the first post of this thread: http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/thread/1703/armored-sauropods

Some photos of the Kabaya on Google images show the spines go all the way to the last part of the tail, again though they become very small and not easy to see.  One of the photos that shows this best can be seen in Reply #20 here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2141.msg57718#msg57718

As for the CollectA figure, some photos of it in the review made me think the spines go all the way to the end of the tail, but now I think I might've been mistaken.  I don't have this figure, so I can't check it.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

On the collecta piece the spines follow the tail almost all the way to the end however they get smaller and more difficult to spot until they seem to vanish altogether just prior to the little bend at the last section of the tail.I would guesstimate that an inch of the tail lacks the spines, or they are just so small as to be undiscernible

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

Those diplodocid skin impressions are from the Howe Quarry.  Howe Quarry diplodocid specimens have been referred to Kaatedocus siberi and Barosaurus sp..  Since Diplodocus isn't known from the Howe Quarry, it's not known to have those spines.

Yup, and if you read the actual 1990 paper, the only parts of the skeleton the spines are actually found attached to are the whiplash sections of the tail. The idea that they might form a row along the entire back is based on nothing but their similar shape to iguana spines, plus the fact that some hadrosaurs have a single row of flat structures along their backs. IMO it's just as likely they were the Kaatedocus version of a thagomizer.

I'm not aware of any diplodocid figures showing the spines on the whiplash, which is the ONLY part of the body that definitely had them! (And, once again, we're talking about Kaatedocus. The 1990 paper only classified the specimens as "Diplodocid species", not Diplodocus).

If we're getting technical, I would like to point out that Kaatedocus wasn't named until 2012.

[Sim]

@Stuckasaurus:  I'm not sure what your point is?

[Dinoguy2]

Even the 2008 Diplodocus was conservative.  They kept a smooth back, instead of adding pointed spines on it, even though the skin impressions showing that they had them came from 1990.

Those diplodocid skin impressions are from the Howe Quarry.  Howe Quarry diplodocid specimens have been referred to Kaatedocus siberi and Barosaurus sp..  Since Diplodocus isn't known from the Howe Quarry, it's not known to have those spines.

Yup, and if you read the actual 1990 paper, the only parts of the skeleton the spines are actually found attached to are the whiplash sections of the tail. The idea that they might form a row along the entire back is based on nothing but their similar shape to iguana spines, plus the fact that some hadrosaurs have a single row of flat structures along their backs. IMO it's just as likely they were the Kaatedocus version of a thagomizer.

I'm not aware of any diplodocid figures showing the spines on the whiplash, which is the ONLY part of the body that definitely had them! (And, once again, we're talking about Kaatedocus. The 1990 paper only classified the specimens as "Diplodocid species", not Diplodocus).

If we're getting technical, I would like to point out that Kaatedocus wasn't named until 2012.

Yes, but it was named based on specimens found back in the late 1980s. Sometimes dinosaurs take a few decades to get studied and named.

(The juvenile "Barosaurs" being guarded by the big adult in the famous rotunda mount at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC is also now known to be a Kaatedocus! It's been on display for 25 years with the wrong label).

[PaleoMatt]

So the carnegie diplo represents what species?

[Dinoguy2]

So the carnegie diplo represents what species?

I don't think they specify, but I'd bet good money it's based entirely on Diplodocus carnegii

It's the most complete, and it's their museum's flagship dinosaur.