CollectA New for 2016

[Sim]

Andrewsarchus (as a partner for my big AAA Hyaenodon and Entelodont - is it similar in size??)

Hi Libraraptor, Everything Dinosaur mentioned the size of the CollectA Andrewsarchus here: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/27/new-from-collecta-2016-part-4.html

They all look great! And I plan on getting them all.   But the deluxe Torvosaurus looks a little small for being the same size as an average 40ft Tyrannosaurus.

It seems length estimates for Torvosaurus that say it would reach over 10 metres are outdated or lack evidence.

[Libraraptor]

Andrewsarchus (as a partner for my big AAA Hyaenodon and Entelodont - is it similar in size??)

Hi Libraraptor, Everything Dinosaur mentioned the size of the CollectA Andrewsarchus here: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/27/new-from-collecta-2016-part-4.html

Thanks! So it´s a little smaller than the big AAA Entelodont and Hyaenodon. But it doesn´t matter. I´m always in for a good prehistoric non-dinosaur carnivore.

[Megalosaurus]

Andrewsarchus (as a partner for my big AAA Hyaenodon and Entelodont - is it similar in size??)

Hi Libraraptor, Everything Dinosaur mentioned the size of the CollectA Andrewsarchus here: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/27/new-from-collecta-2016-part-4.html

Thanks! So it´s a little smaller than the big AAA Entelodont and Hyaenodon. But it doesn´t matter. I´m always in for a good prehistoric non-dinosaur carnivore.

Me too.

I'd love that big andrewsarchus to replace my sarari one... mmm... NO... I better keep both.
 

[Rain]

That Beishanlong sure is a beauty. Definitely a must have for me

[tanystropheus]

Andrewsarchus (as a partner for my big AAA Hyaenodon and Entelodont - is it similar in size??)

Hi Libraraptor, Everything Dinosaur mentioned the size of the CollectA Andrewsarchus here: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/27/new-from-collecta-2016-part-4.html

Great to see the CollectA Andrewsarchus! I wasn't quite fond of my Safari version - the proportions felt a bit off.

[terrorchicken]

I'd love that big andrewsarchus to replace my sarari one... mmm... NO... I better keep both.

Im definitely keeping my old Safari Andrew when I get the collecta one. I like how they represent 2 very different interpretations of the animal, one based on a carnivore and one on an ungulate.

[Bokisaurus]

Nice to see the models as a group, lovely figures for sure!
Some of them look so much bigger than I thought they would be!

[Dilopho]

Im definitely keeping my old Safari Andrew when I get the collecta one. I like how they represent 2 very different interpretations of the animal, one based on a carnivore and one on an ungulate.

Wait, which one is which?

[Shonisaurus]

Unfortunately this year have not been able to publish many images of dinosaurs and thilacine Collecta 2016.

We have only the references made by the Forum of Collecta like last year.

[terrorchicken]

Im definitely keeping my old Safari Andrew when I get the collecta one. I like how they represent 2 very different interpretations of the animal, one based on a carnivore and one on an ungulate.

Wait, which one is which?

The Safari ltd version is very carnivore-like while the Collecta one has a build thats more like an ungulate or hoofed animal. Thats mostly my opinion though Ive seen paleoart reflecting both versions as well...

as a carnivore




as an ungulate

[AcroSauroTaurus]

Is it possible that maybe Andrewsarchus could be a genus of entelodont?

[Gwangi]

Is it possible that maybe Andrewsarchus could be a genus of entelodont?

It was certainly related to entelodonts.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

Is it possible that maybe Andrewsarchus could be a genus of entelodont?

It was certainly related to entelodonts.

There is a definite similarity between Andrewsarchus's skull and other entelodont skulls, as well as the third picture in Terrorchickens post definitely looks like Andrewsarchus is an entelodont.

[SBell]

Is it possible that maybe Andrewsarchus could be a genus of entelodont?

It was certainly related to entelodonts.

There is a definite similarity between Andrewsarchus's skull and other entelodont skulls, as well as the third picture in Terrorchickens post definitely looks like Andrewsarchus is an entelodont.

As someone who has actually seen the Andrewsarchus skull up close, and seen entelodont skulls and teeth up close...

No. No. No.

They are 'related' in the broadest sense that they are both ungulates. It would be like saying they are related to giraffes or camels--technically true, but at the same time very not.

Reconstructive drawings aren't that useful because they can be modelled differently in so many ways.

There may be a marginal bit of convergence going on--both are hoofed animals that adapted to a more omnivorous, even primarily carnivorous diet. But everything about their teeth and skulls--the structure, the placement--is clearly and absolutely not indicative of any deeper relationship.

For all intents and purposes, an entelodont's teeth (molars) were broadly pig-like (although not exactly). Kind of wide, with big cusps (really, like other generalized omnivores, like bears or humans). Some were the size of a fist, of course...

The teeth of Andrewsarchus were more about meat-shearing; they were like many mesonychian teeth, kind of blade like and not all that generalized (which probably affected the mesonychids' long-term evolutionary survival).

(the original Andrewsarchus paper can be found here for free online from the AMNH, complete with great old-timey illustration work http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bitstream/handle/2246/3226//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0146.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

As for overall body appearance, it is possible that the body would superficially look similar. Both were hoofed, although entelodonts are notable for their very long legs, compared to the majority of mesonychians that had realtively stocky builds. The head of Andrewsarchus would have also been narower with a smaller braincase (if that's possible) than an entelodont (entelodonts aren't known for their brain size); they didn't have the characteristic flaring zygomatics.

But, most likely, Andrewsarchus didn't look like many of the previous toy reconstructions--kind of hyena-ish, but with a long head, seems to be the go-to. The CollectA may be the most accurate toy model to come out, really (kind of awkward dog-thing, with more bulk). On the other hand, being known mainly from an impressive skull, it's pretty hard to reconstruct. Overall, any mesonychians with known skeletons look kind of strange, like their heads are too big, or their limbs are too short, or something like that.

Of course, this all assumes that Andrewsarchus is actually a mesonychian at all. Apparently, recent work indicates they might have some weird relationship with whales through the anthracotheres...which would put them closer to the entelodonts, but much even closer to hippos! Which...would be a weird reconstruction.

[CMIPalaeo]

After seeing the pictures of them all together, my CollectA prehistoric shopping list for 2016...

DEFINITELY:
Deinocheirus
Beishanlong

Very Probably:
Torvosaurus

Strong Maybe:
Metriacanthosaurus
Lythronax

Some Chance:
Thalassomedon

[terrorchicken]

thanks for the info SBell! And yes, I actually had to double check the 3rd pic in my post to make sure it wasn't a misidentified entelodont picture. Actually I think collecta's sculpt does a good job of balancing the two design aesthetics  more than most restorations.

[empire3569]

Based on that group picture, it's nice to see that their therapods don't seem to be suffering from what I like to call "too many Krabby Patty" hips like previous years. I think I'll be picking up the Metriacanthosaurus for sure, and probably the Hunting T-rex

[Gwangi]

As someone who has actually seen the Andrewsarchus skull up close, and seen entelodont skulls and teeth up close...

No. No. No.

They are 'related' in the broadest sense that they are both ungulates. It would be like saying they are related to giraffes or camels--technically true, but at the same time very not.

They're both classified under cetancodontamorpha, which makes them more closely related to each other than either is to a giraffe or camel. Quite a bit in fact. Entelodonts are represented in this cladogram by Archaeotherium. Andrewsarchus is on there too. Both with a more recent common ancestor than either has to hippos.

[SBell]

As someone who has actually seen the Andrewsarchus skull up close, and seen entelodont skulls and teeth up close...

No. No. No.

They are 'related' in the broadest sense that they are both ungulates. It would be like saying they are related to giraffes or camels--technically true, but at the same time very not.

They're both classified under cetancodontamorpha, which makes them more closely related to each other than either is to a giraffe or camel. Quite a bit in fact. Entelodonts are represented in this cladogram by Archaeotherium. Andrewsarchus is on there too. Both with a more recent common ancestor than either has to hippos.

Man, they keep changing that. But however that falls out...Andrewsarchus morphology is decidedly not entelodont morphology. They may have some similarities, but the older animal (Andrewsarchus) has dental morphology that is unlikely to have beocome the big bunodont teeth of entelodonts.

I admit to being very surprised how far apart the hippos and entelodonts are from the pigs and peccaries.

Although I did glance over the paper where that image came from, and found this phylogeny:



There is a lot of differnet analyses and tests, and many of them come out very different, depending on what is excluded or included!

Although I do notice that Andrewsarchus generally came out close to the entelodonts (although separate). It's especially hard with a taxon like Andrewsarchus though, since it isn't known from much more than a skull.

[Gwangi]

Man, they keep changing that. But however that falls out...Andrewsarchus morphology is decidedly not entelodont morphology. They may have some similarities, but the older animal (Andrewsarchus) has dental morphology that is unlikely to have beocome the big bunodont teeth of entelodonts.

I admit to being very surprised how far apart the hippos and entelodonts are from the pigs and peccaries.

There is a lot of differnet analyses and tests, and many of them come out very different, depending on what is excluded or included!

Although I do notice that Andrewsarchus generally came out close to the entelodonts (although separate). It's especially hard with a taxon like Andrewsarchus though, since it isn't known from much more than a skull.

Yeah, my point was only that they're closely related. I never advocated for the notion that Andrewsarchus is an entelodont, or that it evolved from them. Speaking only for myself of course, I realize others were involved with the conversation.

Also surprised how far hippos are from pigs in the cladogram I posted. It really is hard to keep up with this stuff, but it's fun trying to.