CollectA New for 2016

[stargatedalek]

But then you have to sift through the conversation and keep a tally of which figure each person said. A poll is less of a hassle. And as far as I know, unless the poll is reset, I don't think people can change their vote. Someone who's been around longer than I have can verify/correct me on that though.

That can be changed in poll settings. Actually an early thread and allowing people to change their vote might be easier.

[suspsy]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

[alexeratops]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

Huh. Well... ok.

[Concavenator]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

As much as I love the Beishanlong and everything,when I realised that it has teeth and having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth is very off putting for me.I might even question if buying it or not,despite how gorgeous it is and how natural it looks.Plus,it should also have primaries.

[suspsy]

Primaries on ornithomimosaurs is still a matter of debate, as has already been covered in this thread. And I would have preferred a toothless mouth too, but it doesn't ruin the figure for me.

[Appalachiosaurus]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

As much as I love the Beishanlong and everything,when I realised that it has teeth and having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth is very off putting for me.I might even question if buying it or not,despite how gorgeous it is and how natural it looks.Plus,it should also have primaries.

The dinosaur with the most teeth was an Ornithomimosaur.

[stargatedalek]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

As much as I love the Beishanlong and everything,when I realised that it has teeth and having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth is very off putting for me.I might even question if buying it or not,despite how gorgeous it is and how natural it looks.Plus,it should also have primaries.

The dinosaur with the most teeth was an Ornithomimosaur.

I couldn't find any sources for that but I assume you mean Pelecanimimus, which is a very primitive member. Pelecanimimus is honestly not comparable to Beishanlong.

[Carlositherium]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

As much as I love the Beishanlong and everything,when I realised that it has teeth and having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth is very off putting for me.I might even question if buying it or not,despite how gorgeous it is and how natural it looks.Plus,it should also have primaries.

I think the teeth on Beishanlong are possible  because the model has about the same number of teeth as Harpymimus, who was found to be its closest relative I think, and both of them lived in the early Cretacious and Beishanlong is still rather basal for Ornithomimosaurs.

[suspsy]

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/b/beishanlong.html

I suppose it's always *possible* that Beishanlong possessed teeth.

[tyrantqueen]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

Speaking for myself, it happens to be the only 2016 CollectA animal I want. I'm passing on the others. Unusual species choice and nice sculpt are icing on cake.

[alexeratops]

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/b/beishanlong.html

I suppose it's always *possible* that Beishanlong possessed teeth.

Bit off topic, but also from that website, I found this picture. 

[Sim]

I've posted my thoughts about the best of 2015 thread in the thread I linked to earlier, as I thought it would be best to continue the discussion there.

I think the teeth on Beishanlong are possible  because the model has about the same number of teeth as Harpymimus, who was found to be its closest relative I think, and both of them lived in the early Cretacious and Beishanlong is still rather basal for Ornithomimosaurs.

Hi, welcome to the forum!   Good points.  When I first saw the teeth of the Beishanlong I thought they looked like what is seen in Harpymimus.  Although if I'm understanding things correctly, Harpymimus was found to be the closest relative of Beishanlong while Deinocheirus was only known from fragmentary remains.  And when almost all the rest of Deinocheirus was described in 2014, Beishanlong was found to be most closely related to (and more basal than) Garudimimus with the two being deinocheirids.  If this classification is correct and Beishanlong had teeth, it would mean becoming toothless happened separately in deinocheirids and ornithomimids.

I find the CollectA Beishanlong looks a bit eerie, and I think it's due to a combination of things on the figure, the teeth (which weren't seen in the pre-release image) and its eyes at least.

[Concavenator]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

Speaking for myself, it happens to be the only 2016 CollectA animal I want. I'm passing on the others. Unusual species choice and nice sculpt are icing on cake.

Did you see the Thalassomedon?That one is stunning too.

[Carlositherium]

I've posted my thoughts about the best of 2015 thread in the thread I linked to earlier, as I thought it would be best to continue the discussion there.

I think the teeth on Beishanlong are possible  because the model has about the same number of teeth as Harpymimus, who was found to be its closest relative I think, and both of them lived in the early Cretacious and Beishanlong is still rather basal for Ornithomimosaurs.

Hi, welcome to the forum!   Good points.  When I first saw the teeth of the Beishanlong I thought they looked like what is seen in Harpymimus.  Although if I'm understanding things correctly, Harpymimus was found to be the closest relative of Beishanlong while Deinocheirus was only known from fragmentary remains.  And when almost all the rest of Deinocheirus was described in 2014, Beishanlong was found to be most closely related to (and more basal than) Garudimimus with the two being deinocheirids.  If this classification is correct and Beishanlong had teeth, it would mean becoming toothless happened separately in deinocheirids and ornithomimids.

I find the CollectA Beishanlong looks a bit eerie, and I think it's due to a combination of things on the figure, the teeth (which weren't seen in the pre-release image) and its eyes at least.

Yes, you're right my information wasn't up-to-date and I have to agree that it is more likely to have posessed no teeth but considering that basal genera placed outside of both groups already had a reduced dentition, both groups might just have continued the evolutionary process that had already been started. Oviraptorosaurs also evolved a toothless beak independently so there is still a little chance Beishanlong had teeth.

The reason why I try to defend that figure so hard is because I like it so much and wanz it to be accurate, although it most likely isn't.

[suspsy]

The presence of teeth in the lower jaw doesn't completely demolish the figure's accuracy. If you were excited about it before, there's no need not to be now.

[Appalachiosaurus]

What is the big hype over the Beishanlong? Sure. Its a great looking figure. The feathers are awesome, the sculpt is great, but I don't understand why it is praised so much for being the best thing ever. Is it its strange species choice? Its placement in a non-well represented family? I just don't get it.

No, you got it. Size is probably one more factor.

As much as I love the Beishanlong and everything,when I realised that it has teeth and having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth is very off putting for me.I might even question if buying it or not,despite how gorgeous it is and how natural it looks.Plus,it should also have primaries.

The dinosaur with the most teeth was an Ornithomimosaur.

I couldn't find any sources for that but I assume you mean Pelecanimimus, which is a very primitive member. Pelecanimimus is honestly not comparable to Beishanlong.

I was replying to "having in mind ornithomimosaurs do NOT have teeth"(and I meant to type theropod, but yes, I meant Pelecanimimus). Personally, I think the Beishanlong is just asking to get outdated, with or without the teeth.

[Sim]

I think the teeth on Beishanlong are possible  because the model has about the same number of teeth as Harpymimus, who was found to be its closest relative I think, and both of them lived in the early Cretacious and Beishanlong is still rather basal for Ornithomimosaurs.

Hi, welcome to the forum!   Good points.  When I first saw the teeth of the Beishanlong I thought they looked like what is seen in Harpymimus.  Although if I'm understanding things correctly, Harpymimus was found to be the closest relative of Beishanlong while Deinocheirus was only known from fragmentary remains.  And when almost all the rest of Deinocheirus was described in 2014, Beishanlong was found to be most closely related to (and more basal than) Garudimimus with the two being deinocheirids.  If this classification is correct and Beishanlong had teeth, it would mean becoming toothless happened separately in deinocheirids and ornithomimids.

Yes, you're right my information wasn't up-to-date and I have to agree that it is more likely to have posessed no teeth but considering that basal genera placed outside of both groups already had a reduced dentition, both groups might just have continued the evolutionary process that had already been started. Oviraptorosaurs also evolved a toothless beak independently so there is still a little chance Beishanlong had teeth.

The reason why I try to defend that figure so hard is because I like it so much and wanz it to be accurate, although it most likely isn't.

I think it's possible that both groups continued the evolutionary process that had already been started in Harpymimus, like you said.  Beishanlong falls in an odd place on the ornithomimosaur family tree, between Harpymimus which has teeth in its lower jaw, and Garudimimus which is toothless.

I care about accuracy in prehistoric animal figures, although I've realised it's possible to worry a bit too much about accuracy, and that sometimes there can be a bit of wiggle room in prehistoric animal interpretations.  At least until later finds show something isn't correct.

I agree with suspsy, if you were excited about the Beishanlong before, there's no need not to be now.

[Dinoguy2]

a question for you dino anatomy experts, were large theropods able to stand up on their tippy- toes like these 2 featherd T-rex figures are doing? Ive always seen theropod feet depicted as very sprawled out 3 toes and a small pad in the back like a large bird, but for all I know maybe those depictions are inaccurate.

Nope. This comes close to ruining the figure for me and the reason I held off on buying the delux (I'll probably get the new one which looks awesome despite the ballerina toes.

It's almost like the sculptor read that dinosaurs walked on their toes but doesn't know which segment the toes actually are. It's not like we don't have thousands of theropod footprints to look at.

I don't buy the mid stride thing. The only time the toes would be halfway on the ground like that is during running, but both feet are on the ground, so it's not running, and if it were starting to, one foot should be firmly planted. It's just really bizarre. Like it's a deer or something.

[Dilopho]

Bit off topic, but also from that website, I found this picture. 

WATER: IT'S WET

[terrorchicken]

It's just really bizarre. Like it's a deer or something.

thats what it kinda looked like to me as well. Though I still prefer it to gigantic feet like some of the Safari figures.

I think the sculptor was going for something like this but here it makes sense b/c the dinosaur is clearly running...