Papo

[Halichoeres]

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

Volunteering?

I myself always welcome corrections on my reviews, and will edit them to reflect those corrections. Unfortunately there are not too many toy collecting paleontologists who also write reviews. Adam is the only one on the blog as far as I can tell, and the Papo Pteranodon review is indeed his. I'm sure if you messaged him with your concern he would fix the review or allow a re-review. Now me personally, I try hard to make sure I correctly address accuracy issues. But I've reviewed everything from T. rex to Tanystropheus to Glyptodon to Pteranodon. I do research before I write, but I'm no paleontologist and I've said as much in my reviews. Anyway, your criticism here is pretty harsh. There are ways to approach these things without being a complete arse. So maybe Adam doesn't know pterosaurs all that well, he certainly knows a thing or two about marine reptiles though! And he seems pretty good at running the blog and forum as well.

^^^

[Dilopho]

Come on, Papo....please, more news on the upcoming figures.....

[Viking Spawn]

Come on, Papo....please, more news on the upcoming figures.....

Agreed!   The silence is a killer!!!! 

[Saurox]

Currently there are only rumours and fake images. :/

[Dinoguy2]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

"With the Exception of the teeth the Papo Pteranodon is pretty accurate and detailed". Somebody has obviously never seen an accurate pterosaur before. Are those human hands on its legs? They look like chimp feet!

I'm sure the reviewer knows being that he is a paleontologist and all.

You'd be surprised.
http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2014/10/youre-doing-it-wrong-protobird-toys.html

However, he is probably comparing the pteranodon to all existing toy interpretations of pteranodon. Thus, it is a relative assessment on his part.

I guess that could be the case, and I'm just misreading it. But all it said was other than the teeth, it's accurate. So you can see why I came away with that impression.

I'm not a paleontologist and I'm not saying everybody needs to be perfect and be an expert on everything. But if you're reviewing a figure for accuracy it is reasonable to expect that you're caught up on the latest ideas about what is accurate, especially when it comes to pterosaurs. Many pterosaur paleontologists, like Mark Witton and Dave Hone, have complained at length on their blogs and in their books that while we had a Dinosaur Renaissance, we never had a pterosaur renaissance. Pterosaurs are still almost universally depicted in popular culture the same way they were in the 50s, which is just as wrong for them as it was for dinosaurs. And they point out that even many of their fellow professionals, who only focus on details and differences of the bones, don't know any better.

Any Pteranodon that doesn't look basically like this is just as wrong as your average 1960s chinasaur.


Everybody can point to some of the big, basic errors of pre-renaissance dinosaurs: Tail drag, scales, shrink wrapping, pronation, etc. But how many can point to the big basic errors of pre-renaissance pterosaurs? By now people are mostly caught up on things like which had teeth and lack of pycnofibres, but how about other extremely common errors like wrong foot anatomy? Shrink-wrapped wings that lack air sacs? Leather wings lacking actinofibril support? Under muscled chests and arms, left over from the 1920s idea that they were gliders and had to be as skeletal as possible? The Papo Pteranodon violates every one of these. It would be like releasing a figure of Charles Knight's Brontosaurus and saying it's basically accurate except the head.

Again, I'm sorry if I came across as too harsh, but come on. The Papo is so shrink-wrapped you can see the separate bones in the arm!

[stargatedalek]

Actually, that Geosternbergia isn't quite accurate either, the membrane on its legs shouldn't connect to its tail.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Actually, that Geosternbergia isn't quite accurate either, the membrane on its legs shouldn't connect to its tail.

There is no %100 accurate way to draw the membranes of pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Geosternbergia, having it connect to the tail or not isn't really a big defining feature to call something inaccurate or not.

[DinoG]

I was thinking if it would be possible to fix the dilopho straightening the tail to get rid of the tripod position...

[Dinoguy2]

Actually, that Geosternbergia isn't quite accurate either, the membrane on its legs shouldn't connect to its tail.

Are you sure? I know this likely varies in pterosaurs, but pteranodontids are known for their unusually long, fused, rod-like tails that seem to have been designed to bear high stresses. Unless it had a big feathery fan on there I can't think of what else this structure was for if not dealing with high patagium loads.

Also I just found the interactive restoration on this page, which is so cool! IT should be required viewing for anybody making or reviewing pterosaur figures (especially the pulmonary segment, which I don't think I've ever seen included in any pterosaur model). https://pterosaur.net/restoration.php

[stargatedalek]

Are you sure? I know this likely varies in pterosaurs, but pteranodontids are known for their unusually long, fused, rod-like tails that seem to have been designed to bear high stresses. Unless it had a big feathery fan on there I can't think of what else this structure was for if not dealing with high patagium loads.

I don't recall hearing of that, now you've got me curious! I do recall hearing that the tail could have assisted while diving too.

Also I just found the interactive restoration on this page, which is so cool! IT should be required viewing for anybody making or reviewing pterosaur figures (especially the pulmonary segment, which I don't think I've ever seen included in any pterosaur model). https://pterosaur.net/restoration.php

Very cool, I'll have to remember that link.

I was thinking if it would be possible to fix the dilopho straightening the tail to get rid of the tripod position...

I wouldn't hold my breathe but it's definitely worth a try!

[Dilopho]

Currently there are only rumours and fake images. :/

This is probably a stupid question, but could I see any of these fake images? I'm interested at seeing stuff like that, I find it really clever how people make those.

[PaleoMatt]

Looking from my sources the baby green rex is being dicontinued and i have no clue why since the brown one is staying?! Maybe a baby green running rex is on the way??

[Sim]

I'm sure the reviewer knows being that he is a paleontologist and all.

You'd be surprised.
http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2014/10/youre-doing-it-wrong-protobird-toys.html

However, he is probably comparing the pteranodon to all existing toy interpretations of pteranodon. Thus, it is a relative assessment on his part.

I guess that could be the case, and I'm just misreading it. But all it said was other than the teeth, it's accurate. So you can see why I came away with that impression.

I think Dr Admin didn't realise how inaccurate the Papo Pteranodon is.  Anatomically, it's among the worst Pteranodon and pterosaur toys.  His Papo Pteranodon review is from 2008.  In 2011 he did a review of the Carnegie Pteranodon where he said anatomically it's basically correct: http://dinotoyblog.com/2011/06/15/pteranodon-carnegie-collection-by-safari-ltd/  I can immediately see its jaws are wrong (they're too short, they should curve upwards and the upper jaw should be longer than the lower jaw).  In a comment on that review he then said, "According to pterosaur worker Dave Hone it may not be quite as accurate as my review suggested!"  The comment, "Regardless of how anatomically correct it is, I think it looks like a paper mache thing left out in the rain." is hilarious!

I'm not a paleontologist and I'm not saying everybody needs to be perfect and be an expert on everything. But if you're reviewing a figure for accuracy it is reasonable to expect that you're caught up on the latest ideas about what is accurate, especially when it comes to pterosaurs. Many pterosaur paleontologists, like Mark Witton and Dave Hone, have complained at length on their blogs and in their books that while we had a Dinosaur Renaissance, we never had a pterosaur renaissance. Pterosaurs are still almost universally depicted in popular culture the same way they were in the 50s, which is just as wrong for them as it was for dinosaurs. And they point out that even many of their fellow professionals, who only focus on details and differences of the bones, don't know any better.

Any Pteranodon that doesn't look basically like this is just as wrong as your average 1960s chinasaur.

Everybody can point to some of the big, basic errors of pre-renaissance dinosaurs: Tail drag, scales, shrink wrapping, pronation, etc. But how many can point to the big basic errors of pre-renaissance pterosaurs? By now people are mostly caught up on things like which had teeth and lack of pycnofibres, but how about other extremely common errors like wrong foot anatomy? Shrink-wrapped wings that lack air sacs? Leather wings lacking actinofibril support? Under muscled chests and arms, left over from the 1920s idea that they were gliders and had to be as skeletal as possible? The Papo Pteranodon violates every one of these. It would be like releasing a figure of Charles Knight's Brontosaurus and saying it's basically accurate except the head.

Again, I'm sorry if I came across as too harsh, but come on. The Papo is so shrink-wrapped you can see the separate bones in the arm!

Very good points!  Pertinent to this and this community, there are surprisingly few good pterosaur toys.  Even fewer look like modern reconstructions.  I'm not aware of ANY toys of the most famous pterosaur, Pteranodon longiceps, that do a good job at looking like we know the animal looked like!  So many get its very unusual looking head wrong!

[Viking Spawn]

Looking from my sources the baby green rex is being dicontinued and i have no clue why since the brown one is staying?! Maybe a baby green running rex is on the way??

So that is confirmed?  I had read that on an eBay auction recently. 

As for another running....  I hope we see a sub adult or teenager like "Jane" rather than another baby.

[Rain]

Currently there are only rumours and fake images. :/

This is probably a stupid question, but could I see any of these fake images? I'm interested at seeing stuff like that, I find it really clever how people make those.

Here's one for the Baryonx that a forum member found..I forget who though

[Viking Spawn]

That's a cool baryonx image.  I hope the real thing looks close.

[Kovu]

Well, the past few Papos have been inspired by Sideshow pieces and before that, Pop-Culture references.
Is there any Baryonyx or Iguanodons that fall within their known inspirations? I don't think they've used WWD before, but I feel like an Iguanodon might draw inspiration from there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside of Aladar and Neera, I can't think of any "celebrity" Iguanodons. Baryonyx... no clue. Maybe Sideshow Spinosaurus with modifications? IDK.

[Rain]

This is probably what the Baryonx will look like, you can decide for yourself whether or not that's a good thing

[tyrantqueen]

Csotonyi is an amazing artist. No complaints here.

[CityRaptor]

I wouldn't mind if it looked like that.