Beasts of the Mesozoic Accuracy Check

[Flaffy]

New Zhenyuanlong image

[Sim]

Balaur:
Baler is actually pretty good based on what's known of its anatomy (I personally would have given it a more Archaeopteryx or Jeholornis like head to reflect its new status as a possible avialan, but that's obviously unknown at this time for sure). When I scale the skeletal to femur length, everything lines up nicely except the tibia, which is too short. I modified it below. The fact that the tibia and femur are the same length is what gave this animal its name "stocky dragon" so it's a shame this one minor thing is wrong. Verdict: Good overall, needs longer tibiae.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the bolded part.  Isn't Balaur's femur not known?: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balaur.png

Adasaurus:
Adasaurus is tricky because much of the skeleton remains undescribed. I scaled a skull diagram with the pelvic bones figured in the paper. Looks good, except the pelvis of the figure is too narrow, there's no room for the hip bone above the leg. I tweaked this below. The distinctive small, uncurbed second toe claw is there as it should be, which is one of the main ways you can tell it's Adasaurus.
Verdict: Good as far as we can tell, but the hips are too narrow.

The small second toe claw you mentioned, would it happen to be the one Mickey Mortimer pointed out is actually incorrect?  Mickey mentions this in this blog post, and explains more about it in the comments section: http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/turner-et-al-2012-great-review-sloppy.html

So, there you have it. I think Zhenyuanlong is still the worst offender. Dromaeosaurus is second, because it's more speculative without any good skeletons. Saurornitholestes is third least accurate thanks to info from undescribed specimens. Atrociraptor would probably be fourth since it seems to differ from the one bone it's known from. The others are all pretty good, though many have legs too short.

Isn't Dromaeosaurus basically known from just its head, foot and one hand bone?  If so, is there any reason to think some of the things you treated as inaccuracies of the figure are in fact inaccuracies or unlikely?  Like the arm and leg length?  Scott Hartman's description for his Dromaeosaurus skeletal is almost entirely an explanation of how speculative the skeletal is: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Best-guess-Dromaeosaurus-536236816
If I were to restore Dromaeosaurus I probably would base it on Scott's skeletal as it does seem to be a good guess.  However if Dromaeosaurus is restored with slightly longer arms and shorter legs, I'm not seeing any reason why these things would be inaccuracies or even unlikely.  Scott Hartman initially restored Austroraptor's forearm too long for example: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/298533490/2990660710
Therefore, I wouldn't rank the Dromaeosaurus where you did in your inaccuracy ranking.  If the Saurornitholestes differs from its known fossil remains as you mentioned, then I'd say it's considerably more inaccurate than the Dromaeosaurus, for example.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

David has said that least some of the models will be made into kits at some point in the future, yes? Maybe some of these changes can be implemented at that time? But, alas, they will be costly resin and not plastic.

Also, is it possible to replace one's pledge reward raptor (Velociraptor, Tsasgan, or Atrociraptor) for one of the newer ones? I'm sure someone's asked David before, but I can't find mention on the CreativeBeast Facebook page.

I switched mine from the 3 raptor set to  just the Velociraptor and then my add ons. Gave me more funds to add newer pieces.

I don't think the resin ones, in the same scale, will be too much more.

[Dobber]

David has said that least some of the models will be made into kits at some point in the future, yes? Maybe some of these changes can be implemented at that time? But, alas, they will be costly resin and not plastic.

Also, is it possible to replace one's pledge reward raptor (Velociraptor, Tsasgan, or Atrociraptor) for one of the newer ones? I'm sure someone's asked David before, but I can't find mention on the CreativeBeast Facebook page.

I'm pretty sure the initial 3 are NOT exchangeable with the stretch goal raptors.

Chris

[Dinoguy2]

Balaur:
Baler is actually pretty good based on what's known of its anatomy (I personally would have given it a more Archaeopteryx or Jeholornis like head to reflect its new status as a possible avialan, but that's obviously unknown at this time for sure). When I scale the skeletal to femur length, everything lines up nicely except the tibia, which is too short. I modified it below. The fact that the tibia and femur are the same length is what gave this animal its name "stocky dragon" so it's a shame this one minor thing is wrong. Verdict: Good overall, needs longer tibiae.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the bolded part.  Isn't Balaur's femur not known?: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balaur.png

D'oh! You're right, the skeletal I used confusingly had the femur grayed out but still there with other bones simply omitted, which I took to mean it was incomplete. But even though I scaled to the femur, the other bones were the right size so the tibia is still too short in proportion with the rest of the body.

Adasaurus:
Adasaurus is tricky because much of the skeleton remains undescribed. I scaled a skull diagram with the pelvic bones figured in the paper. Looks good, except the pelvis of the figure is too narrow, there's no room for the hip bone above the leg. I tweaked this below. The distinctive small, uncurbed second toe claw is there as it should be, which is one of the main ways you can tell it's Adasaurus.
Verdict: Good as far as we can tell, but the hips are too narrow.

The small second toe claw you mentioned, would it happen to be the one Mickey Mortimer pointed out is actually incorrect?  Mickey mentions this in this blog post, and explains more about it in the comments section: http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/turner-et-al-2012-great-review-sloppy.html

If that's true, then the toe on David's is actually incorrect I guess.

So, there you have it. I think Zhenyuanlong is still the worst offender. Dromaeosaurus is second, because it's more speculative without any good skeletons. Saurornitholestes is third least accurate thanks to info from undescribed specimens. Atrociraptor would probably be fourth since it seems to differ from the one bone it's known from. The others are all pretty good, though many have legs too short.

Isn't Dromaeosaurus basically known from just its head, foot and one hand bone?  If so, is there any reason to think some of the things you treated as inaccuracies of the figure are in fact inaccuracies or unlikely?  Like the arm and leg length?  Scott Hartman's description for his Dromaeosaurus skeletal is almost entirely an explanation of how speculative the skeletal is: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Best-guess-Dromaeosaurus-536236816
If I were to restore Dromaeosaurus I probably would base it on Scott's skeletal as it does seem to be a good guess.  However if Dromaeosaurus is restored with slightly longer arms and shorter legs, I'm not seeing any reason why these things would be inaccuracies or even unlikely.  Scott Hartman initially restored Austroraptor's forearm too long for example: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/298533490/2990660710
Therefore, I wouldn't rank the Dromaeosaurus where you did in your inaccuracy ranking.  If the Saurornitholestes differs from its known fossil remains as you mentioned, then I'd say it's considerably more inaccurate than the Dromaeosaurus, for example.

Well the ranking is tricky, but I did say the skeletal was only best guess. Saurornitholestes is objectively less accurate but the "known" complete skeletons haven't been published and might always even turn out to be different species, so it's hard use them as a standard.

[Patrx]

David has said that least some of the models will be made into kits at some point in the future, yes? Maybe some of these changes can be implemented at that time? But, alas, they will be costly resin and not plastic.

Also, is it possible to replace one's pledge reward raptor (Velociraptor, Tsasgan, or Atrociraptor) for one of the newer ones? I'm sure someone's asked David before, but I can't find mention on the CreativeBeast Facebook page.

I'm pretty sure the initial 3 are NOT exchangeable with the stretch goal raptors.

Chris

Ah, well - I suppose that's fair!

[Faelrin]

A quick thing to help is that the first Saurornitholestes figure is supposed to represent the S. sullivani according to the kickstarter campaign page. The roadrunner fan vote one is representing the langstoni, though I'm not sure if that one's been worked on yet or not. I don't know how much that will matter though for the sake of accuracy. Anyways, I've been wondering about the Dromaeosaurus. Since its sister taxon is Dakotaraptor, would Dromaeosaurus have any similarities, although Dromaeosaurus was smaller (limb proportions, etc)?

[Sim]

Thanks for the reply, Dinoguy2.  Regarding the second toe claw of Adasaurus...  If it's true that that claw doesn't belong to the Adasaurus specimen's foot, it seems the second toe claw of Adasaurus isn't known?  Based on the photos of David's Adasaurus here, it seems to me its second toe claw could work both as the supposed "reduced" claw or as a speculative larger claw, depending on how one interprets the claw's keratin covering?: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/creativebeast/beasts-of-the-mesozoic-raptor-series-action-figure/posts/1647918

[DinoLord]

Also, is it possible to replace one's pledge reward raptor (Velociraptor, Tsasgan, or Atrociraptor) for one of the newer ones? I'm sure someone's asked David before, but I can't find mention on the CreativeBeast Facebook page.

Please let us know if you find this out. I've been wondering this as well.

[Dobber]

I remember someone asking about his before in the comments section of the kickstart but there is also this in the FAQ's section too.

"Can I switch out raptors within the raptor packs?"

Answer:
Sorry this is not possible. The raptor packs are set tiers and will be fulfilled according to that specific tier. However since each of the main raptors is available to add-on ($40US $43 INT) simply pledge to a single item raptor tier and then add-on the other figures you want.

Chris

[The Atroxious]

Am I the only one really bothered by the copy-pasted plumage on these paravians? A few of them are passable, such as the Balaur, Atrociraptor, Dromaeosaurus, and Pyroraptor, since their plumage is generic enough that it's not too much of a stretch to believe that these dinosaurs could have looked like this, but the plumage for the rest of them breaks my suspension of disbelief. I think the problem here is that for most of his paravians, Silva chose plumage that's unique to a single species of bird, whether it's the bearded vulture for the Velociraptor, or the bee eater for the Linheraptor. The thing is, the chances of the dinosaurs given this copy-and-paste plumage to actually have something similar is infinitesimally small. Considering that there are over 10,000 species of birds alive today, each one having unique plumage (though some are more distinctive than others, such as the bearded vulture) it just sort of turns me off to this line of toys, as nice as the anatomy is otherwise. If these were $6-$12 a piece, I probably wouldn't be so picky about it, but I'm very reluctant to invest in $30+ action figures that give me the rather unflattering impression that these dinosaurs hopped into a time-travel device, came over to the Cenozoic, and killed a bunch of modern birds in order to wear their plumage like coats.

I can't be the only one who feels this way...right?

[Dinoguy2]

Am I the only one really bothered by the copy-pasted plumage on these paravians? A few of them are passable, such as the Balaur, Atrociraptor, Dromaeosaurus, and Pyroraptor, since their plumage is generic enough that it's not too much of a stretch to believe that these dinosaurs could have looked like this, but the plumage for the rest of them breaks my suspension of disbelief. I think the problem here is that for most of his paravians, Silva chose plumage that's unique to a single species of bird, whether it's the bearded vulture for the Velociraptor, or the bee eater for the Linheraptor. The thing is, the chances of the dinosaurs given this copy-and-paste plumage to actually have something similar is infinitesimally small. Considering that there are over 10,000 species of birds alive today, each one having unique plumage (though some are more distinctive than others, such as the bearded vulture) it just sort of turns me off to this line of toys, as nice as the anatomy is otherwise. If these were $6-$12 a piece, I probably wouldn't be so picky about it, but I'm very reluctant to invest in $30+ action figures that give me the rather unflattering impression that these dinosaurs hopped into a time-travel device, came over to the Cenozoic, and killed a bunch of modern birds in order to wear their plumage like coats.

I can't be the only one who feels this way...right?

I agree the exact plumage copy is a little weird and silly, but most of them aren't patterns you see enough to stand out as "wrong" so I kind of let it slide. It's not like one is copying s pigeon or some other bird you see every day. It would have been better to use patterns for inspiration, not direct copying, which is a statistical impossibility like you say.

[Patrx]

I remember someone asking about his before in the comments section of the kickstart but there is also this in the FAQ's section too.

"Can I switch out raptors within the raptor packs?"

Answer:
Sorry this is not possible. The raptor packs are set tiers and will be fulfilled according to that specific tier. However since each of the main raptors is available to add-on ($40US $43 INT) simply pledge to a single item raptor tier and then add-on the other figures you want.

Chris

Aha, that clears things up; thanks! It's a shame, if the Atrociraptor's skull is that far off the mark, I think I might prefer one of the others. Plus, its wing digits aren't fuzzy.

[Halichoeres]

Am I the only one really bothered by the copy-pasted plumage on these paravians? A few of them are passable, such as the Balaur, Atrociraptor, Dromaeosaurus, and Pyroraptor, since their plumage is generic enough that it's not too much of a stretch to believe that these dinosaurs could have looked like this, but the plumage for the rest of them breaks my suspension of disbelief. I think the problem here is that for most of his paravians, Silva chose plumage that's unique to a single species of bird, whether it's the bearded vulture for the Velociraptor, or the bee eater for the Linheraptor. The thing is, the chances of the dinosaurs given this copy-and-paste plumage to actually have something similar is infinitesimally small. Considering that there are over 10,000 species of birds alive today, each one having unique plumage (though some are more distinctive than others, such as the bearded vulture) it just sort of turns me off to this line of toys, as nice as the anatomy is otherwise. If these were $6-$12 a piece, I probably wouldn't be so picky about it, but I'm very reluctant to invest in $30+ action figures that give me the rather unflattering impression that these dinosaurs hopped into a time-travel device, came over to the Cenozoic, and killed a bunch of modern birds in order to wear their plumage like coats.

I can't be the only one who feels this way...right?

I also would have preferred that the plumage patterns not be lifted directly. Even under random evolution, that wouldn't be possible, and when you add in the wildly different ecology, it does strain credulity. I'm still buying these because they're miles better than most of what's out there and I'm hoping that if these are successful, more like them will come down the pike. If Silva's planned ceratopsian series comes to fruition, I think he'd be hard pressed to find a dozen elephant or rhino models to borrow from, so maybe a better chance of some novel color schemes.

[Sim]

At first I did find the copying of the colour schemes/plumage of extant birds a bit weird.  Now though, I don't find it a problem.  I appreciate that they aren't 100% copied and that there are small differences.  If they were more copied I would be finding it a problem.  I am bothered by the colouration of the snout on some of these figures though.  Since dromaeosaurids don't have beaks, seeing some of their snouts coloured in a way that makes it look like they have a beak... or a mammal's nose... as a result of closely following the bird colour inspiration does bother me.

I think at this point it's too late to change the fact that these figures have colouration that closely follows that of extant birds, and these are by far the best toy versions of these animals.  In fact, I think these are the best feathered dinosaur toys ever made (excluding bird toys since I don't know much about those).  I think there actually isn't any other toy version of a dromaeosaurid, alvarezsaur, troodontid or Balaur that's a good representation of what they are known to be like.

Pertinently though, one of the species in this series has known colouration - Microraptor.  It appears the specimen that was checked for the colouration was covered in iridescent black feathers.  David's colour inspiration for the Microraptor figure is a bird that is covered in iridescent black feathers.  Thinking about it now, there are different extant bird species that have very similar-looking colouration.  Usually they are closely related, but sometimes they aren't e.g. some crows and grackles.  Maybe though the crow and grackle examples could be considered as having "generic" colouration which could explain Microraptor having that kind of colouration too.

This discussion has made me think about something I've noticed recently.  I've noticed a very small number of birds seem to inspire the body covering of dinosaur restorations oddly frequently. What I mean is, I've seen dinosaurs restored to look similar to a bearded vulture or secretarybird a lot:

- Both of these birds are a colour inspiration for two of the dromaeosaurids in this series.
- The bearded vulture appears to be inspiration for the Carnegie Microraptor's colouration.
- The secretarybird appears to be inspiration for the CollectA Beishanlong's colouration.

Moving on from figures to 2D art:
- Lots of Velociraptor and a Deinonychus inspired by the bearded vulture on Google images: link
- A bearded vulture-inspired dromaeosaurid: link
- Bearded vulture Dakotaraptor: link
- Secretarybird Dakotaraptor: link
- Secretarybird Atrociraptor: link

I just find it odd how often these two birds are used for inspiration.  I do find some of these reconstructions look very nice though.  Copying the bearded vulture's protruding 'beard' feathers or the secretarybird's long head feather arrangement is too much for me though.  It's one thing to copy an animal's colouration, and another to copy the colouration AND distinctive feathering exactly.  I think the latter is very unrealistic.

Coming back to the figures in this series having colouration inspired by those of extant birds...  One thing I've really liked about this is its shown me how much better it is for the colouration of these animals to be inspired by birds than by mammals.

If Silva's planned ceratopsian series comes to fruition, I think he'd be hard pressed to find a dozen elephant or rhino models to borrow from, so maybe a better chance of some novel color schemes.

I had been thinking the colour inspiration for his ceratopsians would probably be lizards.  They seem much more appropriate for the colouration than those mammals.

[Dobber]

I like your synopsis Sim. I too think that David is taking more "inspiration" from these birds than exactly copying them. For instance I hint the Bearded Vulture Velociraptor is definitely more inspired by than exactly following it. It has a lot more Browns to it than a lot of the pictures I've seen. The Rex in my Avatar is my custom CollectA feathered T-Rex that I used a Bearded Vulture as my inspiration for. (Linked in my signature if anyone wants to see more.)

All that said, I'm not bothered if they do follow the color patterns of modern birds, I think it looks cool and prevents the figures from all becoming just drab Browns and black. As for head crests some have more than others, I believe this was brought up before though and we didn't want all of them to have unique crests....it would take away from the specialness of the ones that do...namely the Sauronitholestes' particularly the upcoming S. Langstoni with the RoadRunner crest.  When I look outside and see all the different birds out there, I see far more species that look ALOT alike with relatively smooth heads but are just colored different. Then I'll see a Cardinal or Blue Jay and they have those beautiful crests but look SO similar but just have different colors.

I for one love this line and for the most part love what David is doing with the sculpts and the colorations he is choosing. 

[Halichoeres]

If Silva's planned ceratopsian series comes to fruition, I think he'd be hard pressed to find a dozen elephant or rhino models to borrow from, so maybe a better chance of some novel color schemes.

I had been thinking the colour inspiration for his ceratopsians would probably be lizards.  They seem much more appropriate for the colouration than those mammals.

Yeah, that is better! Something that can see more than two colors. And no shortage of models. An Udanoceratops with collared lizard colors would look mighty fine.

While we're on bird models, I think cassowaries get used a lot, at least in 2D art.

[The Atroxious]

I agree the exact plumage copy is a little weird and silly, but most of them aren't patterns you see enough to stand out as "wrong" so I kind of let it slide. It's not like one is copying s pigeon or some other bird you see every day. It would have been better to use patterns for inspiration, not direct copying, which is a statistical impossibility like you say.

Perhaps it's because I spend a lot of time looking at various extant birds and reading up on them, so it does stand out as pretty glaring to me that Silva's paravians have copy-pasted plumage. I can identify most of the birds he copied the plumage from at a glance, so I can't discount it so easily.

At first I did find the copying of the colour schemes/plumage of extant birds a bit weird.  Now though, I don't find it a problem.  I appreciate that they aren't 100% copied and that there are small differences.  If they were more copied I would be finding it a problem.  I am bothered by the colouration of the snout on some of these figures though.  Since dromaeosaurids don't have beaks, seeing some of their snouts coloured in a way that makes it look like they have a beak... or a mammal's nose... as a result of closely following the bird colour inspiration does bother me.

I think at this point it's too late to change the fact that these figures have colouration that closely follows that of extant birds, and these are by far the best toy versions of these animals.  In fact, I think these are the best feathered dinosaur toys ever made (excluding bird toys since I don't know much about those).  I think there actually isn't any other toy version of a dromaeosaurid, alvarezsaur, troodontid or Balaur that's a good representation of what they are known to be like.

Pertinently though, one of the species in this series has known colouration - Microraptor.  It appears the specimen that was checked for the colouration was covered in iridescent black feathers.  David's colour inspiration for the Microraptor figure is a bird that is covered in iridescent black feathers.  Thinking about it now, there are different extant bird species that have very similar-looking colouration.  Usually they are closely related, but sometimes they aren't e.g. some crows and grackles.  Maybe though the crow and grackle examples could be considered as having "generic" colouration which could explain Microraptor having that kind of colouration too.

True, the overt beak facsimile doesn't fully make sense, though this doesn't irk me quite as much as the copy-pasted plumage. Perhaps it's because I'm interested in modern birds at least as much as I am in Mesozoic dinosaurs, the plumage stands out to me.

I suppose they are the best toys available anatomically speaking, though I personally find the majority of them unappealing on an aesthetic level because of the plumage. It's just that if I'm going to spend that much cash on a limited edition figure, I don't want to look at it and think "I would have liked this a lot better if only..." Repaints are always an option, though again, I'd have to invest more of my time and money into that. I don't mind repainting mass-market figures, or even limited edition figures that I already like but want to try something different with, but I'm not completely sold on these.

The Microraptor plumage doesn't bother me at all because it's realistic given the fossil record. Glossy black plumage is appealingly generic for most dinosaur figures given how common it is. Many extant birds have similar coloration (crows, grackles, starlings, bowerbirds, and blackbirds to name a few, and that's just the passerines) in addition to evidence that indicates both Microraptor and Archaeopteryx had glossy black feathers. This is why I think Balaur is the best of this series. If I decide to get any of these, it's going to be Balaur, and perhaps the build-a-dinosaur kits.

This discussion has made me think about something I've noticed recently.  I've noticed a very small number of birds seem to inspire the body covering of dinosaur restorations oddly frequently. What I mean is, I've seen dinosaurs restored to look similar to a bearded vulture or secretarybird a lot:

- Both of these birds are a colour inspiration for two of the dromaeosaurids in this series.
- The bearded vulture appears to be inspiration for the Carnegie Microraptor's colouration.
- The secretarybird appears to be inspiration for the CollectA Beishanlong's colouration.

Moving on from figures to 2D art:
- Lots of Velociraptor and a Deinonychus inspired by the bearded vulture on Google images: link
- A bearded vulture-inspired dromaeosaurid: link
- Bearded vulture Dakotaraptor: link
- Secretarybird Dakotaraptor: link
- Secretarybird Atrociraptor: link

I just find it odd how often these two birds are used for inspiration.  I do find some of these reconstructions look very nice though.  Copying the bearded vulture's protruding 'beard' feathers or the secretarybird's long head feather arrangement is too much for me though.  It's one thing to copy an animal's colouration, and another to copy the colouration AND distinctive feathering exactly.  I think the latter is very unrealistic.

Coming back to the figures in this series having colouration inspired by those of extant birds...  One thing I've really liked about this is its shown me how much better it is for the colouration of these animals to be inspired by birds than by mammals.

Bearded vultures are wildly overexposed in general, and not just when it comes to paleo art. Along with condors, they seem to be the quintessential vulture stereotype. All over DeviantArt you can find beared vulture gryphons, bearded vulture anthros, bearded vulture dragons, and so on. Red headed and Egyptian vultures fall into a sort of second tier of this as well, being somewhat overused in art, but not quite to the same degree as bearded vultures.

I do agree that using bird colors is a step up from using mammal colors (moreover, it makes more sense because fur and feathers have fundamentally different base structures, which will affect what kinds of patterns the animal can exhibit) but lifting colors or patterns from an extant animal to paste them onto an extinct animal is just a pet peeve of mine in general. The number of times I've seen the 100/42 "Oviraptor" dressed like a turkey is practically uncountable. By all means, study modern birds to get an idea of what looks are possible, but I feel a bit uncomfortable looking at a non-avian dinosaur and immediately think "oh, that is a bearded vulture" or something similar.

[Flaffy]

Linheraptor prototype sneak peak.

[Appalachiosaurus]

I disagree with everyone in this thread, I love when extinct animals use modern animals for inspiration. Many modern birds have such interesting colors and patterns that are leagues ahead of anything the human mind can think up, and the modern analogies help me imagine them as regular animals instead of "special" monsters or beasts.